Human Rights Alert
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog:
Scribd:
10-10-20 The US Courts Established a Policy Excluding Any Papers Pertaining to JudicialCorruption from the First Amendment Right to File Petitions.
Los Angeles, October 20 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, released recordsdocumenting that the United States courts have effectively established a policy excluding from the FirstAmendment right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” papers, which documented judicialcorruption. Moreover, to accomplish such policy, the records showed US judges and court personnelcolluding in Fraud on the Court, and tight linkage was demonstrated between such conduct, abuse of HumanRights, and failing banking regulation in the United States.The series of cases originated at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and was opined asreal estate fraud
[1]
by a Fraud Expert – FBI veteran, who had been decorated by US Congress, by USAttorney General, and by FBI Director.The beneficiaries of the alleged racketeering at the Los AngelesSuperior Court, led by California Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR, included Countrywide FinancialCorporation, and later Bank of America Corporation. ANGELO MOZILO (then CEO of Countrywide),SANDOR SAMUELS (then Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, today- Associate General Counsel of Bank of America), and BRIAN MOYNIHAN (then General Counsel, today - President of Bank of America), wereall directly involved in the matter, as was DAVID PASTERNAK (former President of the Los AngelesCounty Bar Association and former Member of the California Judicial Council).
Regardless of thevoluminous credible evidence of alleged racketeering by Countrywide, Bank of America, and judges of theLos Angeles Superior Court, FBI and US Department of Justice refused to enforce the law in Los AngelesCounty, California, even after inquiries by the US Congress.In contrast, official FBI policy, as stated in 2008, was "FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruptionvigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear atthe fabric of a democratic society…" Therefore, in May 2009 petition was filed at the US District Court, Washington DC -
Zernik v Melson et al
(1:2009cv00805), under cause of action "To Compel US Officer to Perform His Duties". Among Defendantswere KENNETH KAISER (Assistant Director of FBI for Criminal Investigations), KENNETH MELSON(then Director of US Attorneys Office), and SAMUEL BEZEK (Senior Counsel at SEC). Conduct of JudgeRICHARD LEON at the US District Court, District of Columbia, was by then predictable – the US Courteliminated from the docket - with no Due Process/Fair Hearing - papers, which were duly filed, and whichprovided evidence of judicial corruption at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
At the US District Court, Central District of California, Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS and Magistrate CARLAWOEHRLE had previously engaged in 2008-9 in similar conduct in
Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550),where ten judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR SAMUELS werenamed among Defendants in complaint under cause of action of Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law. The evidence provide in the case effectively documented racketeering at the Los Angeles SuperiorCourt. At the commencement of the litigation at US District Court, Central District of California, the “
Pro Se
Clerk” refused to issue valid summons presented to him. Later, papers, which provided evidence of judicialcorruption, were dishonestly docketed – concealed under unrelated paper and docketing text in the onlinePACER docket.
[4]
When that practice was protested, the US District Court, Central District of Californiainitiated the practice of selectively refusing to file, and selectively issuing perverted pretense “DiscrepancyNotices” on certain papers with no Due Process/Fair Hearing. The staff of the Office of the Clerk alsoexplicitly informed Plaintiff that Magistrate CARLA WOEHRL instructed them to issue such “Notices” on
Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USDate: 2010.10.2106:04:18 +03'00'
Page 2/4 October 21, 2010
any papers pertaining to allegation of judicial corruption.
Furthermore, Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLEand Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS of the US District Court, Central District of California later issued apretense “Order” - prohibiting Plaintiff from access to the US Courts in the matter.
[6]
The records of the USDistrict Court, Central District of California, also documented alleged Judicial Misconduct and Fraud on theCourt – relative to the issuance and docketing of invalid pretense Court records by Magistrate CARLAWOEHRLE and Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS in collusion with unauthorized court personnel.
[4][5][6]
Conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California was therefore subject of a Petition, which wasduly filed in June 2008 at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit -
Zernik v USDC-CAC
(08-72714) –purportedly reviewed byCircuit Judges STEPHEN R REINHARDT, MARSHA S BERZON and MILAN DSMITH, JR. The Petition at theUS Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, sought to Compel Due Process Rights –issuing of valid summons and engaging in honest docketing at the US District Court, Central District of California. However, papers, which provided evidence of the denial of the right to file papers at the USDistrict Court, Central District of California, and alleged widespread corruption at the Los Angeles SuperiorCourt, were eliminated from the docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9
th
Circuit. Only unsigned orders wereissued by the Circuit Judges, which were served and noticed with no authentication/certification by the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9
th
Circuit.
[7]
Later, in April 2010, similar conduct was documented at the Supreme Court of the United States, undercaption of
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827). The Application, purportedly reviewed by the Conference of theSupreme Court, pertained to the imprisonment in solitary confinement of former US prosecutor Richard Fine,with no warrant and no entry of Judgment/Conviction or Sentencing, after he had exposed, publicized, andrebuked the taking of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”) by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court,which required the enactment of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for such judges.Papers, which were duly filed as Motion to Intervene
at the Supreme Court of the United States under thecaption, referenced above, and which documented the parallels in alleged corruption of the Superior Court of California, of the California Judicial Council, of the US District Court, Central District of California, and of the US Court of Appeals, 9
th
Circuit, in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard Fine and the cases pertaining toDr Zernik, referenced above, were eliminated from the docket of the US Supreme Court by Court CounselDANNY BICKELL with no authority at all.
Furthermore, upon review of records of the file of theApplication at the Supreme Court of the United States, no record was found of any judicial review at all.
