Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
×

Table Of Contents

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 - #10- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-393

09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #10- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-393

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,097|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 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 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 where judgments were falsely represented as entered by him 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, as required by law for a Referee.
· 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.
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) and other records 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 the case.
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 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the just
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 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 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 where judgments were falsely represented as entered by him 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, as required by law for a Referee.
· 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.
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) and other records 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 the case.
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 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the just

More info:

Categories:Business/Law, Finance
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

 
",
D . E ! J . A R A n o ~
 
Of
SERVICE
Case
No.
SC092131
2
STATEOF
CALIFORNIA. County
ofI.m
Angeles:
3
Alisha
R.
Cormier ltates:
[am
employed
in
the
County
oHm
Anac1n.
State of
4
I
California. over
the
age
of
eighteen
years
and
not a
pIl1y
to
1M
within
1Ction.
My
buaineu
Ilddn:u
is
648
Kenneth
Hahn
Ball of
Administration.
SOO
Wesl
Temple
Slm',
Los
Angeles,
California
51
90012-2713.61 That
on
July
24,
2007, I served
the
attached
7
I
(PROPOSED)
JUDGMENT
&:
ORDER
OF
DISMISSAL
81
upon
Interested Party(ies)
by
placinLC
the
original • a true
copy
thereof
enclo!Cd
In
a sealedenvelope addressed
II
as
follows
[J
IS
stated
on the
anached
maIling
list
9
n
Gregor)'
P.
Sqa"
Elq.
JO
I
9100 Wlishirt Boulevard, Sulle
5 O ~ E ' l t
Beverly
"lUI,
CaUroml.
90212
lila
(BY
!\tAIL)
by
sealing
and "Iacmg
the
envelopt
for
collection and maIling on
the
date
and
at
the place
shown
above
followmg our
ordinary
bUSiness
practICes
I
am
rudlly
fanulw
12
with
this office's prachl'e
of collection
and
pl'ocessang
correspondence
for
malllnf'
Under
that practice the
c o m ~ p o n d e n c e
 
would
be
depoSited
WIth
the United States Posta Snvice
13
that
same
day
with postage thereon
fully
prepaid.
14
1
0
(BY
EXPRESS
MAIL)
by
seahns
and
depciSltmg
the:
documtnt(s) hlted
above
in
a post
office, mailbox, sub-post
o1lice,
substation, or
ma.1
chute,
or other like
facIlity
rqularty
15
maintained
by
the
United States
Postal
Service: for
receIpt
of
Exprns
Mall
or
by
seahna
and
depositing the
document(s)
lD
a
box
or other
facIlity
regularly
maintaaned
by an
16
express service
carrier
with delivery
fees
prc"aid
or
provided
for
171°
(BY
FACSIMILE) I
caused
such
document
to
be
ddlvercd
from
the
faclumJle
machine
It
telephone number
on
(datl:)___ ._
at
..
1m.
J
p.m
to
the
18
facsimile
machine
at
telephone
number
---",e
transmlltS10n
was
reported
as
complete
and
without
error,
A
copy
ortlle tnnsmisslon repon
was
properly
19
issued
by
the
transmitting
facsimile machine
and
IS
attached
h ~ t o
 
2011
0
(BY
PERSONAL SERVICE) 1
delivered
such
envelope
by
hand
to
the
offIces
of
the
I
addressee.
: ~
 
II
a
(STATE)
I declare under
penalty
of
perJury under
the
la"!t
of
the
Siale
01
CalifornIa
that
thl'
foregOing
is
trut'
and
' ~ o r r e c t .
 
23
110
(FEDERAL) I
declare
thai
[
am
employed
In
till' nlfl(CS
of a
member
of
t h l ~
 
l'Ourt
at
2 ~
 
whose
direction
the
!tCI"\'l(e
was made
L x e ~ : u t e d
 
on
July
~ 4 .
 
2()')7,
al
Los Angelc·s.
("J1J1url1la
I
2 ~
 
2h
Al,,,ha!{ (
.'mlll·r
1 i ) " d t k A ~ r / I / / {
T , ~
 
or
Print
'0"1<
,,11h-duant
I
{ ~ J
 
~ i c . a h l r t
 
~ ! , - < ! . l " r
 
p.nonll
Knht
I" II
''''\!,rnl:tr
"u,lr.. ,
Indud. rh.
namt "Ith.·
\1.·\\<
IIl:rr
,
..
nit'
\;
, ~
 
--
-----
- - - - l ~ - ! - I l - - ' ! " ' \
 
·,1'
,-',
- _ . - . ~ ~ - ~ - - - - - - - _ . " . _ .
__
._--------
344ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p344/679
 
