Saturday, May 30, 2009

Request for Review of Clerk's Operations at U.S. Court, District of Columbia

Request was filed with the Clerk of the Court, copied to their Excellencies the Royal Ambassador of Norway and the Ambassador of the State of Israel, U.S. Congress, and others...

RE: Case #1:2009cv00805, Zernik v Melson et al.

Dear Ms Mayer Whittington and Mr Scott:

I am a pro se filer, and a resident of Los Angeles California. I deem my case, referenced above, and filed at U.S. Court, District of Columbia, politically sensitive.  In the past two weeks I had a number of phone calls with clerks of the U.S. Court, Washington DC, as part of my attempts to figure out the fate of my papers.  Such conversations left me convinced that I would be accorded honest treatment by most clerks of the court.  However, they left me concerned regarding some unclear details.

I am writing to request that special attention be provided to ensure honest processing of my future papers, and also to request that some facts be established regarding processing of my previous papers.

The full letter can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-05-29-letter-to-clerks-of-us-court-dc-s.pdf

Thursday, May 28, 2009

And the Score is: California v Illinois - 2:0!

Seeking references of indictments, prosecutions, or convictions of judges on racketeering anywhere outside California...

Some of the best legal advice I got in recent years was from Sarah, the black old lady who vacuums at Kinko near the court downtown.  After a couple of times she saw me copying papers there, and after we compared notes about our kids, and about education in general, she told me: 

"Sir, you have no business spending your time in California Courts.  There are two cities that are the most corrupt in the U.S. - Chicago and Los Angeles. I lived in both, and let me tell you  the difference:  In Chicago we had style... in Los Angeles the corruption is crude!"

However, at present I claim Los Angeles in particular, and California in general, leave Chicago in the dust...  To wit - in the recent letter to the Ambassador of Norway I quote two cases of indictment and convictions of California judges on racketeering [1] in the past 15 years... Give me any case from Chicago, Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. to match that...

Any information would be greatly appreciated, since the claim in action in Washington DC court is of failure of FBI and USDOJ to accord Equal Protection in California. Therefore, the data is of significance...  Also pursuant to International Law - Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2], allowing the ongoing alleged racketeering of judges in LA is not permitted.

[1]  Allegations of racketeering by judges may appear scandalous.  Not so! California judges were previously prosecuted and convicted of racketeering:

a. Criminal RICO prosecution against U.S. Judge in California - USA v Robert P Aguilar:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, repeatedly resulted in an error message: 

  • "The webpage at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?59286 might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address."

This type of error message had never been encountered in any other case. The records in this case were not marked as sealed, they were simply excluded from the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any Rule of Court or any law or regulation that allows selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets by the courts, at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-ct-supreme-usa-v-aguilar-515-us-593-1995.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-90-02-06-san-jose-federal-judge-aguilar-on-trial-in-a-racketeering-case-nyt.pdf

b. Criminal RICO prosecution against California State Judges - USA v Frega et al:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-racketeering%20indictment.pdf f

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-adams.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-frega.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-malkus.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-96-10-18-san-diego-racketeering-judges-california-bar-journal.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/03-05-06-san-diego-judges-racketeering-met-news.pdf

c. Civil RICO complaints against LAPD - Hunter v Gates et al:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, revealed the following - Neither original complaint, nor first, second, nor third amended complaint are accessible online.  The records were not marked as sealed, they were simply not included in the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any law, Rule of Court, or regulations, which allow the courts selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets,  at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).  Of note - the judge presiding in this case, the Honorable Gary Feess is the Overseer for Civil Rights in LA, per the Consent Decree!

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-hunter-v-gates-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-huner-v-gates-et-al-02-02-14-order-to-dismiss-with-prejudice.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-04-20-racketeer-suits-in-rampart-ok-ed-lat.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/01-07-13-use-of-rico-law-in-rampart-cases-weakened%20-%20Los%20Angeles%20Times.pdf

[2]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 2
No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.
Article 7 
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Article 8 
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 10 
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Falsely Imprisoned Att Richard I Fine - Request Forwarded for Protection Under International Law

Failure of mainstream media to cover this critical case, dishonest manipulations/adulteration of court records, and distribution of disinformation, make the case increasingly fit in the tradition of repressive regimes. Severe abuse of Human Rights pursuant to International Law is alleged.

