10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights s

Digitally signed
by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.16
09:28:14 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
10-07-16 Complaint for Public Corruption against James A Richman – Justice of California
Court of Appeals, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke – Clerk, of
the Los Angeles Superior Court in RE: Conduct of pretense litigation in Sturgeon v
Los Angeles County (BC351286)
Executive Summary 1
Los Angles, July 16 – 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
justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special
emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of
integrity of the justice system in the United States.
1
For ease of access to the hyperlinks provided in instant complaint, an online copy was also posted online at:
http://inproperinla.com/10-07-15-richman-clarke-mccoy-s.pdf
z Page 2/10 July 16, 2010 TOC
Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.

221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
By certified mail.
By fax: 213-894-6269
TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s

Complaint for public corruption and deprivation of rights by Joseph Zernik, PhD and Human Rights Alert
(NGO) against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeals, John A Clarke – Clerk and Charles
McCoy – Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court in RE: Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286)
COMPLAINT
1. What did the experts say about the justice system in Los Angeles County, California?
• "Innocent people remain in prison"
• "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice
system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to
the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) i
• "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did
not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) ii
• "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 (2000) iii
2. Complainants
Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, resident of Los Angeles County, California
Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: 323-515-4583
Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697
Email: (preferred) jz12345@earthlink.net
3. Accused
a) JAMES A RICHMAN - Justice, California Court of Appeal, First District
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-865-7300
E-mail: First.District@jud.ca.gov
b) JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, Los Angeles Superior Court

c) CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
d) M GODDERZ – Deputy Clerk, Los Angeles Superior Court
e) GREGORY DREPAC – Deputy Clerk, Los Angeles Superior Court
f) FREDERIC BENNETT – Counsel, Los Angeles Superior Court
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Phone: (213) 974-5600
Fax: (213) 617-7176
E-mail: jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org
4. General claims
Conduct of the accused in the caption, referenced above, is alleged as including, but not limited to:
a) Public Corruption;
b) Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law;
c) Honest Services Fraud;
d) Fraud;
e) Mail Fraud;
f) Adulteration of Court Records;
g) Conspiracy;
h) Denial of access to court records, and
i) Denial of due process of law.
It should be emphasized that conduct, which is detailed in instant complaint, is not unique at all, other pretense
litigations at the Los Angeles Superior Court were identified as well. Separate complaint is filed relative to the
case, referenced above, due to its overriding public policy significance.
5. Complainants are not attorneys, neither are they represented by counsel in matters, which are
subject of instant complaint.
Therefore, in most case, no sections of the code were cited. Instead, the US Attorney is requested to
apply the correct sections of the code. In case errors were made, where sections of the code were cited,
the US Attorney is requested to disregard such references to the code, and instead - review the facts
themselves and apply the correct section of the code.
6. Additional evidence and records are provided in records linked below, in respective court files,
and in complaints previously filed with the office of US Attorney, Los Angeles.
For the sake of brevity, only a small part of the evidence was described and linked below. Please do not
hesitate to contact Dr Zernik for additional evidence in this matter.
Since the Court denies access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket), analysis of conduct in
the case was largely based on the online Case Summary iv (not a formal court record) and the images of
court records provided online by the Court. v
Additional evidence pertaining to instant complaint is found at:

a) Records under caption of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court. For
convenience of those who have no access to the records, most records were also posted in an online
archive. vi The section of the archive holding the pertinent records can be found by searching the web
page of the archive by query for BC351286.
b) In particular – allegations that are the basis of instant complaint and related court records are detailed
in Dr Zernik’s August 13, 2009 Ex Parte Application for Leave to File and related records in
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). vii
c) Dr Zernik’s correspondence with the Court in re: Denial of access court records – to inspect and to
copy. viii
d) Records under the caption of Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, in ancillary proceedings of which Richard Fine was purported to have been
arrested and imprisoned, where similar conduct by the Court and some of the accused was noted.
e) Complaints, which were separately filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of
California, pertaining to conduct of Marina v LA County (BS109420), where similar conduct was
alleged:
i. Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Clerk John A Clarke, and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public
corruption and deprivation of rights. ix
f) Complaints, which were separately filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of
California, pertaining to conduct of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, where similar conduct was alleged:
i. Complaint against David Pasternak and others –for public corruption and deprivation of rights. x
ii. Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering. xi
7. Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) was purportedly litigation for injunction against Los Angeles
County, California, and others – to end secret “not permitted” payments to all judges in Los
Angeles County, California, which were called by media “bribes”. xii
The online Case Summary xiii (not a formal court record) lists litigation where Plaintiff Sturgeon filed on
April 24, 2006 a petition for injunctive relief against Los Angeles County, its Board of Supervisors and others.
Appeal in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) purportedly continues to this date, and the purported litigation
included proceedings in open court and publication of various online records by the Los Angeles Superior
Court, which tripled in the case as party, judge, and clerk.
Some of the highlights of the online Case Summary:

04/24/2006 Complaint
05/03/2006 Notice (OF COURT ORDER RE OUT-OF-COUNTY TRANSFER) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff /Petitioner
02/07/2007 Notice (of entry of order)
02/07/2007 Notice of Appeal Filed by Plaintiff
02/02/2009 Declaration (OF KAHN A. SCOLNICK IN SUPPORT OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE)
08/21/2009 Judgment
09/28/2009 Notice of Appeal
10/05/2009 Ntc to Prepare Reporters Transcrpt, Filed by Respondent
8. The evidence shows that Judge James A Richman presided in such litigation with no authority at
all – his conduct was central to the enactment of pretense litigation.
a) Court records show 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. xiv
b) Court records further show that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely
referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding in the case “by reference”. However, no Appointment
Order was ever found in court records in the case.
c) 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.
Therefore, a reasonable person would conclude that Justice James A Richman presided in the case with no
authority at all.
9. It is alleged that all Minutes, which were issued in the case for Justice Richman actions were
defective on their faces and are adulterated court records
Review of the compiled Minutes, Order, and Judgments in the case xv shows that all Minutes pertaining to
actions of Justice Richman, without exception, include defective signature boxes: The printed name of Deputy
Clerk M Godderz was missing under the signature line. It is alleged that upon investigation and discovery it
would be determined that such minutes were the product of adulteration and invalid operation of Sustain – the
Court’s case management system. When Sustain is operated in a valid and honest manner, the name of the
Deputy Clerk is automatically printed under the signature line.
10. No judgment was ever entered in the case, however judgments issued by Justice James A Richman
were falsely represented as valid and effectual judgments of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
As an example: The February 7, 2007 Judgment xvi by Justice James Richman is false on its face. It is
presented in court records as a Judgment signed by Justice Richman on February 7, 2007, however, its Proof
of Service is dated January 16, 2007, and belongs to a different record – an earlier “Proposed Judgment”
11. The accused continue to cover up such conduct through denial of First Amendment rights – to
access court records to inspect and to copy.
As detailed in letters to the accused Charles McCoy and John Clarke, Dr Zernik repeatedly requested to access
court records, to inspect and to copy. Such access was denied. Albeit, Presiding Judge McCoy and Clerk John
Clarke never responded on the requests. Instead, Court Counsel provided a series of false and deliberately
misleading responses, with no authority at all. xvii
12. The accused continue to cover up such conduct by refusing to publish honest, valid Local Rules of
Court pertaining to entry of judgment in Los Angeles County. Instead, for several decades the
Court continues to publish false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court.
Requests were filed with Clerk John A Clarke and Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, pursuant to First
Amendment rights and US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) – to
allow public access to the Register of Actions in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). xviii The accused
continue to this date to deny access to the Register of Actions in the case, with no explanation at all.
Moreover, it is alleged that the accused conspired to deny access to the Register of Actions, in order to cover-
up conduct of the court in enacting pretense litigation in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). It is alleged
that upon investigation and discovery it would be found that the Register of Action in Sustain – the Court’s
computerized case management system – includes definitive evidence of the fraudulent nature of the
litigation.
13. The records as a whole would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the litigation was never
deemed by the accused as a valid litigation of the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, only pretense litigation.
Given that Justice Richman acted with no authority, that all Minutes related to his actions were defective,
none of his judgments were entered as judgment that were effectual for any purpose, the Court denies access
to the Register of Actions (California civil docket), and the Court refuses to publish honest, valid, and
effectual Local Rules of Court, a reasonable person would conclude that the litigation under the caption of
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) was pretense litigation, nothing more.
14. General practices of the Los Angeles Superior Court, relative to the publication of online records is
alleged as large-scale fraud on the people.
The Los Angeles Superior Court continues for years to deny the public access to valid court records.
a) The Court provides an online Index of All Cases, albeit – with a disclaimer – that such index must
not be relied upon.
b) The Court provides an online Calendars of the Courts, albeit – with a disclaimer – that such
calendar must not be relied upon.
c) The Court provides online Case Summaries, albeit – with a disclaimer – that such calendar must
not be relied upon.