[10]
Regardless, false and deliberately misleading notices of purported denial of the Application by the Conferenceof the Supreme Court of the United States was issued by unauthorized personnel. Denial of the Applicationwas likewise falsely noted in the online dockets and journal of the Supreme Court.
[11]
Therefore, the casealso demonstrated disregard of the Habeas Corpus right – the “the cornerstone of the US Constitution”according to the late US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr.The cases in all courts involved also documented the key role of online public access systems (e.g. PACER)and computerized case management systems (e.g. CM/ECF) in enabling such conduct, through exclusionfrom the online public access system of the clerks’ authentication/certification records, and denial of access tosuch records by the courts, combined with perverted notice and service practices. A reasonable person wouldconclude that today the clerks of all courts involved deemed themselves unaccountable for the validity andhonesty of any of the records in the respective online public access systems.In recent years Human Rights Alert repeatedly called upon the United States Congress to enact federal rules of online public access and case management systems, since both state and federal courts uniformly failed topublish such rules, in apparent violation of Due Process/Fair Hearings rights.
The cases at hand were part of evidence, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of theUnited Nations as part of the first ever, 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the UnitedStates.
Staff report of the HRC later noted “corruption of the courts and the legal profession” inCalifornia.
[14]
Page 3/4 October 21, 2010
Likewise, in July 2010 Prof Laurence Tribe, in keynote address to the Annual Conference of Chief Justices of the state courts, in his capacity as Senior Counsel, US Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative,warned that the state courts in the United States might become indistinguishable from courts in “third world”nations.
However, the evidence now released by Human Rights Alert, showed that the even the highest United Statescourts - National Tribunals for Protection of Rights pursuant to ratified International Law - in fact patronizedsuch conduct, through what must be deemed violation of the First Amendment right to file petitions, denial of Access to the Courts, denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearing rights, and Fraud on the Courts.Moreover, combined, the cases at hand documented the tight linkage between corruption of the justice system,abuse of Human Rights, and failing banking regulation in the United States.Human Rights Alert (NGO) is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of HumanRights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles,California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case managementsystems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
LINKS
[
1
] 07-12-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, David Pasternak’s Grant Deeds in re: 320 SouthPeck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, opined fraud expert and FBI veteran as fraud by James Wedick:Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/ See also the August 21, 2008 informal letter by fraud expert and FBI veteran James Wedick, informing Defendant Dr Zernik that FBI Special Agent, whowas assigned to the case agreed with him that the case involved real estate fraud, and expressing concern that FBI would not provide Equal Protectionin the case, since it would involve addressing widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide DrZernik protection against real estate fraud: Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29713733/ [
2
] 08-05-27 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt # 062: First Amended Complaint:Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30766354/ [
3
]a)09-06-29 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) at the US District Court, District of Columbia – papers received by mail from US Judge RichardLeon, alleged as Denial of First Amendment rights and Judicial Fraud on the Court. - Papers Received by Mail From Judge Richard Leon - AllegedJudicial Fraud on the Court:Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39779968/ Please note: The records in a), above, are face pages of papers, which had been duly filed by Plaintiff in
Zernik v Melson et al
(1:09-cv-00805),and were later returned by mail to Plaintiff with Discrepancy Notice and no form of authentication/certification by an authorized Deputy Clerk.Each of the papers was hand inscribed on its face page "Leave to file denied" with the date “6/29/09”and initials of Judge Richard Leon.Therefore, the records are alleged as evidence of Denial of First Amendment right and Judicial Fraud on the Court by Judge Richard Leon incollusion with Deputy Clerk David Scott.The records, which Plaintiff was thus denied the right to file at the court, included, but were not limited to papers, which documented fraud by judges of the Superior Court of California in collusion with Countrywide Financial Corporation.No mention of these papers, or the purported denial of their filing by Judge Richard Leon was ever noted in the PACER docket of the captionreferenced above.b) 09-06-29 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) at the US District Court, District of Columbia – purported Order by Judge Richard Leon as received bymail:Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39780784/ Please note: The record in (b), above, is provided as received by Plaintiff by mail from the Court. It included no form of authentication/certification byClerk of the Court.Regardless, the purported “Order” was docketed (Dkt #8) in the online PACER docket as “entered”.The Court denied repeated requests for the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings), which are today deemed by the US courts as authentication/certificationby the Clerk.Therefore, the records are alleged as evidence of Judicial Fraud on the Court by Judge Richard Leon in collusion with Deputy Clerk David Scott.[
4
] a) Conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California, under
Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550), was detailed in the Petition to the USCourt of Appeals, 9
th
Circuit, see Footnote [5], Below.b) Pretense March 21, 2008 “Minutes”, issued by Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, questioning the constitutional right for unbiased judge:08-03-21 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #014 - Judge Virginia Phillips' Minutes DenyingTemporary Restraining Order:Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24749680/ c) 08-06-06 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California Dkt #063 - purported Magistrate Carla Woehrle"Minutes" - contriving novel dishonest docketing rules, alleged as Fraud on the Court:Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39776959/ Please note: The above two records of the US District Court, Central District of California are deemed as Judicial Fraud on the Court, since they wereissued with no “Document Stamp” in the respective NEFs, which is required pursuant to the Court’s General Order 08-02 as authentication/certification
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
10-10-20 The US Courts Established a Policy Excluding Any Papers Pertaining to Judicial Corruption from the First Amendment Right to File Petitions
Los Angeles, October 20 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, released records documenting that the United States courts have effectively established a policy excluding from the First Amendment right “to petition the Government…
(More)
842
Reads
10
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
