Friday, November 13, 2009

09-11-13 Case Management Systems (CMSs) in the U.S. justice system - tools for Human Rights abuse - manuscript submissions

The following paper was written as a background for 2 manuscripts submitted for review by a computer science journal regarding alleged fraud in Sustain - the Case Management System of the LA Superior Court, which is alleged to be the enabling tool of the LA-JR (alleged LA-Judiciary Racket).

FALSE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PREVALENT IN THE U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM, ARE TOOLS FOR LARGE-SCALE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

Anti-corruption activist Richard Fine - a textbook case - is falsely imprisoned for seven months in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California, through bluffing and flimflams in four different systems...

Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles County, California

RICHARD FINE- 70 yo former U.S. prosecutor, exposed widespread conduct of the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (LA Sup Crt), which was ruled in October 2008 "not permitted" by California Court of Appeals,[i],[ii],[iii] and which led to the signing into law of wholesale pardons on February 20, 2009. [iv] Less than two weeks later - on March 4, 2009, Atty Fine was jailed by the Warrant Detail of the Sheriff Department, County of Los Angeles (Sheriff Dept) as reported - at the end of proceeding in Judge David Yaffe’s court - Dept 86, Central District Courthouse, downtown LA.[v] Further reports provided details of the review by U.S. Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles ( Dist Crt), [vi] and U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Crt App),[vii] through a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Petition originating from it to Crt App. Both were denied.

Here it is alleged that none of the legal proceedings and legal rulings, orders, and judgments which were issued in the case, as reported, were in fact valid and effectual, and that all 3 courts: LA Sup Crt, Dist Crt, and Crt App, as well as the Sheriff Dept, have deliberately issued false and misleading records, facilitated through computerized case management systems (CMSs), combined with denial of access to public records - to perpetrate Atty Fine’s unlawful, false imprisonment through a shell game scheme.[viii],[ix]

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii].[xiv],[xv],[xvi]

The arrest was reported at the end of proceeding in litigation where LA County was named Defendant, and therefore, Atty Fine repeatedly sought the disqualification of Judge Yaffe, since Judge Yaffe took payments from Defendant - LA County.[xvii] Here we show that what was reported as legal proceeding in a litigation – was never registered as such by the LA Sup Crt.[xviii] Judge Yaffe ignored the demands to disqualify, and was reported to have previously imposed on Atty Yaffe heavy sanctions - exceeding a total of $50,000.[xix] Here we show that all such rulings, orders, and judgments, which purported to impose serious sanctions - were all false on their faces, a sequence of 8 such papers, which could not possibly be explained a series of random events. Subsequently, it was reported that Atty Fine was ordered to appear before Commissioner Murray Gross - Debtor Examiner.[xx] Atty Fine appeared, but refused to respond to questions by Commissioner Gross, stating that Gross lacked authority, since he failed to obtain an Appointment Order, as required by law. Surprisingly, that was the only time that Att Fine figured out the bluff. In open court, on March 4, 2009, it was reported that Judge Yaffe ruled that it was sufficient that he referred Atty Fine to Dept 1A, to construe the authority of Commissioner Gross as Referee/Debtor Examiner, since Gross was assigned to Dept 1A since January 2008.[xxi] Here we show that there was no valid court record to support such reports, again - except for the Transcript.[xxii],[xxiii],[xxiv] In short – Judge Yaffe created “Double Books” of court records. One record in the Transcript and papers filed in paper court file – false and misleading, but filed nevertheless. The opposite – in the Case Summary, and the Register of Actions – yet to be provided by the court.[xxv],[xxvi],[xxvii]

Media largely reported the case as example of extreme bias or retaliation by Judge David Yaffe. Here – we allege that it was none of the above. Instead – it was a case of routine fraud by the court in collusion with others- to perpetrate false imprisonment. One must recall that many thousand – the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) have never been released either…

