Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #3- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol i

09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #3- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol i

Ratings: (0)|Views: 457|Likes:
Executive Summary
Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Los Angeles Superior Court, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286).
The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and made false representations of entering judgments in the case.
· Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law.
· Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case.
· Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either.
The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon.
Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered.
Requests, which were forwarded to Clerk Clarke and Presiding Judge McCoy to remove false and deliberately misleading court records, published online, were likewise left unanswered.
In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286).
The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come.
Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents.
The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 201
Executive Summary
Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Los Angeles Superior Court, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286).
The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and made false representations of entering judgments in the case.
· Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law.
· Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case.
· Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either.
The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon.
Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered.
Requests, which were forwarded to Clerk Clarke and Presiding Judge McCoy to remove false and deliberately misleading court records, published online, were likewise left unanswered.
In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286).
The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come.
Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents.
The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 201

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Jul 16, 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

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Joseph H Zernik 
 
PO Box 526, LV CA 91750Tel: (323) 515-4583;Fax: (801) 998-0917Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Pro Se Interested Party
 
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HAROLD STURGEON,
Plaintiff/Petitioner 
vCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL
 Defendants/Respondents
andSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES,
 Intervenor 
____________________________________)))))))))))))))))
Case No: BC351286
 Honorable James A Richman, Justice of California Court of Appeals, 1
st 
District 
{PROPOSED} INTERESTED PARTYJOSEPH H ZERNIK’S (I) NOTICE OFREQUESTS FOR INTERVENTION BY U.S.AND CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYSGENERAL, (II) NOTICE OF MOTIONS ANDMOTIONS: (A) FOR MISTRIAL; (B)ALTERNATIVELY - FOR VACATINGJUDGMENTS/ORDERS PER CCP §473; (C)FOR ORDERS ON THE COURT AND THECLERK OF THE COURT TO PROVIDEREASONABLE EXPLANATIONS FORTHEIR CONDUCT, (D) FOR ORDERS BYCOURT PER THE CAL CODE JUD ETH,3D(1) & (2) - TO INITIATE CORRECTIVEACTIONS, & [PROPOSED] ORDERSFILED AS VOL I – NOTICES & MOTIONS,
VOL II, III - EXHIBITSDATE:
TO BE NOTICED
TIME:
TO BE NOTICED
 DEPARTMENT:
TO BE NOTICED
 
TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL,THE LA SUPERIOR COURT, PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN STURGEON V LACOUNTY:
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 1/63Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)
Digitally signed by Joseph HZernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net,c=USLocation: La Verne, CaliforniaDate: 2009.08.12 06:45:25-07'00'
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 Pro Se Interested Party Joseph H Zernik (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”) files concomitant withinstant papers, under separate cover, an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File as InterestedParty. Herein, Dr Zernik files Requests for Intervention and Investigations by the U.S. AttorneyGeneral and the California Attorney General, together Notice of Motions and Motion forMistrial, alternatively – Motion To Vacate Orders and Judgment, furthermore –Motions forOrders on the Court and the Clerk of the Court to Provide Reasonable Explanation for TheirConduct, and Motions for the Court to Initiate Corrective Actions pursuant to the CaliforniaCode of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1), and (2).Such requests and motions are based on litigation of 
Sturgeon v LA County
(BC351286), asdetailed below, a matter of high public policy interest, where the LA Superior Courtdemonstrated its practices: Published Rules of Court held no relationship to real operations of the court, and public access to litigation records was denied (
Exhibit 1-a
), while conflicting, orpossibly straight forward fraudulent records were published online by the court (
Exhibit 1-b,c,d,e,f 
), albeit – with a disclaimer, from a server that triggers security alerts for carrying afalse verification certificate (
Exhibit 1-g
).Additional evidence is produced to demonstrate that litigation practices, founded on thefailure to operate pursuant to published Rules of Court and the routine global denial of publicaccess to public court records allowed pervasive alleged criminality in the courts of Intervenor– LA Superior Court, often in collusion with agencies of Defendant – LA County. Examplesare provided from 3 other civil court cases (
Exhibits 2a-c, 3a-e, 4a-u
), and the ongoing falseincarceration of the Rampart FIPs, resulting from corruption at the criminal courts (
Exhibit 51-
). The computerized case management systems of the court were identified as a root cause(
Attachment A
). Involvement of large corporations such as Countrywide, now Bank of America was discussed (
Attachment C
), as well as large law-firms (
Attachment D
).Anapproach was proposed to address such problems (
Attachment B
).These Notices and Motions are based on the Notices and Requests for Interventions, andInvestigations, Requests for Incorporation by Reference, Requests for Judicial Notice,Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Joseph Zernik and Exhibits and
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 2/63Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 Attachments filed and served herewith, as well as the Ex Parte Application and its exhibits filedherewith, the pleadings and documents on record in this case, all matters of which the Courtmay or must take judicial notice, and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may bepresented at the hearing.DATED: August 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted,JOSEPH H ZERNIKBy: _________________________________Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Interested Party1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917Email: jz12345@earthlink.net 
I.TABLE OF CONTENTSVolume I.
I. Table of Contents 3II. List of Attachments and exhibits 4III. Notices & Requests to Attorneys General 9A. Requests for InterventionsB. Requests for InvestigationsIV. Notice and Motions for Mistrial/Vacate Judgments 16V. Table of Authorities 19
 
VI. Request for Incorporation by Reference 20VII. Request for Judicial Notice 21VIII. Memo of Points and Authorities 23
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 3/63Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

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)//-->