What’s new? Here goes the 1,2, 3…

1) Requests forwarded to the Royal Norwegian Ambassador for protection of Att Richard I Fine under International Law. 

2) Mainstream media fail to report on the case, while disinformation is circulated.

3) Abuse of First Amendment rights of Att Richard I Fine continues through ongoing dishonest manipulation of court papers at the U.S. District Court, LA, similar abuse noted at U.S. Court, District of Columbia. Requests were filed for international monitoring of respective cases in U.S. Courts in LA and in Washington DC.

.

More on the 1, 2, 3…

1) Requests forwarded to the Royal Norwegian Ambassador for protection of Att Richard I
Fine under International Law

Noted Anti-Trust Attorney, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Richard I Fine, is also Royal Consul General of Norway in Southern California. He is indefinitely jailed for contempt since early March, 2009, under conditions that area alleged as severe abuse of human rights per International Law. Accordingly - requests were forwarded to the Royal Norwegia Ambassador for monitoring of the conduct of U.S. Courts, and for the protection of the rights of Att Richard I Fine pursuant to International Law [1]. Any such international court action may also benefit th 10 millions residents of LA County, whose human rights are allegedly routinely abused by the LA Superior Court. In particular – the estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons) left imprisoned after the massive Rampart corruption probe, 1998-2000, with 200 investigators assigned to the case, but no final report ever written…

2) Disinformation circulated in the case of Att Richard I Fine

The latest disinformation being circulated is in the form of a legal opinion that LA Superior Court Judges were exempt from disclosing the taking of "bribes" by the California Government Reform Act! Such claims intend to undermine Att Richard Fine's position in his Habeas Corpus Petition (see details below). Manipulation of information regarding Att Richard I Fine is proceeding for weeks, while mainstream media outlets fail to cover the story. A few weeks ago false news was circulated that Att Richard I Fine's Habeas Corpus petition was denied. Later - a false record was distributed as the Habeas Corpus petition.

3) Abuse of First Amendment rights of Att Richard I Fine continues through ongoing dishonest manipulation of court papers at the U.S. District Court, LA, similar abuse noted at U.S. Court, District of Columbia

Att Richard I Fine's own reply paper in Fine v LA County Sheriff Dept (the Habeas Corpus Petition) was removed from the records at the request of respondent - the LA County Sheriff Department. The reason: finding of "discrepancy" - Att Richard I Fine's paper was missing his signature. Needless to say, it was the Sheriff's Department itself that created the conditions preventing Att Richard I Fine from signing his papers. In Zernik v Melson et al, 1:2009cv00805, filed May 1, 2009, in U.S. Court, Washington DC, specific allegations were made of prior dishonest manipulation/adulteration of court records in the case of Att Richard I Fine in U.S. District Court, LA were detailed.

On May 11, 2009 two papers were mailed Priority USPS to the DC Court: (1) Statement for the disqualification of a U.S. judge Richard J Leon for a cause, and (2) Ex parte application for an order to compel U.S. Dept of Justice to protect Att Richard I Fine's First Amendment rights - to file petitions in court.  On May 13, 2009, both papers were stamped "Filed", as it was later found out. For the remainder of that week it was claimed that such papers had never
been received in the U.S. Court, District of Columbia, even after a "search of the building". On
Sunday, May 17, 2009 the papers finally appeared on the docket, outside of normal operating hours of the court. Moreover, the papers that appeared on the docket included some pages
with no security header imprint. Consequently - requests were filed with their Excellencies the Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Israel, for monitoring of the conduct of U.S. Court in this matter. Similar requests were filed with international human rights organizations.

.

Background

1) All LA Superior Court Judges took payments that were ruled "not permitted" and would be called by a layperson "bribes".