Sheriff Department, County of Los Angeles

The jailing that followed was just as unusual. The Sheriff refused to allow access to the arrest and booking records, as provided by California law.[xxviii] When pressed – the Sheriff Dept claimed that the records were help – pursuant to standard procedures with the booking agency. Here we report that the records posted by the Sheriff online – were all false and deliberately misleading. The Sheriff’s Dept listed in the Index of Inmates a booking agency - the Municipal Court in San Pedro – which did not exist at all. The Sheriff’s office and the Superior Court in San Pedro also denied any knowledge of the matter. In response to notices, that the information regarding the booking agency was false, and repeat requests to review the arrest and booking papers, pursuant to California Public Records Act, the Sheriff’s office stated that they “practice full transparency”, and as for the review of the arrest and booking records – “you would have to get a court order for that”. Regardless, the Sheriff’s CMS is an obvious hazard.[xxix]

Atty Fine has been held, to this date, in solitary confinement, in a hospital room, with no contact with the central jail facility.[xxx] Here we allege that the most plausible explanation was that he was never booked, never included in the inmate list, and therefore - could never be present in any situation where he would be counted in the three times a day routine inmate counts.

U.S. Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles

Atty Richard Fine was also denied access to pen and paper in the first couple of months, and hardly allowed any contact with the outside world, which undermined his ability to file a habeas corpus petition, and the petition to the Crt App. Regardless, it was reported that on March 19, 2009 Fine filed a habeas corpus petition[xxxi] - by phone through a friend. The question whether the Dist Crt ever considered it effectual petition, and whether the document was tampered with, are indeterminate at this time.[xxxii] The petition rightly named the Sheriff - the one holding him jailed - as Respondent. In an unprecedented turn of events, the Sheriff refused to respond. Here we allege that the reason was that the Sheriff, having no immunity, was not willing to risk perjury to top off he false imprisonment.

Instead of immediately releasing Atty Fine, the Dist Crt delayed the proceedings, and on May 1, 2009 the LA Sup Crt and Judge Yaffe filed a response through Att Kevin McCormick. Here we claim that Judge Yaffe and the LA Sup Crt never authorized Att Kevin McCormick as Counsel of Record, that he falsely appeared, that he falsely filed a declaration, that he filed false records, to propagate the false imprisonment.[xxxiii],[xxxiv],[xxxv],[xxxvi]

By June 12, 2009 Magistrate Carla Woehrle was reported to recommended denial of the habeas corpus petition, with prejudice, and Jude John Walter, who presided after several recusals[xxxvii] adopted the recommendations into a judgment on June 29, 2009.[xxxviii] Here we report that none of the rulings, orders and judgment in this case were valid effectual papers of the Dist Crt, since none arrived by mail with the required NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing). And requests for the NEFs are so far denied.[xxxix],[xl]

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, San Francisco

The following day, June 30, 2009, according to reports, Atty Fine's petition to the Crt App[xli] was denied by a panel of three - including Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges Richard Tallman and Richard Paez.[xlii] Here we allege that none of it took place in reality. The Crt App never accepted Atty Fine’s petition as a valid filing,[xliii] and the June 30, 2009 Order, denying the petition, was never a valid effectual court order either – it was never signed or dated, and arrived with no NEFs. Requests for the NEFs are so far denied as well.[xliv],[xlv] One cannot help asking: How could the judges of the Dist Crt and Crt App review habeas corpus with no Register of Actions (docket)? – the LA Sup Crt refuses to allow access to it to this date…

Sham Court actions are common across the U.S.– a Human Rights disgrace!

Sham court actions, as reported here for Atty Richard Fine, are commonplace, across the U.S. today. They are facilitated by CMSs that were implemented with no oversight, and no validation (no logic verification), combined with increasing denial of access to public court records. The CMS of the LA Sup Crt – Sustain, was produced by The Daily Journal,[xlvi] and installed around 1985, when Ronald George, today Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, served in leadership positions at the LA Sup Crt.[xlvii] It is alleged that by now, it turned that court into an enterprise. Real estate fraud by the court was opined by decorated FBI veteran.[xlviii] In the U.S. Courts – it is the completion of the massive project of implementation of Pacer & CM/ECF,[xlix],[l],[li] which facilitates sham court actions – routinely perpetrated on prisoners. Above and beyond the devices – it is the abdication by the legal profession, and both State and U.S. judiciary, to the highest levels, of any semblance of legitimacy. Atty Kevin McCormick, Atty Joshua Rosen, Atty Aaron Fontana, as well as Judge Yaffe, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk John Clarke, Sheriff Lee Baca, Clerk Terry Nafisi, Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Judge John Walter, and even the Richard Tallman, Richard Paez, and Alex Kozinski were noticed - but none would initiate any corrective actions. The FBI and U.S. justice Department – likewise – refuses to perform its duties…[lii] They all consider this shell –game fraud at the courts – a legitimate justice system…Not so! We must immediately approach International Human Rights Courts. We must not let the false jailing of Atty Richard Fine stand! It’s our Liberty on the line!

