Joseph Zernik

1853 Foothill Blvd

LV, CA 91750
Tel: (310) 435 9107
Fax: (801) 998 0917
jz12345@earthlink.net
Pro Se Petitioner

UNITED STATES COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Petitioner CASE No 1:09-cv-00805
vs
KENNETH MELSON ET AL
Respondants

VERIFIED NOTICE #3: URGENT REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE BY

AMBASSADORS
PETITIONER FILES HEREBY NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING RECORD:
MAY 18, 2009 FAX TRANSMISSION TO HIS EXCELLENCY WEGGER CHR
STROMMEN, ROYAL NORWEGIAN AMBASSADOR, AND HIS EXCELLENCY
DANIEL AYALON ISRAELI AMBASSADOR

Dated: May 18, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:

Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph Zernik,
email=jz12345@earthli
nk.net, c=US
Date: 2009.05.18
12:56:41 -07'00'
______________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PRO SE PETITIONER

-1-
Joseph Zernik
1853 Foothill Blvd
LV, CA 91750
Tel: (310) 435 9107
Fax: (801) 998 0917
jz12345@earthlink.net
Pro Se Interested Party

UNITED STATES COURT

SOUTHER DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WILLIAM ALLEN PARSELY CASE No 05-90374
Borrower

VERIFIED NOTICE #3: URGENT REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE BY

AMBASSADORS
PETITIONER FILES HEREBY NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING RECORD:
MAY 18, 2009 FAX TRANSMISSION TO HIS EXCELLENCY WEGGER CHR
STROMMEN, ROYAL NORWEGIAN AMBASSADOR, AND HIS EXCELLENCY
DANIEL AYALON ISRAELI AMBASSADOR

Dated: May 18, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:

______________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PRO SE INTERESTED PARTY

-2-
Joseph Zernik
1853 Foothill Blvd
LV, CA 91750
Tel: (310) 435 9107
Fax: (801) 998 0917
jz12345@earthlink.net
Pro Se Interested Party

UNITED STATES COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHARON DIANE HILL CASE No 01-22574

Borrower

VERIFIED NOTICE #3: URGENT REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE BY

AMBASSADORS
PETITIONER FILES HEREBY NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING RECORD:
MAY 18, 2009 FAX TRANSMISSION TO HIS EXCELLENCY WEGGER CHR
STROMMEN, ROYAL NORWEGIAN AMBASSADOR, AND HIS EXCELLENCY
DANIEL AYALON ISRAELI AMBASSADOR

Dated: May 18, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:

______________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PRO SE INTERESTED PARTY

-3-
PRO SE PETITIONER in Zernik v Melson et al, U.S. Court, District of Columbia,
who is also Interested Party, case of Borrower Parsley, U.S. Court, Southern District of
Texas, and who is also requesting designation as Interested Party in case of Borrower
Hill, U.S. Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, hereby files1 Notice #3.
///
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Alternative Cover Pages …………………………… 1-3
I. TOC …………………………… 4
II. List of Exhibits …….………..…………… 5
III. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer …………………………… 5
IV. Significance of the Records Noticed Herein …….………..……………. 6
V. Statement of Verification …….………..……………. 7
VI. Exhibits …….………..……………. 8
///
///

1
Copy is concomitantly filed with TARP Oversight Board, and with TARP Inspector General, as
a request for urgent investigation into matters related to TARP and the Bailout.
Copy is concurrently filed with Lawrence Summer, Director, U.S. President National Economic
Council
Copy is concurrently filed with Paul Volker, Chairman, U.S. President Economic Recovery
Advisory Board, as request for investigation of the allegation that widespread corruption in LA
County, California, involving Countrywide, gave rise, at least in part, to the sub-prime crisis.
Copy is concurrently filed with Carol E. Dinkins., Chairwoman, U.S. President Privacy and Civil
Liberties Advisory Board, as a request for investigation of alleged widespread corruption and
civil rights and human rights violation of historic proportions in LA County, California.
Copies are concomitantly filed with U.S. Congress, as a request for urgent hearings on
underlying matters.
Copy is concomitantly filed with the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, with request for
monitoring and protection of the rights of dual citizen, Joseph Zernik, per Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, ratified International Law.

-4-
 II.
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN CURRENT NOTICE
EXHIBIT 1. 09-05-18- Fax transmitted to ambassadors on May 18, 2009.
///
///
III.
REQUEST FOR LENIENCE BY PRO SE FILER
While I make substantial efforts to comply with court procedures, and study
applicable law, I request special lenience as a pro se filer:
A document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed,” Estelle, 429 U. S.,
at 106, and “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,”
ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) (“All
pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice”). (Erickson
v Pardus et al, 2007)
In particular, I am unqualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask the
Honorable Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take
into consideration the facts and the claims themselves, and if they can support some
other valid theory, assign such legal theory to them, and review them pursuant to such
valid legal theory (Haddock v Cal Board of Dental Examiner, 1985).
The Honorable Court is requested to entirely disregard my comments,
explanations, or legal arguments pertaining to such papers, when my writings appear to
be of the nature of legal theories, or legal arguments, and are deemed erroneous, or
irrelevant.
If it pleases the Honorable Court, let the Honorable Court act of its own volition
whenever permitted to do so by law:
a. To initiate action pursuant to the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges, Canon
3B(3):

