This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Date: 2010.06.28 09:11:21 +03'00'
10-06-28 Complaint against Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court – for public corruption, deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, and deprivation of human rights through large-scale false imprisonments, including, but not limited to the ongoing imprisonment of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Person).
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 1 by Joseph Zernik, PhD and Human Rights Alert (NGO) against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law, through large-scale false imprisonments, including but not limited to ongoing imprisonment of the Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), filed herein with the Office of US Attorney, Central District of California, for the recently publicized “specialized unit to prosecute public corruption and civil rights cases”. i Please also accept instant Citizen’s Complaint as a request for Equal Protection pursuant to the US Constitution and also as a request for Equal Protection pursuant to ratified international law – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County. 1. Complainant Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Dr Joseph Zernik, resident of Los Angeles County, California Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750 Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750 Tel: 323-515-4583 Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697 Email: (preferred) email@example.com 2. Accused: a) Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County Address: 4700 Ramona Blvd, Monterey Park, CA 91754 Work: 323-526-5000 Fax: 323-267-6600 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com b) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Address: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 110 North Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90012
A copy of instant complaint was posted online, for easy access to the links below. http://inproperinla.com/10-06-28-hra-complaint-re-false-imprisonments-in-los-angeles-county-s.pdf
June 28, 2010
Conduct of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court regarding the confinement of persons originating from Los Angeles County under the color of law is alleged as large-scale arbitrary arrests and false imprisonments, and serious abuse of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all who reside in Los Angeles County, in violation of US Law, including, but not limited to: i. Public Corruption, ii. Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law, iii. Honest Services Fraud, iv. Extortion, v. Fraud, vi. Mail Fraud, and vii. Conspiracy 3. Complainant is NOT an Attorney For such reason, in most case, no section of the code was cited. US Attorney is requested to apply the correct sections of the code. In case error was made, where sections of the code were cited, US Attorney is requested to disregard such citations, and apply the correct section of the code instead. 4. Additional Evidence and Records: 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. Additional records, including analysis of numerous inmates records are linked in the paper: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Prisoners Registration Systems,ii and Rampart-FIPs – a Review. iii Additional record pertaining to the Rampart Scandal are readily available under US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769), in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006), and in reports cited and reviewed as part of the latter report. A. Conduct of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 5. Expert Opinion Regarding Conduct of the Sheriff’s Department: Conduct of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, was analyzed in a paper submitted for peer review in a high-level international computer science conference, attached and linked below. iv The paper analyzed the online public access system established by the Sheriff’s Department Inmate Information Center. The paper concluded:
With the transition to administration of the justice system through digital records, the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department establish a setup, which is routinely found in other parts of the justice system in California and elsewhere in the United States: Legal records are internally held by the authorities in case management systems – a subtype of database management systems, where public access is denied. Public access is routinely provided through a separate, online, public access system. Validity and integrity, or lack thereof, in such setup of relational databases, is the essence of the deficiencies identified in the current report. The records, which are provided in the online public access system, are neither verified, nor authenticated in any manner at all. Yet the authorities rely on the public’s confidence in such records. To compound the problem, this setup, of relational databases is employed by the authorities to deny public access to what are public records by law – the honest, true, and valid arrest and booking records of the prisoners. The results presented in the current report lead to the conclusion that presentation of such false data in the Los Angeles County IIC was not the outcome of inadvertent errors, but part of conduct intended to affect false imprisonments and deprivation of Liberty. Beyond the abuse of those who are falsely imprisoned, the mere existence of such conditions in the justice system in Los Angeles and Marin Counties, California, are alleged as large-scale abuse of the human rights of over 10 million residents of these counties, by the justice system itself. The findings of the current report are consistent with previous media and official reports of large-
June 28, 2010 scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, mostly of black and Latino prisoners. The novelty in the current report is only in demonstrating that data mining of such systems allows the public to document the abuses without resorting to complicated and protracted public investigations. Therefore, while digital systems provided simple tools for the justice system to circumvent the law, data mining of the same systems provides a simple and effective tool to demonstrate the corruption of the justice system and large-scale human rights abuses. Ways and means are readily available, whereby the systems fraudulently erected by the justice system authorities with no public oversight at all, could be remedied – through publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification). Regardless, transparency should be required, which would permit routine data mining, which must be viewed as a civic duty. The public at large must perform its duties and obligations and constantly monitor the justice system - to safeguard integrity of the prisons and protect human rights in the digital era. The computing and informatics community should lead the way.
6. False Representations by the Sheriff On the Sheriff’s Department web page, the Sheriff posted a welcome notice. v The notice, in pertinent part states:
Our first order of business was to develop core values that prescriptively require all of us to address properly the legal, civil and human rights of all Americans.
