Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10-03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA Superior Court

10-03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA Superior Court

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20 |Likes:
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 best examples of the alleged large scale fraud perpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusion of 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 LA County Ombudsman Stephanie Maxberry, in filing a complaint against the person/agency of the County of Los Angeles, who were accountable for the collusion in conduct of the fraud.

Response by LA County Ombudsman Maxberry is still pending.
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 best examples of the alleged large scale fraud perpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusion of 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 LA County Ombudsman Stephanie Maxberry, in filing a complaint against the person/agency of the County of Los Angeles, who were accountable for the collusion in conduct of the fraud.

Response by LA County Ombudsman Maxberry is still pending.

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Mar 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

04/23/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
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"<molina@bos.lacounty.gov>, "2nd District Mark Ridley-Thomas" <seconddistrict@bos.lacounty.gov>, "3rdDistrict Zev Yaroslavsky" <zev@bos.lacounty.gov>, "4th District Don Knabe" <cpedersen@lacbos.org>, "5thDistrict Michael D. Antonovich" <fifthdistrict@lacbos.org>, "Interested Persons" <jz12345@earthlink.net>From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
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 <jz12345@earthlink.net>
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
 
Page 2/4 March 8, 2010"not permitted" payments - thereby documenting the liabilities faced by such judges.
What is the true nature of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)?
 
Sturgeon v LA County is an example of a non-case of the Superior Court of California, Countyof Los Angeles, otherwise termed a case of the "Enterprise/Equity Track" of the LA Superior Court.
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is also one of the best examples of widespread corruptionof the judges of LA Superior Court, supported by deprivation of the First Amendment rights of all 10millions who reside in LA County - to inspect and to copy court records.
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is one of the best examples of the alleged large scale fraudperpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusion of LA Superior Court andthe County of Los Angeles in the operation of alleged fraudulent servers of online court information,which were the subject of a recent request for assistance by LA County Ombudsman StephanieMaxberry,
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is NOT an example of the transfer of a case against LASCfrom LASC to another venue as you have falsely stated.
What are the true facts in the matter of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)? 
1) The LA Superior Court refused and continue to refuse to allow access to inspect and to copy theRegister of Actions (California civil docket) of Sturgeon v LA County, the same way that it refusedand continue to refuse to allow access to the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County(BS109420), the case where Richard Fine was purported to be jailed.2) There is no valid order on file for the transfer of the case of Sturgeon v LA County.3) Justice James A Richman, who presided in the case for some years, did so with no valid legalrecord to support his authority to preside in the case.4) While James A Richman signed his papers "Sitting as Judge by Assignment", the LA SuperiorCourt, tripling/quadrupling as the court, the clerk, the judge, and intervenor in this case, routinelyreferred to Justice Richman as ruling "By Reference, not by Assignment". Judicial Watch ofSouthern California, whose conduct of this case remained an enigma, referred to Justice Richmanin its the latest appeal records, as presiding "By designation".It is a classic example of conduct of the LA Superior Court - Was Justice Richman a Judge? AReferee? A Designee?The Office of Justice James A Richman refused and continue to refuse to answer on questions tothis effect forwarded to his office. A reasonable person, upon review of the records would likelyconclude - Justice James A Richman was engaging in his conduct in Sturgeon v LA County asneither a Judge, nor a Referee, nor a Designee.5) Of note, Justice James A Richman was engaging in his conduct from Department 1 of LASuperior Court Central District. The same conduct, judicial officer presiding from Department 1with no Assignment or Appointment Order was the key dispute for which Judge Yaffe purportedlysentenced Richard Fine to jail: Judge Yaffe insisted that Commissioner Murray Gross waspermitted to preside as a Debtor Examiner with no Appointment Order at all, while Richard Fine justly claimed that Murray Gross had no authority at all absent such Appointment Order.
For self-edification purposes only: 
Let's repeat the exercise we went through regarding Marina v LA County (BS109420)... The casewhere Richard Fine was purported to be jailed.1) Please provide a valid official court record that establishes the foundation of Sturgeon v LACounty (BC351286) as a true case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.2) Please provide a valid official court record that establishes that the case was transferred, as you
 
Page 3/4 March 8, 2010falsely claimed.3) Please provide a valid official court record that established the authority of Justice James ARichman to preside in the case.~~jz
At 11:55 AM 3/8/2010, R wrote:
 You find a co-conspirator who resides in Orange County including a corporateDefendant who can be sued in any state court and sue LA County et al in theOrange County Superior Court. There is a court rule requiring a transfer ofany case against the LASC to another county if it is originated in LASC.Sturgeon was a similar case.
At 11:42 AM 3/8/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:
 From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net
 
]Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:42 AMTo: R
Subject: More on the violations of First Amendment at LA County
 Other civil rights organizations were willing to help - but only bysuing LA Superior Court at LA Superior Court, which is a joke. Inthe process, I was also given numerous times false legal advise - thatUS District Court had no jurisdiction in such matters. I got thesame false advice in the past when I wanted to file a complaint ondeprivation of rights.No attorney was willing to sue LA superior Court at US District Court- that is how attorneys end up in jail, or lose their license. Someof the honest ones said straight forward that it was "too dangerous."
At 11:38 AM 3/8/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:
 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:38:18 -0800To: RFrom: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Full Disclosure Network- interview with Mary Tiedman of the ACLU JailMonitoring Project
 Hi R:...My experience with Ramona Ripston and Samuel Parker at SC ACLU was that theywould not touch with a 9 foot pole anything related to corruption in Los AngelesCounty.I approached them regarding the violations of First Amendment rights of all 10 millionresidents of LA County - failure to keep Book of Judgments, and hiding of the judgment entry listings, of the true Register of Actions, of the true Calendars of theCourts, and of the True Index of All Cases.After repeated requests and denials, they explained that I was making fuss about"archaic issues"...~~jz
Why Cant The ACLU Help Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine?

You're Reading a Free Preview

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