-5-
 (3) A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge
becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of
unprofessional conduct by a judge or a lawyer.
b. To act pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) “to do substantial justice” for
Plaintiffs who claim to have been inflicted substantial harms by the Los
Angeles justice system.
Dated: May 18, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:

________________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PRO SE PETITIONER
///
///

IV.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RECORDS NOTICED HEREIN
///
A. Petitioner went into great length describing in his petition the dishonest
manipulations he had been subjected to by clerical staff at the U.S. District
Court, LA, and explicitly expressed his hope that such would not recur in
Washington DC.
B. Events of the past week made such hopes vanish.
Dated: May 18, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:

BY:_________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PRO SE PETITIONER

-6-
 Joseph Zernik
1853 Foothill Blvd
LV, CA 91750
Tel: (310) 435 9107
Fax: (801) 998 0917
jz12345@earthlink.net
///
///
V.
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATAION

I, Joseph H Zernik, have written and re-read the foregoing:

VERIFIED NOTICE #3: LETTER TO AMBASSADORS.
I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is true and correct based on
my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon
information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as
well.
The exhibits provided with this complaint under Exhibit 1 is a true and correct
copy of a record in my possession.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of
perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States.
Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles on this 18th day in May, 2009.

_____________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
pro se Plaintiff

-7-
 VI.
EXHIBITS

-8-
 EXHIBIT 1
-9-

9/26
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net, PO Box 526, LV CA 91750

May 18, 2009

His Excellency Wegger Chr. Strommen
Royal Norwegian Ambassador
Washington DC
Fax number: (202) 337-0870
E-mail: emb.washington@mfa.no

His Excellency Daniel Ayalon

Israeli Ambassador
Washington DC
Fax: (202) 364-5607
E-mail: info@washington.mfa.gov.il

RE: Formal, urgent request for monitoring of alleged severe violations of

Human Rights in Los Angeles, California, and related litigation in
Washington DC under Zernik v Melson at al.

Dear Ambassadors Strommen and Ayalon:

My name is Joseph Zernik, and I hold dual citizenship of Israel and the U.S.A.
I claim standing also relative to the case of Richard I Fine, prominent anti-trust
attorney, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Consul General of Norway in
Southern California, who is indefinitely jailed in Los Angeles and is unable to
exercise his First Amendment rights.

A. Both Richard I Fine and I continue to be abused by LA County judges.

We have both suffered abuse at the hands of the judges of LA County,

California, where we both alleged wide-spread corruption of the justice
system. Furthermore, I allege that such wide-spread corruption in LA County,
going back several decades, is tolerated and even patronized by the U.S. Dept
of Justice and the FBI, and has far reaching effects.

10/26
z Page 2/17 May 18, 2009

B. Alleged widespread corruption in LA County has far-reaching, monumental

consequences.

In petition I filed in Washington DC on May 1, 20091, I alleged failure by the

U.S. government to accord Equal Protection to the 10 million residents of LA
County, with disastrous results:

1) Ongoing incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned

Persons)2,3 – estimated at least at 10,000. A massive probe, 1998-
2000, employing some 200 investigators, demonstrated that the
Rampart-FIPs were falsely convicted and sentenced, based on
evidence generated through framings and confessions extracted
through torture. It was described as the worst of its kind in the history of
the U.S. Yet to this date, almost all of the victims have never been
released!
Describing the scandal, Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in 2000:
“Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the
heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most
repressive dictators and police states. “
“…and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, today Dean of Irvine Law School, University of California, 57
Guild Prac. 121 2000

Please note that the scope and length of the false imprisonments in Los
Angeles dwarf Guantanamo Bay in comparison.
2) Indefinite incarceration of Att Richard I Fine on Contempt, initiated in
early March 2009,4 which followed his efforts to expose and put an end
to payments taken for years by ALL LA Superior Court judges, about
$45,000 per judge per year, which in October 2008 were ruled “not
permitted”,5, 6 and would be called by a lay-person “Bribes”.
Attorney Richard Fine is held under conditions that are unreasonable,
and are alleged as violations of both the Universal Declaration of Human

1
Petition – Zernik v Melson et al: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-09-05-01-
doc-001-1-petition.pdf,
Exhibits: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-09-05-01-doc-001-2-peition-
exhibits.pdf
2
Best reference on how they got falsely convicted, and why they are still imprisoned: LAPD Blue Ribbon Report
(2006): http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
3
One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000- PBS Frontline (2001): http://inproperinla.com/01-
05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
4
Full Disclosure Network: Arrest of Att Fine http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-full-disclosure-network-att-richard-
fine-jailed-in-attempt-to-disqualify-la-judge.pdf
5
Ruling of the California Court of Appeal, 4th district: http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-
county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf
6
KNBC: http://inproperinla.com/08-10-16-knbc-los-angeles-county-got-the-best-court-money-can-buy-s.pdf