Joseph Zernik


[i] Richard Fine exposed secret payments by Los Angeles County to all ~425 judges of the LA Sup Crt - the largest in the nation - for over a decade. at about $45,000 per judge per year. None of the judges listed such payments on their annual Outside Income Disclosure Forms, and none disclosed the payments to parties in litigation involving LA County.

http://inproperinla.com/08-12-18-richard-fine-on-yaffe-failure-to-disclose-payments-by-la-county.pdf

[ii] Atty Fine also demonstrated that it became practically impossible to win a case against LA County at the LA Sup Crt during those years. Recording of Richard Fine by Full Disclosure Network, on the secret payments, and inability to win cases in Los Angeles County against the County.

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-11-full-disclosure-network-on-fine-jailing-us-court-orders-la-sheriff-to-decide-on-release-of-judicial-critic-attorney-held-in-contempt-by-judge-yaffe.pdf

[iii]October 10, 2008, California Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Diego) decision – payments by LA County to the judges were “not permitted”.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-cal-ct-app-4th-sturgeon-v-la-county-08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf

[iv] The bill signed in February was passed in record speed, at the urging of the California Judicial Council, out of concern that all LA Sup Crt judges were liable. Passage was the end result of high-priced lobbying (claimed to be $60,000 for a week's efforts) paid for by the judges, out of compliance with California Senate rules - with no debate on the floor and with no referral to committee. It was inserted in the last minute into the much larger budge bill.

Recording of Judicial Watch Atty Orfanedes and Atty Norris on the passage of Sbx2-11. Sbx2-11, was passed as part of a much larger budget bill, and was not debated on the floor, neither was it referred to committee, out of compliance with California Senate Rules.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-02-20-sbx-2-11-budge-bill.pdf

[v] The jailing on March 4, 200, at Dept 86,LA Superior Court, Central District, Downtown LA, was documented by media, who were present there, and also, through the Reporter’s Transcript.

March 4, 2009 - Reporter’s Transcript.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-5_transcript-of-march-4-2009.pdf

March 4, 2009 - Full Disclosure Network:

http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-full-disclosure-network-att-richard-fine-jailed-in-attempt-to-disqualify-la-judge.pdf

March 5, 2009 - Metropolitan News Report

http://inproperinla.com/09-03-05-met-news-court-sentences-disbarred-attorney-fine-to-jail-for-contempt.pdf

[vi] Denial of the Habeas Corpus Petition at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles –

A false on its face June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Carla Woehrle:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-26-mj-woehrle-amended-r-n-r-09-06-12.pdf

A false on its face - June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-30-filed-09-06-29-judge-walter-judgment-dismiss-habeas-corpus.pdf

[vii] Denial of the U.S. Court of Appeal Petition.

False on it face -June 30, 2009 Order Denying Petition by U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judges Richard Tallman, and Richard Paez.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf

[viii] No documentation to support the arrest and booking. The false record of the March 4, 2009 Judgment arrived at the Sheriff’s Dept only at 4:31pm, whereas the arrest was listed at 11:05am, and the Booking at 12:23pm. At both these times, the Sheriff’s Warrant Detail simply had no paper at all. The records are reviewed one by one in the October 13, 2009 Appeal to Sheriff Lee Baca:

http://inproperinla.com/09-10-13-appeal-to-sheriff-lee-baca-s.pdf

[ix] Dr Joseph Zernik has no formal legal education at all. He has very limited formal education in computer science, which he got as a young teenager, in classes at a high level technical institute. However, at that time it was based on mainframes, punch cards, and lower level languages. Dr Zernik has no formal training in advanced math, or encryption, although he was deemed especially qualified for the field. He was offered a 5 year contract and a job by the IDF upon high school graduation, in lieu of regular military service. He believes that the analysis he performed is of that nature.