Judges of the Superior Court of California, according to the California Constitution are allowed to be paid only by the State government in Sacramento. As it turns out, ALL judges of the Superior Court of LA County, were offered, and accepted for years additional pay of about $45,000 per judge per year. The judges never publicly disclosed the additional payments that they were receiving. Specifically - they never disclosed such payments to parties appearing before them in cases where LA County was party to litigation. However, for a number of years, the LA Superior Court judges consistently issued judgments by court in favor of LA County.

2) Such payments and other evidence were the basis for claims of LA-Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) in Zernik v Melson et al.

On May 1, 2009, action was filed in U.S. Court, District of Columbia (Zernik v Melson et al, 1:2009cv00805) "to compel U.S. Officer to perform his duties". U.S. Officers in this case were Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI, and Kenneth Melson - Director of U.S DOJ, and the duties that they allegedly fail to perform - protecting the civil rights of 10 million residents of LA County, California. Severe violations of Civil Rights in LA County such as in the case of Falsely Jailed Att Richard I Fine, or the Rampart-FIPs, are alleged as stemming from widespread corruption of the judges of the LA Superior Court.

The complaint alleges that the LA-JR in its current manifestation appeared in the mid-1980s, in conjunction with the installation of a fraudulent computerized case management system at the LA Superior Court and elimination of the public records that are the Book of Court essential safeguards for the integrity of the court for centuries. The alleged fraudulent case managemen system - Sustain, was and is produced by a secretive corporation by the same name, controlled by The Daily Journal - the largest legal newspaper in California. The system was installed at a time that the Honorable Ronald George - today Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court served in leadership positions in the LA Superior Court. The action further claims that FBI and US Dept of Justice have tolerated and patronized such corruption for at least 3 decades. Remedies are  sought in the form of declaratory relief and court orders to compel the US Dept of Justice to take corrective action.  

3) Disqualification was sought of Judge Richard J Leon in Zernik v Melson et al, based on his service as Minority Counsel in the Iran-Contra scandal.

The case of Zernik v Melson at al was assigned to the Honorable Richard J Leon, U.S. Judge. However, review of his biography revealed that he had served as Minority Counsel in the Iran Contra scandal investigation. As part of that scandal, in the early years of the Reagan Administration, the CIA engaged in wholesale distribution of illicit drugs in LA, in order to generate funds for other illicit purposes, which were explicitly prohibited by U.S. Congress. The issue was discussed in detail in the complaint, and it was alleged as a crucial part of evidence of deliberate corruption of the justice system in LA County, California, by the U.S. Government.

4) Scandalous allegations? Not so! Prosecution of California judges for racketeering is nothing new, moreover - complaints based on civil racketeering were heard against the LAPD in the aftermath of the Rampart scandal...

Previous cases where California judges were convicted for racketeering included cases in San Jose and in San Diego: 

In 1990 Robert P. Aguilar, presiding judge of the U.S. District Court, San Jose, was prosecuted for racketeering pertaining to his relationship with teamster members. [2]

In 1996, in a San Diego Superior Court corruption case, three judges and a lawyer were prosecuted under RICO: Former San Diego Judge Michael Greer admitted taking $75,000 in bribes in exchange for having given a lawyer preferential treatment. Others involved were Judges G. Dennis Adams, James A. Malkus and attorney Patrick R. Frega.  Newspaper reports suggested that although the prosecution was limited to three judges, the corruption was widespread. USA v Fregar, Case No: CR-96-00698-ER, US Court, Southern District of Calfronia; USA v Frega,Case No 9750100, 179 F.3d 793, 810 n.21 (9th Cir. 1999).[3]

More closely relevant to matters that underly that issues at hand - in 2001, in the aftermath of the Rampart scandal investigation, civil RICO complaints were heard in the U.S. District Court in LA against the LAPD! [4]

5) Att Richard I Fine was among the leaders of efforts to expose the "not permitted" payments to LA Superior Court judges, and he has been subjected to extreme retaliation ever since

Noted Anti Trust Attorney, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and General Consul of the Kingdom of Norway in Southern California, Richard I Fine was among the leaders of the efforts to expose such payments.  In October 2008, the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, San Diego, ruled that such payments were "not permitted".

