P. 1
09-12-29 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in Re Visit to United States District Court, Central District of California, and discovery of records in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

09-12-29 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in Re Visit to United States District Court, Central District of California, and discovery of records in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

|Views: 13|Likes:
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA . Joseph Zernik PO Box 526 La Verne, California 91750 Tel: 323 515 4583 Fax: 801-998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net My previous visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles, for such purpose was on September 18, 15 2009. During that visit I presented the Deputy Clerk of
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA . Joseph Zernik PO Box 526 La Verne, California 91750 Tel: 323 515 4583 Fax: 801-998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net My previous visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles, for such purpose was on September 18, 15 2009. During that visit I presented the Deputy Clerk of

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Jan 04, 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

10/30/2010

pdf

text

original

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 This page was deliberately left blank.

23 24 25 26 27 28
-1DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

Joseph Zernik PO Box 526 La Verne, California 91750 Tel: 323 515 4583 Fax: 801-998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2. My previous visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles, for such purpose was on September 18, 15 2009. During that visit I presented the Deputy Clerk of duty with a written request to access 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-2DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK
IN RE: December 29, 2009 visit to US District Court Los Angeles. I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows: This declaration was written as a memorandum of my December 29, 2009 visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which I know to be true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto. 1. My visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles was part of my ongoing efforts for at least two and a half years, to exercise in various courts my rights pursuant to the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) – to access court records – to inspect and to copy.

court records – to inspect and to copy - in my case – Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and in the case of Richard Fine Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). In both cases I had also previously filed complaints regarding alleged adulteration of records filed in court on paper by pro se filers. 3. During the September 18, 2009 visit, I was denied access to all records, which I requested access to. Access to paper records was denied on September 18, 2009, under the claim that the paper records had already been shredded. However, when I requested access to the court records, documenting the claimed shredding, such access was denied. 4. Both before and after the September 18, 2009 visit, I corresponded with the office of the Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi. In most instances, I emailed to Ms Nafisi, and the response was by email and/or by letters from Ms Dawn Bullock, Records Supervisor. In such communications I was repeatedly promised that I would be permitted access to records – specifically – the Notices

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

of Electronic Filings (“NEFs”) in my case. However, when I asked in correspondence for the exact fee, and offered to pay, no response was ever received. I therefore decided to appear in person again. I also sent in advance notice to Clerk Nafisi, and asked to confirm that access would be permitted this time around, if I appeared in person. No response was received. 5. In preparation for the December 29, 2009, I prepared a written request, as was the case during the September 18, 2009 visit. Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of the request I filed with the Clerk of the Court on December 29, 2009, and it was inscribed by Record Supervisor Dawn Bullock “Received” – on my copy, with her hand signature and date. 6. The requests on December 29, 2009 pertained to records from four different court cases. In chronological order, they were: a) US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) - the case that represented the US government response to the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) - the largest case of corruption of the justice system in the history of the US. The case purportedly yielded the Consent Decree, which purportedly was the legal foundation for the operation of the Consent Decree Bureau from 2001 to 2009, and with it - the Office of Overseer for Civil Rights in LA. I had good reasons to suspect that papers in this case were not valid and effectual court orders – instead – they were void, not voidable court papers. In particular – the Consent Decree – was a paper of the highest public policy significance. b) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - where I sued some 10 judges of the LA Superior Court, Attorney David Pasternak, Countrywide's Chief Legal Officer - Sandor Samuels and CEO Angelo Mozilo for what was claimed to amount to racketeering. I believed that the US Court subjected me to a sham court action in the case, and that none of the orders and also the judgment were honest, valid, and effectual court papers. Instead they were void, not voidable. c) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine. I believed

25 26 27 28

that the US Court subjected Richard Fine to a sham court action in the case, and that none of the orders and also the judgment were honest, valid, and effectual court papers. Instead – they were void, not voidable.

-3-

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

d) In re: Fine (2:09-mc-00129) - disciplinary proceedings pertaining to disbarment of Richard Fine. I believed that the US Court subjected Richard Fine to a sham court action in the case, and that none of the orders and also the judgment were honest, valid, and effectual court papers. Instead – they were void, not voidable. 7. I alleged that all four cases pertained to various types of review by the US Court of alleged widespread corruption of judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In all four cases, I believed that the US Court colluded with alleged corruption of the State Courts, by conducting sham court actions and did not issue honest valid, and effectual orders and judgments in the matters raised in the complaints. 8. I arrived at the US District Court, Records Department of the Clerk’s Office on December 31, 2009 between 3:00-3:15pm, and I presented my request to a Deputy-Clerk of duty, who gave me his name as John. He read the requests, and then told me that I would have to wait for Ms Dawn Bullock to come and handle my requests in person. Ms Bullock, Records Supervisor was said to be in a meeting, and she arrived towards 4:00pm. Once she arrived, she appeared to try her best to address my questions. 9. Regarding my specific requests, as outlined in Exhibit 1, Ms Bullock informed me as follows: a. My requests to access records from four different paper court files (listed in ¶6, above), even my own case, were denied. Deputy Clerk John initially claimed that the paper filings were destroyed immediately upon scanning. When I suggested that it could not