[x]

ANALYSIS OF THE LA SUP CT CMS – SUSTAIN & RELATED SCHEMES & SCAMS

A. A collection of LA Sup Ct cases:

The same practices that are alleged here as the scheme that led to the jailing could be found in each and every one of the following cases for various purposes – from real estate fraud (as opined by fraud experts) to fraud by the court on the people – in making the payments to judges by LA County, which was ruled “not permitted” into payments that would be permitted (in g, below):

1. Derwish v Darwish (SC060217)

2. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).

3. Hanks v Woods (SC083585)

4. Marina v County (BS109420)

5. Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

6. Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)

[xi]

B. Other Resources

Analysis was based on:

1. The Registers of Actions, where available (a,b,e, above),

2. Review of other CMSs that are advertised online, discussion with salespersons

3. Sustain was unique in not communicating at all, unless with certified letter of employment by a court that is a client.

4. Interviews of persons who claimed to be defrauded by the court, and comparing their claims to the records,

5. Comparing of Registers of Actions to paper court records, and

6. Initiating events in order to test hypotheses

7. Reading on court administration, court histories, court scams.

8. Reading the available reports of the initial computerization project of certain state courts, who participated in a consortium with the Center for State Courts- federally supported, and its Technology Center. Of note – California was not a participant. Instead, each court was allowed to develop its own system, with no evidence of any oversight whatsoever.

9. Interviews with individuals who were involved in database programming in the Los Angeles area in the 1980s – they confirmed that often programming in public agencies involved the generation of fraudulent code, with routine patterns, some of which were identified in Sustain.

[xii]

C. Court Administration & Distribution of Business

1. The fundamental database of the court, is traditionally known as the Index of All Cases – referring to all cases that were concluded or that are pending before the court.

2. The database of active cases, pending before the court, is known as The Master Calendar, and the Master of Calendar is typically the Presiding Judge.

3. One of the main tasks of the Master of Calendar is the Court’s Distribution of Business into the individual judges’ Calendars. By law – the distribution is by Assignment Orders. In particular circumstances, the judge may further distribute the business to Judicial Officers, who are Commissioners, Referees, Receivers, Debtor Examiners, etc. Such distribution is prescribed through Appointment Orders.

D. Books of Court

Court Administration in the English speaking countries was based for many generation on performing the business of the courts through Books of Court, which were eventually defined in the code, and which were also some of the earliest known public records – since they are the essential instruments for the safeguard of the integrity of the courts. The traditional Books of Court included, but were not limited to:

1. Index of All Cases

2. Index of Judgments/Appealable Orders

3. Master Calendar .

4. Departmental (Judge) Calendars

5. Individual Case Calendars

6. Individual Case Registers of Actions (California dockets)

7. Individual Case Minute Orders

E. Judges and Clerks – and the Individual Case Management

F. General Principle in CMS design and operation

1. The CMS is intended to provide efficiency, reliability, authenticity, security, in all court routines and management tasks:

a) Generating court records,

b) Authenticating Court Records (see below)

c) Maintaining and safeguard of court records,

d) Monitoring and documentation of execution of judgments

e) Monitoring of the progress of the business of the court,

f) Equitably distributing of the business in load on various department,

g) Allocating of resources,

h) Producing of statistics for effective management.

i) Facilitating Data Quality Assurance

j) Facilitating Public Access

k) Facilitating Enforcement of compliance in court performance.

2. In their general design, the CMSs attempted to follow the older paper routines and procedures, which in turn were designed to facilitate the organization and management of the cases, and the performance of various operations on the cases, to comply with the California Code, (E.g., Cal Gov Code §69845 – Registers of Actions, §68150 – allowing the use of various technologies for database management) and Cal Rules of Courts, (E.g. Rule 2.503 – public access).