Even before that ruling was issued, the Judges of the California Superior Court, LA County, had engaged in retaliation against Att Richard I Fine, which included his disbarment. The disbarment was affected through an administrative procedure of the State Bar, on charges of "Moral Turpitude". Such provision is typically applied in cases of sexual misconduct related to Attorney-Client relationships. In the case of Att Richard I Fine, Moral Turpitude was construed to be found in the filing by Att Richard I Fine of complaints against LA Superior Court judges on behalf of his clients. 

Since early March 2009, Att Richard I Fine has been indefinitely falsely jailed on Contempt, no bail allowed. Conditions of his jailing are not entirely clear, but are obviously outside the range that would be deemed reasonable. Reliable information indicates that he is held in what is described as "Solitary Confinement", and has never been allowed outside under the sky in over two months. For a while he was not allowed any visitations at all, and was also not allowed any paper and pen.

Upon review by competent International Court of jurisdiction, the treatment of Attorney Richard I Fine is likely to be deemed extreme abuse of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, part of ratified International Law.

6) Mainstream media fail to cover the case of Att Fine, while disinformation is circulated, and court records are subject to alleged dishonest manipulation/adulteration

The two sources deemed reliable under the circumstances are: (1) Full Disclosure Network, Ms Leslie Dutton, and (2) AHRC.SE - American Homeowners Resource Center. A few weeks ago false news was circulated that Att Richard I Fine's habeas corpus petition was denied. Attempts were made to organize false protest of such denial. A couple of weeks later, a document was circulated by email, which was falsely represented as Att Richard I Fine's Habeas Corpus Petition. Again, checking on the official U.S. District Court, LA, showed that the document was false and misleading.  The reason that such disinformation was at all possible, is that Att Richard I Fine was denied his First Amendment rights - to file petitions in court. None of his papers after his arrest was signed by him in person.

7) False legal opinion circulated - that the LA Superior Court judges were not required to disclose taking the "not permitted" payments, which would be called by a lay-person "bribes." [5]

The failure to disclose the "not permitted" payments, was a key in the claims of Att Richard I Fine. The failure to disclose such payments was also a key in his demand for disqualification of Judge David Yaffe, in the same proceeding that ended with Judge Yaffe’s ruling to indefinitely jail Att Fine for contempt. The false opinion now being circulated was particularly alarming, since it was represented as coming from an individual who claimed to be member of a group
named "Free Richard Fine". Such opinion purported to be founded on the California Government Reform Act, which she cited verbatim as Cal Gov Code §82048, where exemptions from certain disclosures were conveniently written for California judges.
  Such opinion entirely failed to includes reference to the Cal Code of Judicial Ethic, Canon 3E(2) which says: 

                                    E. Disqualification

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding
in which disqualification is required by law.

(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the
record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of

disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.

With the October 2008 San Diego Court of Appeal ruling that ALL judges of LA Superior Court took payments that were "not permitted", it is evident that this was far beyond 
"
reasonably relevant", it was a material conflict of interest.  Therefore, regardless of the Cal Gov Code, the judges had to disclose to ALL parties in EACH case where LA County was a party - that they were receiving "not permitted" payments from LA County.  The claims made by Att Richard I Fine included the fact that the judges never did so, while consistently issuing judgments by court in favor of LA County...  In lay person’s language it would be called “bribes”…

The legal opinion now being circulated, that such conditions at the Los Angeles Superior Court would be permitted by the California Government Reform Act are ludicrous.  We who live in Los Angeles, are seeking the protection of Att Richard I Fine by the Royal Courts of Norway, under International Law. Following are some relevant Articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified International Law.

Article 2: "No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs."

Article 7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

Article 8 "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.''

Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

.

[1] http://inproperinla.com/09-05-25-letter-to-royal-norwegian-ambassador-s.pdf

[2] Criminal RICO prosecution against U.S. Judge in California - USA v Robert P Aguilar:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, repeatedly resulted in an error message: 

  • "The webpage at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?59286 might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address."