11/26
z Page 3/17 May 18, 2009

Rights, part of ratified International Law, and the Amendments to the

U.S. Constitution.
3) Monumental scale frauds by LA-based Countrywide Financial
Corporation, which caused losses by the hundreds of billions of dollars
to investors world-wide, and threatened the stability of world economies.
Already in January and March of 2007 I filed my first complaints of such
large scale frauds with the FBI in Los Angeles. To this date the FBI and
the U.S. Dept of Justice refuse to investigate the complaints.
The petition alleges that the FBI, U.S. DOJ and SEC are actively
covering up the true causes of the world-wide economic crisis.
Furthermore, the petition alleges that the Countrywide/Bank of America
merger, chaperoned by high-ranking officials in the waning days of the
Bush administration, in fact affected corruption of Bank of America
Corporation.
My allegations appeared to naïve readers beyond belief, and were often
dubbed “conspiratorial theory”. In fact, they are now fully corroborated by
the April 23, 2009 letter by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S.
Congress7, regarding the Merrill-Lynch/Bank of American merger. That
letter led to widely publicized calls for criminal indictments of senior Bush
administration officials, as well as Bank of America Officers8.
4) Alleged racketeering and real estate frauds by judges of the LA Superior
Court in collusion with Countrywide and others. I was forced to leave
my home under the threat of force, and my property was taken for
private use for no compensation at all. These are severe violations of
both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and also the
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. My allegations were fully
confirmed by an opinion letter of a veteran FBI agent and fraud expert
who was decorated by the U.S. Congress, by the U.S. Attorney General,
and by FBI Director. He opined:9
…an immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the
circumstances behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local, state, and
federal authorities can be notified, including the appropriate court.

My petition alleges that real estate frauds under the guise of litigation, as
seen in my case are not unique at all. I identified other similar cases.
The only unique feature of my case, I allege, is the meticulous
documentation.
7
April 23, 2009 Andrew Cuomo letter to Congress http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-
Text%20of%20Cuomo%20letter%20on%20Merrill%20Lynch%20takeover%20-%20MarketWatch.pdf
8
April 24, 2009 Global Trend Analysis- let the criminal indictments begin http://inproperinla.com/09-04-24-
Mish's%20Global%20Economic%20Trend%20Analysis_%20Let%20the%20Criminal%20Indictments%20Begi
n_%20Paulson,%20Bernanke,%20Lewis.pdf
9
Wedick’s opinion letter- http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf

12/26
z Page 4/17 May 18, 2009

Again – when I first made my allegations of fraud by Countrywide, under

the guise of litigation, in January 2007, it appeared outrageous. Since
then, such allegations were fully supported by findings by courts in both
Pennsylvania – in January 2008,10, and in Texas – in March 2008.11
In both of these case, the Honorable Thomas Agresti and the Honorable
Jeff Bohm, U.S. Judges, respectively, rebuked Countrywide’s litigation
practices. In contrast, the petition alleges – in LA County, the judges
colluded with Countrywide, and still collude with Countrywide and Bank
of America in such frauds against me to this date.

C. Subject matter of Zernik v Melson et al

The fraud being perpetrated on me became obvious already in December
2006- January 2007, and the fraud itself was not consummated until
December 2007. Both before and after December 2007 I approached any
local, state, and federal agency possible. None would protect me from the
fraud by the LA Superior Court, Countrywide, and others.
By the first half of 2008 I have studies the LA justice system to the point that I
realized the enormous scope of the alleged corruption. I then filed first a
request for the appointment of a Special Counsel for investigating and
prosecuting the alleged corruption at the LA Superior Court.
When I got no response to that request I followed up with a modest request –
appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate and prosecute the denial of
access to court records in LA – in obvious contradiction with Nixon v Warner
Communications et al, where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the right to
inspect and to copy court records. Such abuse is claimed as an integral part
of the frauds in the operation of the computer system in LA County. To this
date I have never been allowed access to my own litigation records, as
required by law! Again, I received no response at all.
In July-August 2008 I approached U.S. Congress for the first time with a
request for help. I was fortunate, and both the Honorable Diane Watson,
Congresswoman, and the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Senator, came to my
assistance and issued Congressional Inquiries on the FBI and U.S. DOJ in my
case.

10
January 8, 2008 NYT: Countrywide filed “recreated letters” in court - http://inproperinla.com/08-01-08-
morgenson-nyt-countrywide-admits-filing-recreated-letters-as-evidence-in-penn-court.pdf
11
March 8, 2008, Memorandum Opinion in re: Outside Counsel scheme and more - http://inproperinla.com/08-
03-05-countrywide-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke--s.pdf

13/26
z Page 5/17 May 18, 2009

In August-September 2008 responses were forwarded by senior U.S. Officers

of the respective agencies to U.S. Congress.12
In my petition I allege that such responses were fraud by U.S. DOJ and FBI
high-ranking officers on U.S. Congress. Such alleged frauds are they actual
subject matter of my petition in Washington DC, coupled with requests for
orders to compel officers of the respective agencies to perform their duties.