3. The general CMS design is based on digital equivalents of the Books of Court.

G. Landmark Events

To reduce the complexity, memory requirement, and speed operation on the database, the CMS, like the paper instruments before it, did not peg the individual case calendars and registers of actions to the Master Calendar on each and every action in the case, but only through “Landmark Events”. Based on analysis of data, filing and entry of the following actions, were recognized as Landmark Events in Sustain:

1. Pleadings (initiating litigations) – such as Complaint, Summons

2. Dispositive Actions (ending litigations) – Demurrer, Motion to Dismiss, Summary Judgment, Jury Trial, Entry of Judgment, Entry of Appealable Order.

3. Establishing Jurisdiction by a Judge or Judicial Officer – Assignment Order, Appointment Order

4. Termination of Jurisdiction – Recusal, Peremptory Challenge, Disqualification for a cause.

5. Specialized Case Management Conferences – Initial Case Conference, Trial Setting Case Conference, Pretrial Case Conference, Post Trial Case Conference.

6. Payments for Judicial Services – any fees paid to the court.

H. Implications in re: Schemes & Scams

The analysis and conclusions were based initially on Sustain. However, much of it turned out to be applicable also in U.S. and Sheriff systems.

1. The cases in question are not deemed by the court as cases of the LA Sup Ct at all.

1. For lack of better term, they are designated here “Equity/Enterprise Track” v “True Court Track”.

2. The judges of the court falsely believe that in such cases they are permitted to rule and adjudicate in disregard of California and U.S. law.

3. They may rationalize to themselves or to others such conduct as permitted on the basis of Equity Courts. However, in fact, the conduct is likely to be an Enterprise.

4. Equity/Enterprise Cases are entered into the CMS – Sustain, in a manner that allows them to be represented to the public as cases of the Superior Court of California, but in fact, are not recognized by the CMS as cases that are part of the true Index of All Cases – of case pending before the court. (“flying under the radar”)

I. Denial of Access to Court Records as Prerequisite for the Scheme

Denial of access to Sustain records became and imperative overriding dictum of the court. The unpublished Rule of Court was established; Sustain is privileged – for the Court only”. Sustain records would allow to immediately distinguish the two tracks.

1. Equity/Enterprise Track cases would not be included in the Index.

2. Equity/Enterprise Track cases would have no Assignment Orders to Judges

3. Equity/Enterprise Track cases would have no calendars

4. Equity/Enterprise Track cases would have no judgments

5. Equity/Enterprise Track cases would have no appointment orders

6. Equity Enterprise Track cases would have no fees registered.

J. Avoiding registration of Landmark Events in “Equity/Enterprise Track” Cases

1. The scheme is made possible by the CMS design, and the programming of various representations of relational databases.

2. The scheme requires avoidance of the Landmark Events.

K. Analysis of Atty Fine’s Case in LA Sup Crt as Equity/Enterprise Track” Case – Contempt

The court would not allow access to the Register of Actions in Marina v LA County – the case that led to the Jailing of Atty Richard Fine, and therefore, the analysis is based on other, lower reliability data:

1. Based on the Case Summary – there is no indication of an Assignment Order to Judge Yaffe.

2. Based on the Case Summary – there is no indication that Summons were executed.

3. Based on the Case Summary – no Initial Case Conference was conducted.

4. Based on analysis of the orders and judgments – none of them was valid or entered, they were all of the type of “false on its face” , with clear defects, indicating that the court did not deem them effective. List of the order and judgments with links to the records, and details of the defects is provided at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-10-23-marina-v-la-county-eight-8-false-on-their-faces-judgments-orders-writs.pdf

5. In particular the defect the judgment is a key sign.

6. The failure to provide Murray Gross an Appointment Order is a key sign.

7. Surprisingly, an experienced attorney like Mr Fine, did not notice any of the other false records, however, he did catch the missing appointment order of Commissioner Gross.

8. The missing appointment order became insurmountable, since Judge Yaffe was unable to issue an Appointment Order. However, he knew that he was operating in violation of the law. Therefore, his act was based on bluffing – issuing a false judgment.

9. Likewise – Judge Yaffe eliminated the whole March 4, 2009 from the record of the case – it was an “off the record” proceedings

L. Analysis of Atty Richard Fine’s Case at the Dist Crt as Scheme Case – Habeas Corpus

1. The judges of the LA Sup Crt knew that there was no legal basis for the jailing. Therefore, it became imperative to undermine a habeas corpus petition.