This type of error message had never been encountered in any other case. The records in this case were not marked as sealed, they were simply excluded from the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any Rule of Court or any law or regulation that allows selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets by the courts, at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-ct-supreme-usa-v-aguilar-515-us-593-1995.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-90-02-06-san-jose-federal-judge-aguilar-on-trial-in-a-racketeering-case-nyt.pdf

[3] Criminal RICO prosecution against California State Judges - USA v Frega et al:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-racketeering%20indictment.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-adams.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-frega.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-malkus.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-96-10-18-san-diego-racketeering-judges-california-bar-journal.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/03-05-06-san-diego-judges-racketeering-met-news.pdf

[4] Civil RICO complaints against LAPD - Hunter v Gates et al:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, revealed the following - Neither original complaint, nor first, second, nor third amended complaint are accessible online.  The records were not marked as sealed, they were simply not included in the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any law, Rule of Court, or regulations, which allow the courts selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets,  at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).  Of note - the judge presiding in this case, the Honorable Gary Feess is the Overseer for Civil Rights in LA, per the Consent Decree!

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-hunter-v-gates-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-huner-v-gates-et-al-02-02-14-order-to-dismiss-with-prejudice.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-04-20-racketeer-suits-in-rampart-ok-ed-lat.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/01-07-13-use-of-rico-law-in-rampart-cases-weakened%20-%20Los%20Angeles%20Times.pdf

[5] DISCLAIMER: The writer is not an attorney by a long shot, moreover, he has no formal legal education, his writings must therefore be deemed a Lay-Person's opinion.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

FAX TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER

                           Eric Holder, 82nd U.S. Attorney General                      Thomas O'Brien, U.S. Attorney, Central District of California

09-05-14. US Attorney General & USAO for the Central District of California
.
Attention: Thomas P O’Brien, U.S. Attorney, Central Dist of California, and Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
Fax: (213) 894-0141 and (202) 616 2278
Total pages: 4
_________________________________________________________________


May 11. 2009

RE: 1) Notice of Zernik v Melson et al 1:09-cv-00805, petition filed May 1. 2009, U.S. Court, Washington DC; 2) Request to guarantee voting rights of the Rampart-FIPs & former U.S. Attorney, Richard I Fine, in elections on May 19, July 14, and November 3, 2009, and 3) Request for action that would allow to withdraw the petition.

Att O’Brien and Attorney General Holder:

I am writing to notify you of the petition to compel U.S. officer to perform his duties, filed May 1, 2009 in DC, referenced above, summons yet to be served, hoping that you take action that would allow it to be withdrawn. The petition named KENNETH KAISER and KENNETH MELSON, Assistant Director, FBI and Director, USDOJ, respectively, as Defendants. The petition stems from responses provided by KENNETH KAISER and KENNETH MELSON to inquiries in my case by the Hon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Senator, and the Hon DIANE WATSON, Congresswoman. Both responses, the petition claims, were fraud by U.S. Officers on U.S. Congress and on the U.S. tax-payer, and part of cover-up of wide-spread corruption in Los Angeles County. Such corruption is alleged to have given rise to the sub-prime crisis as we know it today, on the one hand, and civil rights violations of historic proportions, on the other.
.
I did my best to communicate with your offices, first, through Assistant U.S. Attorney MICHAEL WILNER in the Los Angeles office, throughout 2007 and 2008, later – directly to the office of Attorney General MICHAEL MUKASEY. My initial complaints, in January and March 2007, to the FBI office in LA, presciently alleged fraud by Countrywide on the U.S. government, and even gave estimates of the scope of the heist – at the hundreds of billions of dollars, which ended up being on target.
.
In 2007 my complaints were assigned to Special Agent VALLESE, and in 2008 –so I was indirectly informed – to Special Agent L.J. CONNOLY. I was also in regular contact with Chief of White Collar Crime Squadron, STEVEN GOLDMAN. However, throughout 2007-8, the FBI and USAO refused to take action, and allowed continued abuse of my civil rights. Such abuse included forcing me to leave my home under the threat of force, the taking of my property with no compensation at all, gag orders to benefit large corporations, issued through extreme abuse of due process, and various other frauds in the courtroom, mostly engineered by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR. As alleged in the petition, my case is not unique at all. It is only unique in its meticulous documentation of the alleged perversion of justice by the judges, none of whom even held an assignment order…
.
KENNETH KAISER and KENNETH MELSON’s responses were issued under the administration of President George W Bush. Under the administration of President Barack Obama, one hopes for a change of heart and a change of mind. Obviously, I am no attorney, and I would rather have your offices accord me and others in LA County the equal protection we are entitled to, rather than go to Washington DC to petition for the restoration of my civil rights and the civil rights of others.
.
First among others abused in LA County are the overwhelmingly black and latinos who are the
RAMPART-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons). They were left falsely imprisoned in the aftermath of the massive, 2-year, 200-investigator corruption probe (1998-2000), which was dropped with no final report ever being written. Such absurd practice of law-enforcement was largely attributed as the outcome of the First Rampart Trial (2000), where Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR reversed jury verdict. In its wake, a Consent Decree (7/2001), was framed by U.S. Attorney ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, and the Office of the Overseer for civil rights was instituted in LA. However, in retrospect, such office must be viewed as merely a fig-leaf, as was the case with the office Overseer in Guantanamo Bay. The continued large-scale false imprisonments, and the failure to enforce even the provisions of the Consent Decree itself are to wit.
.
In short, only combined review of the civil and criminal courts in LA reveals the true scope of the alleged wide-spread corruption, and in both - Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR played a prominent role!
.
Unfortunately, review of the facts in this matter would lead a reasonable person to conclude that
Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR was a protégé of FBI and the USDOJ under previous
administration(s). In fact, the petition alleges that the deliberately misleading statements by KAISER and MELSON to U.S. Congress were part of a long-term pattern, where U.S. agencies patronized the corrupt justice system of LA County. We, who live in Los Angeles County, have our hopes high, that the historic surge that brought us the first self-identified Black President, and first self-identified Black Attorney General, would also bring an end to such discriminatory practices. As stated in the petition: no U.S. officer had or has the authority to trade our civil rights, not for cash, not for drugs, and not for weapons…
.
I followed the petition with an ex- parte application for an order to compel FBI, USDOJ to guarantee the First Amendment rights of Att RICHARD I FINE, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, by ensuring that he has paper and pen available, to file petitions in court. His jailing, and the alleged dishonest manipulations and adulteration of court records related to of his Habeas Corpus petition, still pending (filed April 19 (?) or 20(?) 2009 - the “Filed” stamp was manually altered), brought the corruption of the justice system in LA County to yet a higher mark.
.
His indefinite jailing is the most recent episode in a courtroom farce going on for several years now, where Att Fine tirelessly struggled to stop the $45,000 per judge, per year, payments which were and are accepted by ALL judges of the LA Superior Court. Such payments, which would be called by a lay-person “bribes”, were finally ruled in October 2008 “not permitted”… only to be written and signed in January 2009 into a law that is unconstitutional on its face. USAO in LA is surely aware of all of that, but opts to take no action, in fact allowing the LA justice system to institutionalize its corruption.
.
Prior to the November 2008 elections, I also filed with Attorney General MICHAEL MUKASEY a request to guarantee the voting rights of the Rampart-FIPs, regardless of their false imprisonment.
.
The request like all others, was ignored. Please accept this notice also as an advance, early request to guarantee the voting rights of the RAMPART-FIPs and Att RICHARD I FINE in the May 19, July 14, and November 3, 2009 elections, regardless of whether their false imprisonments continues at that time.
.
If there is any chance that your office would take action allowing me to withdraw my petition before summons are even served, please do not hesitate to contact me ASAP. Present conditions in LA I believe fully justify international monitoring of Human Rights, and appear in stark contrast with all that this administration stands for.
.
As always, I am eager to cooperate with your office.


    jz/
______________
Joseph Zernik
.
CC: U.S. Congress

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Gra'ce a' la Nuit -- Al-Harith Al-'Amri

by 
Salwa Mohdi




Alharith Al'amri -Gra'ce a' la Nuit, by Salwa Mohdi

RONALD GEORGE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT? MAYBE NOT!