D. Reason for appealing to the Excellency Wegger Chr. Strommen and the
Excellency Daniel Ayalon today

In filing my petition with the U.S. Court in Washington DC I expected that I

would finally be accorded a fair tribunal in accordance with international law.
Concerns are rising that such is not going to be the case. It appears that my
papers in the Washington DC court are getting similar treatment to that which I
was subjected to in LA.

Regarding the computer system of the LA Superior Court, installed around

1985, at a time that today’s California Chief Justice served in leadership
positions in LA Courts, my petition alleges a wholesale fraud on the people.
Such allegations are supported by an opinion letter of a world-renowned Israeli
Computer Science professor13 who reviewed a small fraction of my data.

Regarding handling of court records in the U.S. District Court in LA, both in my
case and in the cases of Att Richard I Fine (the same team handled these
cases), my petition alleged dishonest manipulation and/or adulteration of court
records. Complaints were filed with the FBI who failed to take action.

Following is an email I sent to a friend today:

Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 07:35:58 -0700

To:
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: AND NOW - DOCKETING AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN
WASHINGTON DC.
Cc:

You are more experienced than I am. How reasonable is it when the
following happens?

May 11, 2009 - I sent priority mail to court in DC two slim, but sensitive
papers:

12
U.S. Congress Inquiries in my case, and FBI, U.S. DOJ responses - http://inproperinla.com/08-09-08-
congressional-assistance-s.pdf
13
Prof Shamir’s opinion letter - http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-opinion-letter-09-04-20-eli-shamir-opinion-letter-
s.pdf

14/26
z Page 6/17 May 18, 2009

a) disqualification of a U.S. judge for a cause;14

b) ex parte application for an order to protect the first amendment rights of Att
Richard Fine - to file petitions in court.15

May 13, 14, 15, 2009 - I called the court daily to ask why my papers were
never docketed. I talked with the case management clerk in chambers. As
late as May 15, 2009 - FRIDAY, around 12:00 NOON EST, I was told that my
papers never arrived, that they searched the building, but there were no
papers to be found, that I should re-send the papers.

May 17, 2009 - SUNDAY - the papers appeared on the docket, with a stamp
"Filed" May 13, 2009.

May 18, 2009 - MONDAY - I talked with the same clerk that I talked with on
Friday, who told me that he search the building, and that the papers were not
there. He confirmed that the papers were docketed on SUNDAY, but said he
was not the one who did it.

This is actually an example for how honest Pacer is as a piece of software.

They could not post it retroactively, they had no way around it. In the LA
Superior Court that is not the case at all, no holds barred, anything goes...

Joseph Zernik

In addition to the facts described in the email note above, please recognize the
following:

On the docket, Document #4 is divided into 3 parts. Part 1 includes page 1-13;
Part 2 includes pages 19-end, and part 3 includes pages 15-17. The missing
pages are not crucial – dividing pages. However, part 3 appeared online
without the Pacer blue header security imprint, making it amenable to
dishonest manipulations anytime!

I should also add that the only reason I am subjected to such manipulations is
that the courts so far deny me the right allowed to all other parties – to file
electronically.

E. Specific appeal for assistance

14
Zernik v Melson et al: Statement of disqualification - http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-
melson-et-al-doc-doc-3-statement%20for%20disqualfiication.pdf
15
Zernik v Melson et al: Ex parte application for an order to compel U.S. DOJ, FBI to protect that 1st
Amendment rights of jailed Att Richard I Fine.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-doc-doc-3-
statement%20for%20disqualfiication.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-doc-doc-4-3-req-order-1st-amend-rights-
prop-order.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-doc-doc-4-2-req-order-1st-amend-rights-att-
fine.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-doc-doc-4-3-req-order-1st-amend-rights-
prop-order.pdf

15/26
z Page 7/17 May 18, 2009

I pray that their Excellencies use their good offices:

a) To affect monitoring of the conditions of jailed Att Richard I Fine in Los
Angeles California;
b) To affect monitoring of proceedings of the courts in cases related to both
Richard I Fine and Joseph Zernik in Los Angeles California;
c) To affect monitoring of alleged severe human rights violations in Los
Angeles, California;
d) To affect monitoring of court proceeding in Zernik v Melson et al, in
Washington DC;
e) To encourage Norwegian and Israeli media to follow up and report on
such cases, since U.S. media appear eerily silent. The only exception is
Full Disclosure Network, a small outlet in LA which consistently
produces reliable reports, while rumors and false records are circulated;
f) To affect intervention by international Human Rights organizations to
obtain the speedy release of the Rampart-FIPs – a Human Rights
disgrace of historic proportions!