2. The denial of access to paper and pen proved to be very effective – in both the Dist Crt and the Crt App. However, it may be seen in review outside the U.S. as a soviet-union style abuse.

3. Once the petition was received, most likely Carla Woehrle considered it invalid, as seen in some of the papers, that she arbitrarily rejected based on no Atty Fine signature, while she accepted the petition, or appeared to accept it.

4. Recusals in this case were falsely registered as “clerical errors”.

5. None of the minute orders, orders, and judgments in the case was received with an NEF. There is no explanation for that – except that none was deemed valid and effectual order, ruling, or judgment of the U.S. Court.

6. Additional manipulations were suspected relative to the paper petition – therefore – when Dr Zernik requested access – it was denied. Likewise – request for NEFs was denied.

M. Analysis of Atty Richard Fine’s Case at the Crt App as Scheme Case

1. Immediately upon receipt, the court sent Atty Fine a refund of the filing fees, regardless of the excuse, it was a cardinal sign of a scheme.

2. No calendar was created for the petition.

3. The orders arrived with no NEFs

4. The orders were unsigned, undated, no signature box.

5. Request for NEFs was denied.

[xiii] The jailing of Atty Richard Fine was affected through ancillary proceedings to Marina v LA County,. All eight (8) purported rulings, orders, and judgments that led to the jailing, including the purported Order and Judgment for sanctions, and the purported March 4,2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine were shown to be false on their faces.

http://inproperinla.com/09-10-23-marina-v-la-county-eight-8-false-on-their-faces-judgments-orders-writs.pdf

[xiv] False on their faces - invalid based on a superficial defect that required no real knowledge of the law - e.g. wrong signature, wrong date, or mismatch of records.

[xv] Review of the CMS of LA Superior Court is provided in Abstract and Figures:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-abstract-&-figures.pdf

[xvi] Review of the CMS of LA Superior Court is provided in Computers and the Courts

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-register-of-action.pdf

[xvii] in Marina v LA County (BS109420), where Atty FINE represented Marina Del Rey Homeowners Association - Plaintiff, who sought injunction against LA County - Defendant, for allowing Del Rey Joint Venture, and Del Rey Joint Venture North - Real Parties in Interest, the development of high density dwellings near the Marina on a land parcel that had previously been open space.

[xviii] March 4, 2009 Proceeding is not listed as part of the litigation in Case Summary (Not a court record):

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-a-09-06-24-case-summary-s.pdf

[xix] Sanctions were claimed to be imposed on Atty Fine by Judge David Yaffe in Marina v LA County, However, all orders and rulings that such sanctions were founded on were invalid, false on their faces:

1) April 15, 2009 False on Its Face Order Awarding Sanctions against Richard Fine

Attorney: JOSHUA L ROSEN

Judge: DAVID P YAFFE

Deputy-Clerk: CONNIE HUDSON

Clerk JOHN A CLARKE

Parties: DEL REY SHORE JOINT VENTURE

DEL REY SHORE JOINT VENTURE NORTH

Code; (a) CCP §473(b) Atty’s Fees & Costs

Penalty/Sum: (a) $46,329

Defects: (a) Proof of Service is dated April 11, 2008 – earlier than the April 15,

2009 date that Judge Yaffe endorsed the order and it was filed.

(b) April 11, 2008 Proof of Service belongs to another record (Notice

of Ruling)

Significance: (a) April 15, 2008 False on Its Face Order for Sanctions, and its

purported Judgment debt, were the major cause for the

purported examination by

(b) Commissioner without Appointment Order Murray Gross, which led to

the

(c) March 4, 2009 False on Its Face Judgment for Contempt, which led

to the

(d) March 4, 2009 off the count, off the record Arrest. Booking, and Jailing

FINE: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-08-04-15-1-false-order-sanctions-&46309-pos-08-04-11-notice-of-ruling.pdf

2) January 14, 2009 False on Its Face Order Awarding Sanctions against Richard Fine

Attorney: JOSHUA L ROSEN

Judge: DAVID P YAFFE

Deputy-Clerk: CONNIE HUDSON

Clerk JOHN A CLARKE

Parties: DEL REY SHORE JOINT VENTURE

DEL REY SHORE JOINT VENTURE NORTH

Code; (a) CCP §128.7

Penalty/Sum: (a) $5, 040

Defects: (a) Proof of Service is dated December 29, 2008 – earlier than the

January 14, 2009 date that Judge Yaffe endorse the order and it

was filed.