d) The Court provides online images of court records, albeit – such records are provided through a
server that perennially triggers security alerts – since it is operated under a false identity certificate.
Needless to say, court record that are obtained from such a fraudulent source cannot be deemed as
authenticated, valid court records.
It was therefore claimed in the Human Rights Alert April 2010 report to the United Nations, that
implementation of fraudulent case management systems and online public access system were the enabling
tool for the precipitous deterioration of the justice system in the United States.
The report further claimed that all such systems must be subjected to legally and publicly accountable
validation (certified, functional logic verification).
15. Justice James A Richman refuses to answer: What was the legal foundation for his conduct in
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Requests were forwarded to Justice James A Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his conduct in
presiding in the caption of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). Justice James A Richman has refused to this
date to respond.
16. Conduct of the accused amounted to conspiracy to deprive the 10 million residents of Los Angeles
of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings for years to come.
Given the nature of the matters that were subject of the litigation in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), it is
alleged that conduct of the accused amounted to a conspiracy to deprive all 10 million residents of Los
Angeles County of any honest court services for years to come.
The litigation was intended to provide the pretense of legal review and approval of the taking of “bribes”.
In fact, the accused knew fully well that they were only engaging in pretense, and that ruling, orders, and
judgments that they falsely issued and represented as valid and effectual court records, were all void, not
voidable.
17. Therefore, conduct of the accused is alleged as public corruption and deprivation of rights of all 10
million residents of Los Angeles County, California, under the color of law.
It is alleged that upon review of the facts as a whole, any reasonable person would conclude that conduct of
the accused amounted to public corruption and deprivation of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of
all residents of Los Angeles County, California, pursuant to US and ratified international law.
18. Alleged widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles is drawing both national and
international awareness.
As part of the first ever review by the United Nations (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, report was
filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Dr Joseph Zernik xix alleging widespread corruption of the justice
system in Los Angeles County, California. The report further documented the refusal of senior officers of the
US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to ratified international law – in failure to
accord equal protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County.
As part of the UPR process, US, UK, Germany, and France based blogs were created,xx where over 17,000
readers from some 85 nations were recorded so far.
A Scribd site was created for Human Rights Alert in January 2010, which has recorded over 70,000 reads,
with over 500 reads a day in recent months.xxi
Additional news sites, where Dr Zernik and Human Rights Alert routinely issue press releases, which were
attracted tens of thousands of additional readers. xxii
Furthermore, an online archive was established, xxiii documenting the alleged abuses of rights. The archive,
not a user’s friendly site by any stretch of imagination, has attracted thousands of visits per month from
nations worldwide, totaling of close to 90,000 visits in 2010 alone. xxiv
19. Remedies are requested by the US Attorney, Central District of California, including, but not
limited to equal protection of all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County.
US Attorney, Central District of California, is herein requested to provide the following remedies:
a) Equal protection of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all 10 millions who reside in Los
Angeles County under US and ratified international law, by putting an end to pretend litigations at the Los
Angeles Superior Court, and by compelling the Court to comply with California, US, and ratified
international law.
b) Enforcement of First Amendment rights and US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978) in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling the Los Angeles Superior
Court to permit public access – to inspect and to copy court records - including, but not limited to the
Register of Actions of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286).
c) Enforcement of Fair Hearings and Due Process rights in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling
the Los Angeles Superior Court to publish honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court, including, but
not limited to rules pertaining to entry of judgment and maintenance of Books of Judgments, as required
by California Civil Code.
d) Investigation and, if necessary, prosecution of the accused, in re: allegations of public corruption and
deprivation of rights under the color of law. It should be noted that the request in instant complaint for US