".,.
. 
"-" 
"-
IT
IS 
HEREBY 
ORDERED
tbl
..
Defendlnt
County
of
LOI
An"" 
Demurrer
..
21 
SUSTAINED 
without 
lave 
to 
amend. 
~.lbillCtion
 
ia 
DISMISSED 
wrm 
PREJUDICE 
and
,JUDGMENT 
ia 
-
iD 
fa
...
of1ldadonl
':->'
of
!.Do 
AJlp"
:I
5 
DATED 
_J 
(O,IJ 
I 
~_
 
n 
~"~X'~.1
 
6 
I
WAMD 
fEES.
COSTS
A N~ I
 
mATM
'CIWQ JUT
BE 
Ramm 
'roM 
7 
I
MntI3IU).OS 
(J1lf 
RAUl 
~
 
81 
REC(MRv 
(f
ttl
BGM9n: 
.-
9 
10
11
12 
13
14
15
16
17
IX
!y
21)
21 
,')
_
.
I
"
.
I
\1 
,
345ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p345/679
 
,
e
e
JUD-'''I
.
n C l M € Y ( l l l " " , " " , w m o J T " ~ '
______
_ ~ _ ( J I l l '
 
Rober1
A.
WeInbetg.
EIq.,
SBN
1 1 0 1 ~
 
v
"'"'
Ln
0tIlc:eI
d
Robert
A.
Weinberg
FILED
~ ~
 
8034 Ventura
~
1S11
Encino.
CA 91311
tal
ANOIU!S
SUPERIOI
C'OOIT
11U!I"HCM
ItO
(818)7'05-3254
FlUltO
~
 
( I ' l l i ~
 
E
......
A D I l M I S ~
 
AfTOIIN'V
P'OIt
__
PIIInIIr
AUG
1';
lOO7
IUPIIICIIt
COURT
011
~
COUNTY
011
LOS
ANQIUI
.
mm
AllCNII·
'125
Meln
&rMt
~
.
IN..IC
IilDDMII
wt.
0IIlUft'
ClTVlHlll'aD
santa
Monica,
CA
eDiIOt
1IWOl
.....
Wilt
0IIb1c:t
santa
MonIce
~
PLAINT1fT':
Hakart
Cofpomu
Amertca,
Inc.,
....
0EfEN0ANT:
~ .
 
Inc.
et"
Call
.....
JUDGMENT
DBrCtertl
o
BrDIfaM
8
M1IJrCewt
TfIII
SCOi2145
[Z]BrCoun
o
On"""an
0*."
DIlII
...
~ " T N I
 
JUDGIetT
,.
{Z]
IYOEFAULT
a
Defendant
...
properly
MrY8d
will
OCIPY
d
tlelummonl
8nd
~ n t
b
Defendant
failed
to
......
the
~
01'.-'
8nd
ew.nd
tie
actio"...,
..
lime
aIIowecI
by
1ft
c.
QefendanI'I
def8UII
wu
.,....,.,
by"
dart
upan
.,..,..
~ l
 
d.
0
CIertl'a
JudgmMt
(Code
Qy
Proc.,
'585(.:0
D**'"
_
BUIld
only
on •
oonIraCt
01'
jUdgrnenI
fA.
COUIt
d
thlI
...
tor
the
rece:MWY
d
money.
e
[Z]
Court.ludgrnanl
(Code
CN
Proc
.•
'5e(b»
The
court
o o n a i d a f e ~
 
(1)
0
p1aintift'l
.....
'lOlry
and
o e . ~ .
 
(2)
[l]
pIaW1tIf'/'I
wntten
dednIiDI.
(Coda
C1v.
Prot.,'
585(d».
2.
0
ON
STl'ULATION
a
Plaintiff
end
defendwlllIgI1NId
(1tipAated)
ltat.;IIdgmant
be..-.d
"I
thIa
caM.
The
oour1
~
..
~
judgment
and
b
0
the
algned
wntten
Itipulation
...
Ned
in
hi
CMa.
c
0
the
ItIpUatlon
...
stated
in
open
00UIt
0
the ItIpUIIIIon
w•
.-..d
on
..
I1ICXlftI
3·0
AFTERCOURT
TRIAL
The
/UfY
...
waiYed.
The
Ol:JUlt
c:onU*'ed
\he
8 \ ~
 
a.
The
C8H
...
tried on
(dfIte
and
time).
before
(name
of
judicial
officer1,
b.
Appearances
by
o
P1alntllY
(name
NCh)·
CJ
PIaintlIr.
ettomey
(name
NCh)
(1
)
(1)
(2)
(2)
o
Continued
on
Attachment
3b
o
Defendant
(name
each)
[::J
Defendant's attorney
(name
each)
(1
)
(1
)(2)
(2)
o
Continued
on
Attachment
3b
c
D
Defendant did
not
appear
at
tnal
Defendant
was
proper1y
served with notice of tnal
d
0
A
statement of declSlor
(Code
C,V
Proc.
..
§
632)
0
was
not
0
was
requested
.....
'.11
r,)I"T1
""'{'I"",,,,.,,,:
I.W
' : , ( ~ , ~ .
 
')W
JUDGMENT
C,
...
'"
.,
,_>
....
PI')l';e4J,"
M
~
 
864
e
, h . i d ~ : 3
 
_J,;>,f
~
 
C a r . t J l 1 ~
 
1';[
'f
'w""
d ' ~ r l '
 
.:·)
....
21
,.\
W\\
d,
' 1 ~ I > S 5 I d ' N
 
(om
346ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p346/679

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)//-->