Instant complaint provides evidence that the Sheriff’s Department refuses to comply with California Public Records Act and denies public access to the true Los Angeles County arrest and booking records. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department established an online Inmate Information Center where the attached report documented that about half the entries are either deficient or outright false and misleading. The most blatant false records are those where recent arrests and bookings are attributed to actions of various “Municipal Courts”, which ceased to exist almost a decade ago. Of particular concern was the refusal of the Sheriff’s Department to correct such false records, even after their falsehood was repeatedly pointed out to the Sheriff’s Department. In certain cases that were further investigated, it was concluded that that the Sheriff’s Department had no valid records to provide the legal foundation for the arrests and bookings. Separate complaints would be submitted on such individual cases. The attached paper, and additional information, pointed out that the plausible explanation is that the Sheriff’s Department is operating an invalid case management system for Los Angeles County Booking Records, where menus were left operational, which include invalid options listing various Municipal Courts as the authority for arrests and bookings. Moreover, it was suggested that upon investigation it would be discovered that the Sheriff’s Department kept operational some of the high security booking terminals that belonged to such terminated courts, and that it continues operating them under such false court identities, particularly in cases where there are no valid records to provide the legal foundation for the confinement. The mere existence of such invalid case management system for recording arrests and bookings, and refusal of the Sheriff’s Department to correct it, is alleged as serious violation of the Human Rights of all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County, California 7. Complaints Filed with Los Angeles County Ombudsman against the Sheriff’s Department California Code of Regulations, Crime Prevention and Correction 3273 says:
Page 4/7 3273. Acceptance and Surrender of Custody. Wardens and superintendents must not accept or surrender custody of any prisoner under any circumstances, except by valid court order or other due process of law.
June 28, 2010
Therefore, attempts were made to file complaints on this matter with the Sheriff’s Department, directly, and later, after the Sheriff’s Department refused to open a complaint – through the Los Angeles County Ombudsman. Eventually, in March 2010, a letter was issued informing Dr Zernik of the issuance of Service Comment Report # 200612, and Service Comment SC#2262473. The complaint referred to the findings of practices of presenting false arrest and booking records for large number of persons under the Sheriff’s custody, and additional evidence of corruption pertaining to bail/bond records. vi, vii However, no response on the complaints was ever received. Later requests, filed with the Ombudsman, to ask her assistance in verifying that the complaints were indeed investigated, and the outcome of such complaints, were never answered at all. 8. Petition Filed with Sheriff Lee Baca In October 2009 an online petition was initiated, which was also faxed to Sheriff Lee Baca. viii The petition provided links to the false and deliberately records that the Sheriff produced in response to requests pursuant to the California Public Records Act for the arrest and booking records of an individual prisoner, and requested that the Sheriff release such person, who is held under false pretense under the color of law. At the writing of this complaint the petition shows some 300 signatures from people across the United States and around the world. 9. Complaints Filed with FBI regarding False Imprisonments Attempts were made to file complaints with FBI on the matter. However, no response on the complaints was ever received. 10. Court Opinions and Judgments Regarding Conduct of the Sheriff’s Department: The matter of large-scale false imprisonments by the Sheriff, under false and deliberately misleading records, was never reviewed by court to the best of my knowledge. B. Conduct of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 11. Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court Pertaining to the Rampart-FIPs It is alleged that the conduct of Sheriff Lee Baca was part of a pattern of large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, which was documented already a decade ago – as part of the Rampart Scandal investigation (1998-2000) – a human rights disgrace of historic proportions. 12. Media, Official, and Unofficial Expert Reports Already in 2001credible media reports described the case of the Rampart-FIPs. A PBS report, part of the acclaimed LAPD Blues documentary series, estimated the number of Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons) at 8,000 to 16,000 persons or more. ix The cases of individual Rampart-FIPs, which were published were almost exclusively of blacks and latinos. Already in 2001, expert opinion, by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, renowned constitutional scholar, who thoroughly investigated the matter stated: x
This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.
June 28, 2010
Already in 2001, expert opinion by Prof David Burcham, then Dean of Loyola Law School, and Prof Katherine Fisk stated:
…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.
Seven years later, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel, xii chaired by Attorney Connie Rice concluded:
Innocent people remain in prison.
13. Refusal of Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court to Allow the Release of the Rampart-FIPs The Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006) also provided detailed documentation of the key role of judges of the Superior Court of California in preventing the release of the Rampart-FIPs. Such conduct is incomprehensible within the framework of any notion of the law. 14. Court Review – Failure of the US District Court to Enter and Enforce the 2001 Consent Decree Matters related to the Rampart scandal were represented as addressed through the 2001 Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769). However, the evidence indicates that the 2001 Consent Decree was never entered by the US District Court, Central District of California, in a manner that would make it effectual for any purpose. Moreover, the US District Court now denies access to the authentication records in the case (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filings) in disregard of First Amendment rights, with no explanation at all. It should likewise be noted that key provisions of the 2001 Consent Decree were never enforced: a) Periodic financial disclosures by the narcotic officers of the LAPD. xiii b) Providing the Overseer access to certain databases of LAPD pertaining to complaints of misconduct and Human Rights violations. xiv In 2006 Prof Chemerinsky wrote: xv
Although the consent decree to reform the Los Angeles Police Department has been in place for almost five years, many of its requirements still have not been met… Unfortunately, some of the most important requirements of the consent decree have not yet been met. Most notably, the computerized system for tracking officers' disciplinary records…
Decision of the LAPD to create a separate system for the Overseer should be viewed as particularly alarming, given the evidence provided in instant complaint and the attached paper of the deceptive nature of a dual systems at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – the Los Angeles Booking Records system versus the online Inmate Information Center. It is therefore claimed that the any such system must be validated in a legally and publicly accountable manner. 15. Failure of the Overseer for Civil Rights (2001-2009) to Release the Rampart-FIPs Based on review of various reports, it was estimated that during the past decade at most 200 of the many thousands of Rampart FIPs were released, through various means. However, communications with the office of the Consent Decree Bureau led this writer to conclude that during the almost decade-long tenure of the Overseer, he never affected the release of a single one of the Rampart-FIPs.
