Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: email@example.com
Blog:http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
10101010----03030303----08080808 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LAand alleged fraud in the online servers of the LAand alleged fraud in the online servers of the LAand alleged fraud in the online servers of the LASuperior CourtSuperior CourtSuperior CourtSuperior Court
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:47:51 -0800To: "Stephanie Maxberry" <SMaxberry@css.lacounty.gov>, "1st District: Gloria Molina"<firstname.lastname@example.org>, "2nd District Mark Ridley-Thomas" <email@example.com>, "3rdDistrict Zev Yaroslavsky" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "4th District Don Knabe" <email@example.com>, "5thDistrict Michael D. Antonovich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Interested Persons" <email@example.com>From: joseph zernik <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Fact Based Discussion: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Re: More on the relationshipbetween widespread corruption, alleged violations of First Amendment rights in LA County, California,and the conduct of alleged fraud in computer servers providing false online court records.
To LA County Ombudsman Stephanie Maxberry, LA County Supervisors, and Interested Persons:The communications below provide discussion of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which is one of the bestexamples of the alleged large scale fraud perpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusionof LA Superior Court and the County of Los Angeles in the operation of servers of online court information.Such alleged fraud is conducted in parallel to denial of access to true court records of the LA Superior Court -alleged large-scale deprivation of First Amendment rights.The alleged fraud in operation of such online servers was the subject of a recent request for assistance by LACounty Ombudsman Stephanie Maxberry, in filing a complaint against the person/agency of the County of LosAngeles, who were accountable for the collusion in conduct of the fraud.Response by LA County Ombudsman Maxberry is still pending.~~jz
On Monday, March 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:28:04 -0800To: RFrom: joseph zernik <email@example.com>
Subject: Fact Based Discussion: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Re: More on therelationship between widespread corruption and violations of First Amendment in LACounty
Hi R:I am amazed when you, as an attorney, make such false statements on major legal matters atease.
What is the significance of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)?
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), filed by Plaintiff Sturgeon - a Los Angeles County Residentand a taxpayer, represented by Judicial Watch of Southern California, was a request for aninjunction against LA County, to stop the payments to ALL LA Superior Court judges, which weresecretly transacted for over a decade (~$45,000 per judge per year). LA Superior Court joined thecase as Intervenor, siding with Defendant LA County. The payments by LA County to LA SuperiorCourt judges were eventually the subject of a paper issued by Cal Court of Appeal, 4th District inOctober 2008 - that such payments were "not permitted". Such payments eventually necessitatedthe signing on February 20, 2009 of pardons/"retroactive immunities" for all judges who took the