Yours truly,

Joseph Zernik

Attached:
1) Pages from petition of Zernik v Melson et al, regarding manipulations of
court records in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
2) Docket of Zernik v Melson at all, as printed today.
CC: Congress, NGOs.

16/26
 Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 14 of 120
8/17

being committed" by the LA Superior Court in collusion with Countrywide,

now BAC, on the one hand, and large law firms - Bryan Cave, LLP and
2 Sheppard Mullin, and the former President of the LA Bar Association - David
Pasternak.
3 http://inpropennla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opimon-s.pdf
http://inpropennla.com/07-12-17-
4 wedick.memo.notarized.deeds.zernik.2009.02.05-s.pdf
5 9 Alleged operation of an Enterprise Track by the LA Superior Court - noted
6 again in recent days through the case of Sharon Stone.
http.//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-Ia-sup-ct-index-of-all-cases-stone-sharon-
7 april-24-2009-case-sealed.pdf

8 E. OPERATION OF PACER AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTS, LOS

ANGELES
9
1. General
10 Below are examples of abuse of Pacer by U S. District Court, Los Angeles,
Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. The case Zernik v Connor et al
11 2:2008cv01550 can serve as a text book of such manipulations. The docket
shows Magistrate Carla Woehrle and her clerk indefatigably employing first
12 beginner's, then advanced techniques for compromising docketing in Pacer.
13
My typical response was to document the conduct by filing notice of it. In one
14 instance - I also filed a complaint with the FBI, and notice of the complaint to
FBI into the Pacer docket.
15
2. Why was it necessary?
16 Zernik v Connor et al 2:2008cv01550, complaint for abuse of civil rights
under the color of law, was filed on March 5, 2008. Litigation was
17 abandoned by me (Plaintiff - Joseph Zernik) as an abusive, sham,
proceedings at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles around August 2008, and
18 complaint was finally dismissed by Judge Virginia Phillips only a few days
ago.
19
In reading the sequence of dishonest manipulations of the Pacer docket at
20
the U.S. District Court, LA, the question must come up:
21
Why was it necessary?
22
Pro se Plaintiff is an orthodontist.
23 Pitted against him were some 10 judges of the LA Superior Court,
Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo, Sandor Samuels, Bryan Cave, LLP - a giant
24 law firm, Buchalter Nemer, David Pasternak - former President of the LA
County Bar Association, etc.
25
The reason is that Plaintiff caught the judges of the LA Superior Court in real
26 estate fraud - racketeering from the bench. There was no question that the
U.S. District Court would protect the judges, who were in a precarious
27
position:
28

-13-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT

17/26
 Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 15 of 120
9/17

The case was of the Enterprise Track, so none of them had an assignment
order, and none of them had any judicial authority, and none of them had any
2 immunity! In short - they were caught engaged in alleged criminal conduct
with no immunity at all.
3
For such reasons, it was insufficient that the U.S. District Court would dismiss
4 the complaint, it was essential that Plaintiff would not be able to file any
evidence. It was extremely undesirable for such records to be permanently on
5
Pacer. Surely the Judges of the LA Superior Court wished that the U.S.
6 District Court could offer them the Sharon Stone option ....

7 3. Is this the only case of this kind?

If the question is regarding real estate frauds by the LA Superior Court
8 judiciary, the question is surely notl We have identifIed at least one case that
IS a perfect match - Galdjie v Darwish ( SC052737). The LA Superior Court
9 refused to allow me to inspect the records, but I finally located the Defendant,
and had a chance to review her records. John Segal and David Pasternak
10 are in key positions in that case as well.

11 I separately conducted a search in the office of registrar/recorder, and

retrieved from there copies of numerous grant deeds by David Pasternak with
12 features similar to the one that James Wedick opined was a fraud.
13
If the question is regarding the conduct of Magistrate Woehrle seen in this
14 case, the answer is that it is not unique either Attorney Richard Fine is now
indefinitely incarcerated, after he was instrumental in exposing the bribes
15 taken by ALL judges of the LA Superior Court. Conditions in LA County are
such, that media do not report on his case. He was allowed no visitors for a
16 while, and not even pencil and paper. He therefore had to dictate by phone a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus The Petition was referred to Magistrate
17 Woehrle as well. Those more experienced than me say that the delay in
adjudicating the petition is unusual.
18 http·//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dlst-ct-Ia-fi ne-v-Ia-county-sheriff-doc-1-
habeas-corpus-petition.pdf
19 http://inproper!n la.com/OO-OO-OO-u s-dist-ct-Ia-fine-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1-
p2-habeas-corpus-petition. pdf
20
http://inproperinla com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-fl ne-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1-
21 p3-habeas-corpus-petition.pdf
http://lnproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-fi ne-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1-
22 p4-habeas-corpus-petition. pdf