(b) December 29, 2008 Proof of Service belongs to another record

(Proposed Order)

Significance: (a) January 14, 2009 False on Its Face Order for Sanctions, and its

purported Judgment debt, were part of the cause for the

purported examination by

(b) Commissioner With No Appointment Order Murray Gross, which led to

the

(c) March 4, 2009 False on Its Face Judgment for Contempt, which led

to the

(d) March 4, 2009 Off the Count, Off the Record Arrest. Booking, and

Jailing

FILE: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-01-14-2-false-order-sanctions-$5040-pos-defective-s.pdf

3) February 10, 2009 False on Its Face Minute Order for Sanctions against Richard Fine

Attorney: -

Judge: DAVID P YAFFE

Deputy-Clerk: CONNIE HUDSON

Clerk JOHN A CLARKE

Parties: -

Code; (a) CCP §128.5 – Frivolous motion strike OSC contempt

Penalty/Sum: (a) $1,226

Defects: (a) No Yaffe’s signature- Order for Sanctions must be signed and

entered.

(b) No Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk.

Significance: (a) Gave rise to False on Its Face May 8, 2009 Application for Writ of

Execution.

FINE: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-02-10-3-false-minute-order-sanctions-$1226-for-frivolous-order-to-strike.pdf

[xx] Debtor Examiner proceeding were purported to be ordered to provide information regarding Atty Fine’s financial assets for enforcement of the sanctions Details can be found in Transcript of the March 4, 200 proceedings, and also in the Case Summary.

March 4Transcript

Case Summary

[xxi] Transcript of March 4, 200, and report by Metro News

[xxii] Deletion of the March 4, 2009 proceeding from the litigation:

[xxiii] March 4, 2009 Minute Order that was invalid – missing Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry with hand signature.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-minute-order.pdf

[xxiv] March 4, 2009 Judgment for Jailing of Atty Richard Fine was false on its face: - endorsed by Judge Yaffe in multiple copies as dated March 24, 2009. Both the minute order and the judgment were also invalid for missing the portion called Proof of Service, absent which orders and judgments are not effectual for any purpose by California law.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-4-false-fine-judment-record-copy-from-us-dist-ct-habeas-corpus-doc-16-response-by-la-sup-ct-filed-may-1-2009.pdf

[xxv] Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) - the Nixon Tapes ruling, where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the public's right to access court records - to inspect and to copy, as a Common Law right that was older than the U.S. Constitution. The Court also re-affirm the right as part of various Amendments.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-nixon-v-warner-comm-s.pdf

[xxvi] Access was requested to the Registers of Actions of litigations that are critical for securing the long term integrity of the Court system:

a) Marina v LA County

b) Sturgeon v LA County

Request for access, explanation for denial:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-00-00_09-10-16-mccoy-request-to-access-court-records-in-marina-n-sturgeon-s.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-00-00_09-10-16-request-mccoy-explanation-denial-of-access-to-court-records-s.pdf

[xxvii] Neither the Presiding Judge, nor the Clerk of the Court responded to repeated requests. Instead, the Counsel for the Court sent a series of letters that were inherently contradictory, and also false and deliberately misleading.

[xxviii] Dr Zernik was supported in this effort by a civil rights non-profit organization outside of Los Angeles, which advised him that the arrest and booking records were public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act. He was also advised that other Counties in California complied with the law.

Request for access to Atty Richard Fine’s Arrest and Booking records pursuant to California law:

http://inproperinla.com/09-10-18-request-to-sheriff-to-inspect-to-copy-fine-papers-s.pdf

[xxix] Review of the documents related to the Sheriff’s CMS is provided in the Appeal to Sheriff Lee Baca:

http://inproperinla.com/09-10-13-appeal-to-sheriff-lee-baca-s.pdf

[xxx] The unusual nature of the jailing was best evidenced by the fact that n summer 2009, at a time that the Sheriff and the Court made efforts to block any contact by media, a female reporter of the Los Angeles Times managed to enter the men’s jail, spend time with Atty Fine in his cell, sufficiently long to interview him, and leave, with the Sheriff Dept unaware of the matter until publication.