20 possibly be the case, he tracked back. Nevertheless - I was denied access to any paper 21 court file records. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-4DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

b. My requests to access electronic court file records in CM/ECF - specifically - the Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) of the same four court files, were likewise denied - even in my own case - with no explanation at all. c. My requests to access records, which documented the shredding of the claimed-to-beshredded paper court files, were likewise denied - with no explanation at all.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

d. My requests to access (to obtain copies) paper printouts of electronic court file – the NEFs in the same four cases, were likewise denied, with the exception of printouts of the NEFs in my own case, Zernik v Connor et al, which I was provided by Ms Bullock, and for which I thanked her. 10. Ms Bullock and I had a long technical discussion in re: the legal foundation for the operation of CM/ECF at the US Court for the Central District of California, for the specific function of the NEFs in that system, and for public access to the NEFs, or denial thereof: a. Ms Bullock stated that she had had to research the questions raised in our past correspondence, and more so would have to research the questions raised on December 29, 2009, since nobody had asked her those questions before. b. Ms Bullock stated that the foundation for the operation of CM/ECF at the California Central District was in the General Order 08-02. c. From memory, I told her that such order was unusual among the General Orders - since it

15 had no name of a judge who authored it, let alone a signature, and likewise, had no 16 attestation by a clerk. Ms Bullock checked it up, apparently found my recollection to be 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-5DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

correct, and then told me that she would get back to me on the issue. d. Ms Bullock likewise stated that the denial of access to NEFs, except in one's own case, was founded in General Order 08-02. I challenged her from memory on that issue as well. I stated from memory that NEFs were mentioned only in one or two paragraphs of the order, but no reference was made to access, only to the NEFs function as certifying court records, and also as authenticating service and entry of parties' papers, and of court orders and judgments. Again - Ms Bullock said that she would research the matter. e. Ms Bullock stated that the denial of access to NEFs resulted from the fact that personal information was included in them. I challenged that answer, since the same information was also provided in the Parties and Attorneys page – which was publicly accessible. Ms

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Bullock agreed with me on that point. f. I also raised the question regarding the display of general orders of the Court online. It was always the same exact 50 general orders that were available on display for public viewing and access, for at least two years. However, it was obvious that in fact, the total number of general orders of the court was much larger. Ms Bullock was not clear on that issue. However, in response to my request she promised to provide me a printout of the index of standing orders covering the period from 2001-2009. She stated that such period would cover all general orders pertaining to electronic filing at the California Central District.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-6DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

g. I also asked about the rules pertaining to issuing or not issuing of a valid NEF for a given record filed at court. The response was that an NEF was automatically issued any time a clerk scanned or posted a record into the PACER docket. I challenged that notion. It would have to be researched as well. 11. Given that Terry Nafisi - Clerk of the Court, was on vacation till the beginning of the year 2010, I was told that I would likely get a written response on my questions within a couple of weeks after that date. 12. Although productivity of my visit could be seem by others as miserably low - if measured as the fraction of records which I successfully accessed vs those I requested access to, I considered the December 29, 2009 visit to the court a milestone. It was the first time I got access to my own NEFs - albeit – only as paper printouts, access to inspect the original electronic records was still denied - since March 2008. 13. In conclusion: Based on my first hand experience at the US Court, Central District of California, and also based on my experience at other US Courts, and even more so - at the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, I believe that judges, clerks, and courts adopted in the recent decade new interpretation of the law, which severely restricted the rights of the public to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

access court records – to inspect and to copy. In particular – concerted efforts were experienced in various US Courts to exclude various pertinent electronic records from public access. 14. Attached to this declaration are: Exhibit 1: December 29, 2009 Request by Joseph Zernik to access court records, inscribed “Received” by Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock, a total of 3 pages. Exhibit 2: Any and all papers, which I was provided by Ms Dawn Bullock on December 29, 2009, in response to my requests, in the order that they were presented, a total of 25 pages. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31st day in December, 2009, in Los Angeles county, California. Joseph H Zernik

By_________________ JOSEPH H ZERNIK PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750 Tel: (323) 515-4583 Fax:(801) 998-0917 <jz12345@earthlink.net>

-7-

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

EXHIBIT 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA .

EXHIBIT 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->