23 Prior to that, retaliation of the LA Superior Court judges involved disbarment

of Attorney Richard Fine, a former U.S. Attorney, about 70 years old, on
24 charges of "Moral Turpitude", where moral turpitude was filing complaints
against LA Superior Court judges.
25
Att Fine challenged the disbarment in U.S. District Court, and the case was
26 referred to - Magistrate Woehrle.
27
What is most noticeable in all cases is the abuse of "Clerical Errors" The
28 "Filed" stamp on Attorney Richard Fine's Habeas Corpus is clearly

-14-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT

18/26
 Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 16 of 120
10/17

adulterated by hand. In addition, it appears that "Clerical Errors" have been

used to conceal the recusals of judges in the case of Attorney Fine
2 2.09-cv-01914
2:08-cv-02906
3
4. The general sequence of abuses in docketing was as follows:
4
1. At the beginning of litigation I filed a request for electronic filing, and
5 specifically expressed my concern that demanding costly and time
consuming paper filing from pro se only, and subjecting him to arbitrary
6
conduct of the clerks, was unreasonable. Request was denied The U.S.
7 Distnct Court in Los Angeles, would not allow pro se litigant to filed
electronically, while the U S. District Court in DC would allow such filing,
8 provided that the pro se litigant took the necessary class and passed it. I
hold that the rule of the Los Angeles court is in violation of constitutional
9 rights Furthermore, I am of the opinion that it was used as a tool to abuse a
pro se litigant (see below).
10
2. Manipulations of the docket started in Pacer started on day 1. The clerk
11 refused to sign valid summons that I presented to him, and insisted on
creating his own (which later I found was defective) - all in violation of rules of
12 court.
http://inproperinla com/08-03-05-us-d ist-ct-Ia-doc-no 1-summons-as-issued-
13
by-clerk. pdf
14
When I tried to correct the defect - again the clerk refused to sign the valid
15 summons.

16 3. The clerk then docketed the defective summons under the complaint, so
that it would hardly be noticed. In other U S. courts it is my impression that
17 the summons are docketed in the second slot. Regardless - the docketing of
Summons in Pacer should be consistent, and set by rule, given the central
18 significance of that paper in the litigation, and not be subject to manipulation.
19 4. Later, Minute Orders of Magistrate Woehrle were Inexplicably delayed
between filing and entry. Such delays were most harmful to me, since
20 Woehrle also interpreted the rules that the court was barred from emailing
21 notices to me, as it did to all other parties Therefore, delayed entry + mailing,
created a significant handicap. I believe that anytime that Minute Order is not
22 entered upon filing in Pacer, the judge should be required to justify the delay.

23 5 Conversely - all other parties filed their papers electronically, but I was
required to appear in person in the clerks office, where they would keep me
24 typically for 30-60 minutes. And after that - you may notice that some of my
papers, but none of any other party, were delayed in entry at times over a
25 month.
26 6. Later - my papers were artificially delayed in entry, presumably by adding
some attachment, for no reason at all. I filed my protest on that in a case
27
involving a critical ex parte application for leave to file first amended
28 complaint. The effect could have easily been killing the litigation by claiming

-15-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT

19/26
 Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 17 of 120
11/17

that the Magistrate was not aware of the ex parte, and blaming plaintiff for a
last minute filing (but in this case it was a stillborn litigation anyway). Simple
2 review of the sequence of the ordinal numbers of the records in this case
shows that some dishonest manipulation was underway.
3
The U.S. District Court and Pacer should be given credit for this!
4
This writer considers the ordinal numbering of records the quintessential
5 feature of a "Register of Actions" - as is clearly implied in the name. Pacer is
unique in its honesty on this account.
6
a, Ventura County- documents can be entered and removed.
7 b. LA Superior Court - no numbering at all - free for all
c. Cal Court of Appeal - the online "Docket" has no numbering, but it is not
8 the real docket either, the court uses the double books system.

9 7. Later - my papers including evidence that was undesirable, were hidden

under unrelated tags of other papers ( See Doc #52,#56, & #58).
10
8. When I protested this latest dishonesty - Magistrate Woehrle issued the
11 June 6, 2008 Minute Order (Doc #63), where she reinvented docketing - any
documents that I would file on the same day, would have the same face
12 page, regardless of their content. Preventing such abusive ad-hoc creative
rules, is the reason that the case management system must be formalized as
13
Rules of Court.
14 http.//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-63-08-06-
06-min ute-order-docketing-etc. pdf
15
9. To mark the 4th of July, 2008, I sent a request to about 30 members of
16 U.S. Congress, to "Open the Book of Judgments of LA County... Bring LA
back into the fold of the U.S. Constitution ..." I consider the denial of public
17 access to the court's public records for the past quarter century, which started
concomitantly with the installation of the case management systems at the LA
18 Superior Court (but failing to treat them as Rules of Court) as the key to the
regression of the LA justice system to some patterns of conduct of earlier
19 centuries. I believe that the most cost effective approach to the problem is
through restoration of First Amendment and Common Law rights affirmed by
20
the U S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications. Inc.
21
I have made numerous requests to that effect to the US Department of
22 Justice under the previous administration, but was routinely denied.
Nevertheless, I believe that such decision must be reversed, since such U.S
23 officers had and have no administrative discretion in this matter.