June 28, 2010
C. 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) xvi alleging widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California. The report further alleged refusal of the US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to ratified international law – in refusing to accord equal protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County. Large-scale false imprisonments were alleged in the report as the highlight of the corruption. As part of the process, US, UK, and Germany based blogs were created,xvii where almost 17,000 readers from some 85 nations were recorded so far. The Scribd site of Human Rights Alert has recorded close to 70,000 reads, with over 500 reads a day in recent months.xviii Additional news sites recorded thousands of additional readers. xix Canada, Australia, and France based blogs are planned for the near future. D. Remedies Requested Request is herein filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of California, by Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) for the following remedies: a) Equal protection for all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County under US and ratified international law. b) Restoration of the Liberty of those who are allegedly falsely imprisoned by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court. c) Investigation and prosecution, if necessary, of allegations of public corruption and civil rights deprivation under the color of law. Respectfully, Dated: June 28, 2010 Joseph Zernik, PhD
By: ______________ JOSEPH H ZERNIK PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Phone: 323.515.4583 Fax: 323.488.9697 Email <firstname.lastname@example.org> ATTACHED: 1) April 2010 Human Rights Alert report submitted to the UN for the 2010 UPR 2) Rampart FIPs – a Review 3) Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Prisoners Registration Systems CC: 1) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School <EChemerinsky@law.uci.edu> 2) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project <email@example.com> 3) UPR Office of the United Nations: <UPRsubmissions@ohchr.org> 4) UPR Office of the US State Department: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
June 28, 2010
LINKS: i June 12, 2010 - Los Angeles Times publication regarding new unit for prosecution of public corruption and violations of civil rights. http://inproperinla.com/10-06-12-us-attorney-los-angeles-created-public-corruption-civil-rights-unit-la%20times.pdf ii 10-06-23 Dr Zernik’s Paper #1: Data Mining as a Civic Duty - Online Prisoner’s Registration Systems http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520723/ iii Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) – a Review http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/ iv 10-06-23 Dr Zernik’s Paper #1: Data Mining as a Civic Duty - Online Prisoner’s Registration Systems http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520723/ v Welcome notice of Sheriff Lee Baca on the Sheriff’s web site: http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-sheriff-department-of-los-angeles-county-sheriff-lee-baca-s-message-s.pdf vi Complaints filed with the Sheriff’s Department in re: False imprisonments http://inproperinla.com/10-02-13%20Complaint%20re-filed%20with%20the%20Sheriffs%20Department%20r….pdf vii Complaints filed with the Sheriff’s Department in re: Corruption of bail/bond services http://inproperinla.com/10-02-12-request-los-angeles-ombudsman-help-in-re-complain-with-sheriff-re-corruption-of-bonds.pdf viii Petition filed with Sheriff Lee Baca in the case of Richard Fine – held for over 15 months in solitary confinement, under false and deliberately misleading records for his arrest and booking: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine ix 2001 Public Broadcasting Service report of false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California http://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/ x Erwin Chemerinsky, The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1421 xi 2001 Katherine Fisk and David Burcham: Policing the Justice System: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/ xii 2006 Blue Ribbon Review Panel report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/ xiii Failure to enforce financial disclosures by narcotic officers of the LAPD pursuant to the 2001 Consent Decree: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-us-v-city-of-la_08-01-15-witnessla_cps-sanity-money-financialdisclosures.pdf xiv Refusal of the LAPD to provide the Overseer per Consent Decree access to LAPD computerized records: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-us-v-city-of-la_06-05-03-standoff-on-oversight.pdf xv Refusal of the LAPD to provide the Overseer per Consent Decree access to LAPD computerized records: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-us-v-city-of-la_06-05-03-standoff-on-oversight.pdf xvi Human Rights Alert (NGO) report to the UN for the 2010 UPR: a) Press Release: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/ b) Submission: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/ c) Appendix: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/ xvii Blog associated with Human Rights Alert (Ngo) http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/ http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/ xviii Scribd site of Human Rights Alert (Ngo) http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert xix 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