The Los Angeles Superior Court: Widespread Corruption, Patronized by the USGovernment

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Introduction

The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,

is the largest county court inthe United States, with over 400 judges,serving the most populous county in the UnitedStates, with over 10 million residents.

iii

Official, expert, and media reports have documented widespread corruption of the courtfor over a decade, and consistent refusal of the US government to take action.

The most notable event related to corruption of the court was the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), whichwas described as the largest court corruption scandal in the history of the United States.

vii

viii

The scandal involved large-scale false imprisonment and drugtrade by police, patronized by the Court.Today, the most notable form of the corruption is in financial institution and real estatefraud in collusion with various banks, as part of the foreclosure crisis.

A. Allegations and Opinions of Widespread Corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Numerous official, expert, and media reports documented the widespread corruption of the Court over the late 1990s and early 2000s.

1. The Rampart Scandal (1998-2000)

The Rampart scandal was the most notable event in the history of the Court in recentdecades. A series of official, expert, and media report provided detailed examination of conduct of the Los Angeles Police Department, the County District Attorney, and theCourt:"Innocent people remain in prison""...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system thatthe Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of thesystem, have not produced any response that we know of..."LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)

"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did notcommit."Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)

"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)

2. The Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)

xii

The number of victims of the Rampart corruption scandal is unknown, but was estimatedat many thousands. Even following repeated official, expert, and media reports of thescandal, the victims, the Rampart FIPs, were by and large never released.The case of the Rampart FIPs represents an unprecedented example of large-scale falseimprisonment of civilians in the territorial United States, going on for well over a decade.

B. Sustain - The Case Management System of the Court

Implementation of Sustain around 1985, at a time that Ronald George, later Chief Justiceof the California Supreme Court, served in leadership positions at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, was opined as key to the alleged racketeering in the Court.Based on analysis of the system by Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), aleading international computer science scholar issued an opinion supporting allegationsof fraud in the system, and calling on US computer science experts to investigate thesystem.

xiii

Key features of the system that enable the alleged racketeering in the court include, butare not limited to:

•

Failure to publish Local Rules of Court pertaining to new court procedures that wereimplemented by the Court through Sustain.

•

Denial of access to Sustain records in general, and the Registers of Actions(California civil dockets) in particular, in apparent violation of First Amendmentrights - to access court records to inspect and to copy.

•

Failure to authenticate court records by the Clerk of the Court. Minutes are routinelyentered by the Court in Sustain, while the Court deems the Due Process right to noticeand service (inherent to authentication by the clerk) "waived".

•

Failure to enter judgments as required by California Civil Code to make them"effectual for any purpose", and yet enforcing their execution.

C. Key Cases - Evidence of Racketeering

The most common form of corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, is in theconduct of simulated litigation,

xiv

a charade in the court, where judges preside with noassignment order, attorneys appear, who are not authorized counsel of record, and nominutes, orders, judgments are duly served and ordered, and proceedings are conducted“off the record”. (see further details below)The following cases provide examples of simulated litigation practices, and evidence of racketeering in the Los Angeles Superior Court:

Galdjie v Darwish

The case is a prototype of simulated litigation and real estate fraud by the Court. In May2002, Defendant Darwish appeared in the Superior Court in Santa Monica, on a day thatJury Trial was scheduled. She was deceived to proceed to the Culver City MunicipalCourt, where a Judge, who remained anonymous in court records conducted a "CourtTrial" and ruled to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental property. Darwish later provided adeclaration that the "Muni-Judge" was John Segal. The judgment was never entered, butthe propertywas taken by the court. The Court denies access to the case file to inspectand to copy.

Marina Homeowners Association v Los Angeles County

In March 2009 Judge David P. Yaffe was reported by media to have sentenced former USprosecutor to "continuous confinement" for contempt of the court. The sentencinghearing was never listed in the case online chronology. The court denies access to theRegister of Actions (California civil docket) of the case. No judgment was ever entered.Regardless, Richard Fine was arrested on that date in open court by the Sheriff's WarrantDetail, and was later held for 18 months in solitary confinement. The Sheriff bookedRichard Fine, as arrested on location and by authority of the non-existent "MunicipalCourt of San Pedro".

xvi

xvii

Sturgeon v Los Angeles County

From 2007 to 2009 Justice James Richman (California Court of Appeals, 1

District)presided in simulated litigation in the Los Angeles Court. Subject matter was a petitionfor injunction, which originated in the secret taking by all judges of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments from the County of Los Angeles, at~$45,000 per judge per year. During the same yearsit became practically impossible towin a case against Los Angeles County in the court.

xviii

The Superior Court quadrupled in the case as the Court, the Judge, the Clerk, and a Party(Intervenor). Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as Judge "sitting byassignment". The Court routinely referred to Justice Richman as presiding "by reference",and Plaintiff's counsel referred to Justice Richman as presiding by "designation". Nocourt record of assignment, reference, or designation was discovered. The Court deniesaccess to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case, in apparentviolation of First Amendment rights. Justice Richman issued two judgments in the case -both in favor of the Court. Neither was entered, but both were falsely deemed by theCourt as valid judgments -permitting the ongoing payments by Los Angeles County tothe judges of the Court.

xix

Karimi v Mithaiwala

was initiated as a petition for a divorce decree. In the course of thelitigation the Court seized a community property corporation through conduct of Attorney David Pasternak, former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Associationand former President of Bet Tzedek ("The House of Justice"), who appeared as"Receiver". However, Attorney David Pasternak had no valid Appointment Order.

It should be noted that Attorney David Pasternak appeared as "Receiver" with no validAppointment Order also in

Galdjie v Darwish

(see above), Commissioner Murray Gross