24 The paper was about 150 page compilation reflecting conditions of the public
records in LA County. Coming from LA, the face page was decorated with
25 images of Jefferson, palm trees, and the ocean waves. I tried to file it as a
record in Zernlk v Connor et ai, since it addressed some related core issues.
26 Magistrate Woehrle ruled to deny its filing, and ordered me to notice her
ruling.
27
28

-16-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT

20/26
 Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 18 of 120
12/17

This was, In fact, in my opinion the only one out of some 20 discrepancy
notices that was processed in compliance with the law (Doc #81)'
2 http.!/inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-la-zern ik-v-con nor-doc-81-
docketed-discrepancy-notice-for-reguest-for-congressional-action.pdf
3
10. I first filed a motion for reconsideration, Then eagerly complied with the
4 order to notice the ruling denying filing.
5 11. However, Magistrate Woehrle was obviously unhappy with the notice of
6 ruling ... that is why she preferred the perverted discrepancy procedures. The
true valid procedure makes permanent record of the ruling. She wanted none
7 of that.

8 Plaintiff's Notice of Ruling of the Denial of Filing on the July 4th message:
"Open the Book of Judgment of LA County... Bring back LA into the fold
9 of the U.S. Constitution ..." was docketed in Pacer. However, the record
was docketed with no Pacer header security imprint (Doc #87-1).
10 http·llinproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zern ik-v-con nor-doc-87-1-
mlssing-pacer-security-header-imprint-08-08-08 pdf
11
12. At that point, I considered that manipulation of Pacer operations to be on
12 the criminal side, and reported it to FBI, with copy for the docket.
13
13. The Notice of Complaint to FBI of obstruction of justice through Pacer
14 (Doc #88), was initially targeted for discrepancy, but later recovered and
docketed. That reversal of ruling, in and of itself, is a perverted procedure as
15 well. The bottom line was that all papers were deemed in discrepancy and
disappeared with no record at all. Later, Magistrate Woehrle could pick and
16 choose and recover some of them.
http://inproperin la. com/OO-OO-OO-u s-dist-ct-Ia-zern ik-v-con nor-doc-88-1-
17 piaintiff-co mplaint-to-fbi-on-pe rversion -i n-pacer. pdf

18 14. Under the notice to FBI, another record was hidden, which remains
unknown ... there is no way to identify it at all:
19
This was a volume of some 500 pages describing the various frauds in the
20 conduct of David Pasternak, including real estate fraud on behalf of the court,
21 per James Wedick opinion letter.

22 Here is the volume missing from Pacer:

http·llinproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zern ik-v-con nor-exh-vol-v-
23 pasternak08-06-02. pdf

24 15, I deemed the denial of my right, as Plaintiff, to file papers in court, as

abuse of my constitutional rights, and accordingly I filed several protests and
25 requests (Doc #85) for honest docketing (denied -Doc #86).
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-la-zernik-v-connor-doc-85-ex-
26 parte-reg-honest-docketing. pdf
http //inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-la-zernlk-v-connor-doc-86-minute-
27
order-deny-reg-for-honest-docketing. pdf
28

-17-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT

21/26
 Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 19 of 120
13/17

16. Eventually, I filed statement of disqualification for a cause of Magistrate

Woehrle (Doc #89), where the abuse of First Amendment rights was the
2 primary cause
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-89-ex-
3 disgualification-for-a-cause-magistrate-woehrle.pdf

4 17, Please notice on the face page, that the Statement of Disqualification for
a Cause was also initially targeted for "Discrepancy", but was later recovered.
5
6 18. Although I abandoned this process in summer 2008, while my opposition
to motion to dismiss was due, no ruling was made in this case for some 8
7 months When I realized that the dismissal is imminent, I filed Doc #105
"Notice of Allegedly Perverted Discrepancy Notices", so that there would be
8 in the docket some record of the numerous papers that disappeared with no
record at all.
9 http://inproperin la com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zern Ik-v-con nor-doc-1 05-09-04-
09-notlce-of-perverted-discrepancy-notices-missing-proposed-order. pdf
10
19) Regarding the docketing of the latter (Doc #105), it did not escape its own
11 manipulation - please notice the difference between the paper as docketed,
where the Proposed Order, which I deliberately included as an attachment,
12 was removed:
13 http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-1 05-09-04-
09-notice-of-perverted-discrepancy-notices-mlssing-proposed-order pdf
14
For comparison, I posted online the paper as filed in court, with the Proposed
15 Order included:
http://inproperinla com/.OHeadlng-1 03-us-dlst-ct-la-perverted-use-of-
16 discrapancy-notices-with-proposed-order pdf

17 One can argue that proposed orders should not be included with the
document, but the rule must be consistent. The other parties who were filing
18 electronically included proposed orders in their papers as attachment. I was
not permitted to do so.
19
The issue was of significance to me in this particular paper, since I was trying
20 to press Magistrate Woehrle to rule on the matter - my request for
21 incorporation of her perverted discrepancy notices. And obviously, she was
not fond of the idea.
22
The Proposed Order was deliberately bound into the paper, in front of the
23 POS. The clerk had to take the paper apart and remove these pages.