investigation of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, is a repeat of the recommendations
of the official report of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006). xxv
20. Request for due process in acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints at the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California.
As previously noted, the web pages of the US Attorney Office and information received from staff of the
Office, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that at best a vague and ambiguous procedures were
established at the US Attorney’s Office for acceptance, acknowledgment, and review of complaints at the
newly re-established Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit. It is therefore explicitly requested that the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California, accord due process to instant complaint:
a) That the complaint be accepted as such;
b) That the US Attorney Office acknowledge receipt of the complaint and issue a reference number for the
complaint;
c) That the complaint be duly reviewed, and
d) That following review, a response be provided, verified by an authorized person.
Respectfully,
Dated: July 16, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
CC:
1) Prof David Burcham – former Dean, Loyola Law School
<david.burcham@lmu.edu>
2) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School
<EChemerinsky@law.uci.edu>
3) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project
<dmcmorris@advanceproj.org>
4) UPR Office of the United Nations
<UPRsubmissions@ohchr.org>
5) UPR Office of the US State Department:
<upr_info@state.gov>
6) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein – Senator from California
7) US Senate and House of Representatives – Judiciary Committees
LINKS
i
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
ii
Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
iii
Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
iv
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) – online Case Summary (not a formal court record):
v
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) – record images provided online by the Court
vi
Online archive:
http://inproperinla.com/
vii
August 13, 2009 Dr Zernik’s Ex Parte Application for Orders and for Leave to File and related records
in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286):
1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34404864/
09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-1-Dr-Zernik-s-Ex-
Parte-Application-for-Orders-for-Access-Leave-to-File
09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-2-Dr-Zernik-s-
Motions-Exec-Summary-and-Table-of-Contents
Motions-Vol-i
Motions-Vol-II-Part1-p1-98
5) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34405526
/09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-5-Dr-Zernik-s-
Motions-Vol-II-Part8a-p492-641-31
Motions-Vol-II-Part8b-p641-32-678
viii
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Correspondence with the Court in re: Requests to access court
records – to inspect and to copy:
ix
Complaint against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public corruption and deprivation of
rights
x
Complaint against David Pasternak – for public corruption and deprivation of rights
xi
Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering.
xii
Case Summary (not a formal Court record) in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34389177
xiii
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) – July 15, 2010 online Case Summary (not a formal court record):
xiv
See pertinent court records, or lack there of, in Dr Zernik’s Motion to Intervene and related Appendix –
linked under (vii), above.
xv
09-08-04 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County BC351286 at the Los Angeles Superior Court Compiled Minutes
Orders and Judgments by Justice Richman s
xvi
False on its face February 7, 2007 Judgment by Justice James A Richman, which appears in court records
with a Proof of Service dated January 16, 2007, belonging to a different record – an earlier “Proposed
Judgment”.
xvii
Dr Zernik’s Requests to access court records:
See notes (xviii).
xviii
Requests filed with Clerk John A Clarke and Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, to allow public access to
the Register of Actions in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286):
xix
Human Rights Alert (NGO) report to the UN for the 2010 UPR:
1) Press Release:
2) Submission:
3) Appendix:
xx
Blog associated with Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
xxi
Scribd site of Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
xxii
News sites where Human Rights Alert posts routine releases:
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
xxiii
Online archive documenting corruption by Bank of America and other financial institutions:
http://inproperinla.com/
xxiv
Intense interest by the Russian Republic in corruption of US courts and banking regulation:
xxv
Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) – see (i), above.

10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights s

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digitally signed

Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.

TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s

b) JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, Los Angeles Superior Court

Additional evidence pertaining to instant complaint is found at:

Some of the highlights of the online Case Summary:

You might also like