Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
09-06-24 Fine v Sheriff of LA (09-71692) at the US App Ct 9th: Dkt #02 - Zernik's Ex Parte Application for Leave to File

09-06-24 Fine v Sheriff of LA (09-71692) at the US App Ct 9th: Dkt #02 - Zernik's Ex Parte Application for Leave to File

Ratings: (0)|Views: 56 |Likes:
Ex parte application for leave to file papers - to inform the court of the ways that PACER & CM/ECF were utilized for conducting sham court actions.
Ex parte application for leave to file papers - to inform the court of the ways that PACER & CM/ECF were utilized for conducting sham court actions.

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Jan 13, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





O 74,/4
R E c E I V E D
JUN 2 # 2%
Richard I Fine
SheriFof Los Angeles County
Pro Se Filer, Dr Joseph Zernik, hereby requests that the Court grant him leave to file
papers as Party in lnterest in matter received from jailed Att Richard Fine - now appearing inthe lndex of Cases of the Court, as Richard Fine v Sher#ofL s Angeles CountyNo.og-
71692. The Court itself surely holds the matter invalid, since it has already determined that itoriginated from a Hnull'' action in District Court, LA. lf allowed, Pro Se Filer would present
the Court with detailed data regarding the prevalence, extent, and ways that Sham Litigations
Case No 09-71692
APPLICAHON BY PRO SE GERFORALEAVE TO FILE AS PAR'IYGINTEREST INFINE V SIIERIFFDEPT OFLA COIJNIY, N0.09.71692.and Sham Court Actions are propagated in California today, of which such petition is anexample. Pro Se Filer claims that Sham Actions are one of the most common severe abuses
of Human Rights in Califonaia today.
Allowing such filing will further the cause of ustice, but must not be construed as any
admission of the validity of such petition. Pro Se Filer prays the Court make a clear and
unambiguous pronouncement on the matter at bar, so that abuse of ailed Att Richard Fine
will not have been in vain.
Date: June 18, 2009. Respectfully submitted,Joseph H Zernik,
Pro Se Filer
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik
DN:cnruoseph Zeynik
czœs .
Date:2009.06.19 1235:57 -07'00*
By: Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV, CA 91750
Te1: 3l0 435 9107; Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@ea14hlink.net
/ 16ine v Sherifl-of LA Cotmty (09-71692)
Case: 09-71692 06/24/2009 Page: 1 of 17 DktEntry: 6972099
i instructions by the Counsel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9t11 Circuit Proollow ng
Se Filer Dr Joseph H Zernik Czernik'' ($Dr Zernik'l, resident of Los Angeles County,
California, hereby requests leave to file papers in matter posted on the docket of the Court as
Fine v ShertDepartment ofL s Angeles Cxnfy (09-71692), under çtparty in Interest''
Claims in support of the request:
1) Pro Se Filer wJ,î' sublected to Jâzll'e similar to that now Jpp/fez in er/rezae to a4// Fine.
Dr Zernik, likejailed Attorney Richard Fine, has been subjected to various alleged abusesby the courts under the color of law, primarily - by judges of the LA Superior Court, in
alleged violation of Civil Rights pursuant to U.S. Law and also in alleged violation ofHuman Rights pursuant to lnternational Law. Therefore, any abuse that Att Richard Fine
was and is subjected to, and that is tolerated by the Court is a clear and present danger for Dr
2) Abuse of ro Se Filer llke abuse ofz'l// Richard Fine. was perpetrated as Skam
Lltitations l?lh attornevs and zW#ee.ç.
Like Att Richard Fine, Dr Zernik was purportedly found twice in contempt of the court, and
judgments to such effect were purportedly entered against him by ajudge of the LA SuperiorCourt. In both instances, such judgments were purportedly entered in response to requests by
attorneys from Bryan Cave, LLP. Such counsel purportedly appeared on behalf of Bank of
America Comoration (BAC) and prior to that - on behalf of Countrywide Financial
Corporation (CFC) and/or one of its subsidiaries and/or affiliates - but failed to file adequate
corporate disclosures. Such appearances for the duration of some two years were alwaysunder self-designation by Bryan Cave, LLP attorneys as KNon-party''. Concomitantly -Judges of the LA Superior Court interchangeably designated CFC and/or BAC tdplaintiff ',
SsDefendant'' çlcross Defendant'' dqntervenor'' $$ReaI Party in Interest'' - all with no
foundation in the 1aw at all. Pro Se Filer was also denied the right to file compulsory cross-
Fine v Sheri/of A County (09-71692) 2 / 16
Case: 09-71692 06/24/2009 Page: 2 of 17 DktEntry: 6972099
complaint for fraud, deceit and other damages against CFC/BAC. Moreover, in a number ofphone calls, senior staffat the Legal Department of BAC explicitly stated that Bryan Cave,LLP was NOT authorized to appear on behalf of BAC in the matter in question.
3) Sham Zffel/ftlzl,ç should be prosecuted as Obstructlon and Perversion of ustice.
Dr Zernik is of the opinion that that upon investigation and review it would be easily
demonstrated, to standards of adjudication required by U.S. criminal courts, or standards
required by International Human Rights Courts, e.g. - beyond reasonable doubt - that in the
matter of Samaan v Zcrnik (SC087400):
a) Jacqueline Connor, falsely acting as ajudge, with no due authority, knowingly and
deliberately instituted a Sam Litigation for the purpose of eal estate fraud upon Pro Se
Filer Dr Zernik.
b) John Segal, falsely acting as judge in such Sham Litigation, with no due authority at all,
colluded with Att David Pasternak, and engaged in the taking of real propezty under the
threat of force, for private use, with no compensation at all, outside any recognizable
boundaries of the law.
c) Terry Friedman, falsely acting as ajudge in such sham litigation, with no due authority at
all, purportedly entered judgments of Contempt of the Court in collusion with attorneys
from Bryan Cave, LLP, at the request of CFC and/or BAC, knowingly engaging in false
and deliberately misleadingjudicial acts.
d) Such litigation was never part of the true lndex of A1l Cases of the Superior Court of
California - it was from the st'tl't Sham Litigation, designed to cover up real estate fraud
under the guise of court action.
e) Attorneys from Bryan Cave, LLP, were not authorized as Counsel of Record of either
CFC and/or BAC in part or all of the duration of their appearances in the court in such
matter, but falsely and deliberately made false representations in this matter. CFC'Spractice of sham engagement of outside counsel had already been exposed and rebuked1 In fact CFC had already made promises to the U.S. Court iny Court a year earlier
. ,
Tex% not to repeat such conduct.
1 Borrower Parsley - U
S. Court Southern District of TX, Case No 05-90374
Fine v Sheri/of LA County (09-71692) 3 / 16
Case: 09-71692 06/24/2009 Page: 3 of 17 DktEntry: 6972099

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->