24 F. PROPOSED TAKE HOME LESSONS:

25 1 The rules of operating such system must be handled pursuant to the Rule
Making Enabling Act.
26
2. Such systems should have been presented for public comment and
27 challenge prior to their Introduction into use, just like rules published on
28 paper.

-18-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT

22/26
 Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 20 of 120
14/17

3. Once such system is introduced, individual judges must not hold the
2 authority to change the rules of operation of the system at will, the same way
that they are not allowed to change the Rules of Court at will.
3
4. Rules of Court setting the way of docketing proposed orders in Pacer must
4 put this issue to rest. My opinion is that Proposed orders must be part of the
docket.
5
6 5. Rules of Court must also explicitly say under what conditions a clerk is
allowed to remove pages from litigant paper in the process of scanning it Into
7 Pacer.

8 F. PROPOSALS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS:

9 1, Enforcement of the Rule Making Enabling Act relative to case

management systems:
10 The one-page proposal linked below, was submitted to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees committee with the hope of generating debate.
11 http://inproperinla.com/. 0Head Ing-201-conclusions-computers&courts-
concerns&leglstlative-proposal-s.pdf
12
2. Restoration of First Amendment and common Law rights of the 10 millions
13
residents of LA County,
14 Residents of LA County have been denied such rights for the past quarter
century. We believe that such a simple measure would bring about a major
15 positive change in the justice system of LA County, including release of the
Rampart FIPs.
16 http://inproperinla.com/08-1 0-1 O-reply-modified-reg uest-for-special-counsel-
fbi-&-doj-as-filed-s.pdf
17
18 43) The reasons that I copied such a lengthy email in full are the following:

19
a. I am going to file the complaint in the u.s. District Court in Washington DC today.
Again, I am in pro se, and I hope and believe that I would be treated fairly at the
20
21
Honorable u.s. District Court of Washington DC. I hope and believe that the abuse I
was subjected to was specific to the LA Courts. However, given abuse and disregard
22
23
for my civil rights pursuant to the u.s. Constitution and its Amendments which I have
24
endured in other State and u.s. courts in Los Angeles County, I also notice this
complaint as demanding the safeguard of my Human Rights pursuant to International
25
Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am also an Israeli citizen/,
26
and I am filing this complaint with the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC with a
27
request for monitoring of conduct of the U.S. court actions in my regard following
28

-19-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT

23/26
15/17
18/05/2009 District of Columbia live database

JURY, PROSE-NP, TYPE-C

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-00805-RJL

ZERNIK v. MELSON et al Date Filed: 05/01/2009

Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Cause: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory
Actions
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
JOSEPH H. ZERNIK represented by JOSEPH H. ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Boulevard
La Verne, CA 91750
(310) 435-9107
PRO SE

V.
Defendant
KENNETH MELSON

Defendant
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Defendant
KENNETH KAISER

Defendant
FBI

Defendant
SAMUEL BEZEK

Defendant
SEC

Defendant
KENNETH LEWIS

ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.… 1/3
24/26
16/17
18/05/2009 District of Columbia live database
Defendant
TIMOTHY MAYOPOULOS

Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION
(BAC)

Defendant
BAC AUDIT COMMITTEE

Defendant
DON LENTS

Defendant
PETER VAN CLEVE

Defendant
BRYAN CAVE, LLP

Date Filed # Docket Text

05/01/2009 1 PETITION for Writ of Mandamus ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4616020266.)
filed by JOSEPH H. ZERNIK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf,
) (jf, ). (Entered: 05/05/2009)
05/01/2009 Summons (13) Issued as to BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BAC
AUDIT COMMITTEE, DON LENTS, PETER VAN CLEVE, BRYAN CAVE,
LLP, KENNETH MELSON, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, KENNETH
KAISER, FBI, SAMUEL BEZEK, SEC, KENNETH LEWIS, TIMOTHY
MAYOPOULOS. (jf, ) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
05/01/2009 2 MOTION for cm/ecf password by JOSEPH H. ZERNIK (jf, ) (Entered:
05/05/2009)
05/13/2009 3 MOTION to Disqualify Judge by JOSEPH H. ZERNIK (jf, ) (Entered:
05/17/2009)
05/13/2009 4 EX PARTE MOTION to Compel by JOSEPH H. ZERNIK (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(jf, ) (Entered: 05/17/2009)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
05/18/2009 08:06:31

ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.… 2/3
25/26
17/17
18/05/2009 District of Columbia live database
PACER Login: dr2600 Client Code:
Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:09-cv-00805-RJL
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08

ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.… 3/3
26/26