The Honorable Ronald George                      The Books of Court of LA County are today museum artefacts
.
He got some explaining to do of his conduct relative to installation of SUSTAIN as Case Management System (CMS) in the Los Angeles Superior Court circa 1985: (a) Five (5) reasons why SUSTAIN is alleged as wholesale fraud on the people; (b) The Honorable Ronald George so far refuses to answer on this matter, and (c) U.S.  Congress is urged to take action
.
If ever nominated, the Honorable RONALD GEORGE would have some explaining to do relative to his conduct in installation of SUSTAIN as the CMS in LA Superior Court around 1985. I doubt that he could ever survive such nomination hearings.
.
According to his official biography he served in leadership positions in LA Superior Court around 1985 at the time that SUSTAIN, the court's first CMS was installed.  SUSTAIN  is produced by a secretive corporation controlled by THE DAILY JOURNAL - the largest legal newspaper in California - a conflict worthy of investigation in its own sake.  Moreover, in petition filed May 1, 2009 in Washington DC, Zernik v Melson et al(1:09-cv-00805), I allege that SUSTAIN is the enabling tool of the LA-JR (LA-judiciary racket).
.

A. Five (5) reasons why SUSTAIN is alleged as wholesale fraud on the people. 

.

1) SUSTAIN was introduced with no public scrutiny at all.   It amounted to a major change in the Local Rules of Court. However, even today, some 25 years later, the Local Rules of Courts have never been updated. Therefore, the LA Superior Court operates with invalid published Local Rules of Court, and in practice defers to unpublished Local Rules of Court that are kept confidential. Obviously such practice is in contradiction with both State of California and U.S. rule making enabling laws. . 

2) A major contradiction between the published Local Rules of Court, and the unpublished Local Rules of Court as practiced, is found relative to the entry of judgment & the Books of Judgments.

The published Local Rules of Court state even today:
"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 clerks office in each of the several districts." 
In fact, for the past quarter century there are no Books of Judgments in LA County, either on paper or digital, at all.  Therefore, no valid entry of judgment either.  This condition opened the door to various alleged frauds by the LA-JR relative to entry of judgment, particularly in matters pertaining to real properties. 
.
3) Another unpublished Local Rule of Court is practiced by the LA Superior Court:
"Sustain is privileged - for the court only".
Obviously it contradicts Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the First Amendment and Common Law rights to access court records to inspect and to copy. Fluffy news media caught a bit of it a couple of weeks ago, when they realized that a case involving movie actress Sharon Stone entirely disappeared from the records. But none of the media bothered to ask how such a feat was technically accomplished. A CMS that allowed a case to be entirely removed from the record is on its face in contradiction with the law.  
.
4) In introducing SUSTAIN in LA County, all the Books of Courts of LA County, Public Records by law, were eliminated.  The Books of Court as Public Records, are some of the earliest Public Records in Western court traditions. They are also the best safeguard for transparency and integrity of the couts, based on experience of many generations. Therefore, by introducing SUSTAIN as CMS at the LA Superior Court, at a time that the Honorable Ronald George was at the helm, the LA Superior Court was taken several hundreds years back in time ...   
.
5) Last but not least - the fact that the LA-JR is able to continue the alleged unlawful incarceration of the estimated 10,000 mostly black and latino Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) is directly attributed to similar practices in the criminal courts in LA County (See below), started about the same year.
.

B. The Honorable Ronald George so far refuses to answer on this matter

Certified letters were sent to the Honorable Ronald George about a year ago, asking for his comments on the matter. He never responded... Perhaps he would answer in nomination hearings, if ever nominated

.

C. U.S.  Congress is urged to take action 

Proposal was filed in 2008 with both U.S. House and Senate Committee on the Judiciary to enforce the Rule Making Enabling laws on all CMSs in all courts, with an outline for a regulatory framework.  No action was so far taken at all - allowing the wholesale fraud on the people to continue unbridled.