[xxxi] Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), March 19, 2009 or March 20, 2009, the stamp was not the usual stamp of the court, and it was manually altered. The petition was in the name of Atty Richard Fine, but it did not bear his hand signature, and therefore, whether or not it was deemed valid by the courts was left an open question all along.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-1_fine-habeas-corpus-petition_p1-50.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-2_fine-habeas-corpus-petition_p1-50.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-3_fine-habeas-corpus-petition_p1-50.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-4_fine-habeas-corpus-petition_p1-169.pdf

[xxxii] Complaint filed with Terry Nafisi, Clerk of Dist Crt, regarding concerns that court papers are dishonestly manipulated.

http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-reques-for-investigation-in-re-judgment-fraud-records-s.pdf

[xxxiv] Notice was given to Judge Yaffe and the LA Superior Court.

[xxxv] Atty McCormick was not authorized by Yaffe and the Court as Counsel of Record, but conveniently appeared and filed false papers, under his own signature - with no authority at all. Therefore – he allowed Judge Yaffe and the Court plausible deniability of the alleged fraud perpetrated in their names. Letter to Atty McCormick – requesting corrective actions:

To eliminate such for any accountability for such fraudulent filings at the U.S. Court. He also filed a declaration that he was not authorized to sign - since he was no competent witness of the facts in the matter.

[xxxvi] To eliminate any such deniability, Dr Zernik sent notices to Judge David Yaffe, the Presiding Judge and the Clerk of the Court. The fact that such notices were received is evident in the letters of Court Counsel Frederick Bennett.

[xxxvii] Of note, the recusals were dishonestly marked as clerical errors in the docket.

[xxxviii] June 30, 2009, Judgment in the habeas corpus petition by Judge John Walter.

[xl] The deputy clerk claimed that Atty Richard Fine’s petition was already shredded. There was no explanation for the denial of access to the NEFs. Subsequently, request was filed with the Clerk to provide documentation of the shredding.

[xliii] Crt of App never accepted the petition as a valid filing.

[xliv] Both the CMSs of Dist Crt and the Crt App, are based on a Pacer & CM/ECF platforms. However, the individual courts were allowed latitude in customizing the systems. The system as it appears today on the Court of Appeals site is deemed more compromised that the system of the Dist Crt.

[xlv] The fact that Dist Crt had already deceived Atty Richard Fine, and that Crt App was in the process of perpetrating the deceit, was protested even before the unsigned order was issued, in a filing with the Crt App , where Dr Zernik alleged that the courts routinely engage parties in sham court actions, which he claimed were abuse of Human Rights by the courts. Ex Parte request for leave to file as party in interest.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-02-zernik-ex-parte-application-for-leave-to-file.pdf

[xlix] The denial of access to records is not universal, but specifically targeted to the key records that determine the validity and effect of all other records – The Registers of Actions at the LA Sup Ct and the NEFs at Dist Crt and Crt App. In parallel, all of these courts populated their court files with variou8s records that are clearly not deemed valid and effectual by the courts, but are allowed to remain in court file, and mislead various parties. Upon review, it is likely to be concluded that the conditions generated in the U.S. and Los Angeles court are a very large scale shell-game fraud, nothing more.

[l] The validation that would have been required for CMSs in the courts would have included compliance with the law, and Rules of Court. Therefore, Sustain, which operates in contradiction to Rules of Court in re: Entry of Judgment should not have been implemented, unless Rules of Court had been adjusted, in compliance with the law – rule making enabling laws.

[li] Proposal was filed with the Judiciary Committee of the House and Senate a year and a half ago, which is founded on the assertion that all computer programs are assemblies of rules, and therefore, CMSs, which operate in the courts, are assemblies of Rules of Court, regardless of whether they were written in natural language or programming language.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-conclusions-computers&courts-concerns&legistlative-proposal-s.pdf

[lii] FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice refuse to perform their duties

No comments: