PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.

net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Human Rights Alert

Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Date: 2010.07.12 03:42:03 +03'00'

10-07-12 Complaint against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others at the US District Court, Central District of California – for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights.
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 by Joseph Zernik, PhD and Human Rights Alert (NGO) against the US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others, named below, at the US District Court, Central District of California.
Executive Summary Los Angles, July 12 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others at the US District Court, Central District of California, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law pertaining to their conduct in the cases of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court – as part of cover up of alleged widespread corruption of the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged that Magistrate Carla Woehrle, US Judges Virginia Phillips and John Walter, Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi, Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer, and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas conspired to conduct in the two cases litigations, which were never deemed by the US Court itself as honest, valid, and effectual court actions. Instead – they conducted pretense litigations. In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), former US prosecutor Richard Fine filed a petition for a writ for habeas corpus. Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2009 in the court of Judge David, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, with no warrant at all. He has been held in solitary confinement ever since, with no judgment, conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), Joseph Zernik filed complaint alleging deprivation of rights by a group of judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, who forced him to leave his residence under the threat of force, took his home for private use with no compensation at all, and conducted conveyance of title, which was opined by fraud expert of the highest reputation as real estate fraud. No judgment was ever entered in the case of Joseph Zernik at the Superior Court of California either, no writ of execution was issued, and the court distributed the proceeds of the sale in what was alleged as money laundering. Both Richard Fine and Joseph Zernik attempted to protect their rights by filing complaints at the US District Court, and both cases ended up in the court of US Magistrate Carla Woehrle. The cases were presided by Judges John Walter and Virginia Phillips, respectively.

Conduct of named accused, detailed in the complaint, allegedly included, but was limited to: 1. Adulteration of commencing records in both cases;
Denial of plaintiff’s right to file papers in court, by eliminating paper from the dockets with no due process of law; Production of adulterated court dockets, by permitting conduct of numerous transactions in the dockets by unauthorized court personnel; 4. Conduct of fraudulent litigations, by permitting defendants’ counsel, who were not counsel of record, to appear and file false records with no authority at all; 5. Fraud on plaintiffs, through the Issuing of minutes, orders, and judgments with no authentication at all, yet nevertheless falsely publishing such void, not voidable judicial records in PACER dockets as “entered”, as if they required “full faith and credit”; Conduct of the accused was alleged as deliberate perversion of justice, through pretense of judicial review. Conduct of the accused is further alleged as intended to cover up widespread corruption of the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and therefore – public corruption, in and of itself. Consequently, Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi repeatedly denied Dr Zernik access to court records in the two cases, in alleged violation of First Amendment rights. Moreover, to this date Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi refuses to certify the dockets in the two cases as dockets, which were constructed pursuant to the authority of the clerk and the law of the United States. Furthermore, both Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi and Chief Judge Audrey Collins refused to initiate corrective actions, as required by law, after being duly informed of the conduct detailed in the complaint. 2. 3.

Page 2/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

The complaint requested that the US Attorney provide equal protection to the former US prosecutor Richard Fine and to Dr Joseph Zernik. The complaint further requested that the US Attorney conduct investigation in the matter and prosecute the accused, if appropriate, to the full extent of the law. The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, to the Honorable Dianne Feinstein - Senator from California, and to the US Congress Judiciary Committees. In April 2010, Human Rights Alert (NGO) filed complaint with the United Nations alleging widespread corruption of the justice system of Los Angeles County, California, and refusal of the US government to take action to provide equal protection for the 10 million residents of the county. The complaint was filed as part of the first ever Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations, scheduled for November 2010.

Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Table of Contents 3. Complaint 4. What did the experts say about the justice system in Los Angeles County, California? 5. Complainants 6. Accused 7. General claims 8. Complainants are not attorneys, neither are they represented by counsel in matters, which are subject of instant complaint. 9. 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. 10. Both cases at the US District Court - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - originated from alleged widespread corruption of judges of the Superior Court of California, and deprivation of rights under the color of law. 11. In both cases conduct of the accused at the US District Court amounted to a deliberate attempt to cover up corruption at the Superior Court, and permit the alleged deprivation of rights at the State Court; Therefore conduct of the accused is alleged as public corruption, in and of itself. 12. In both cases at the US District Court accused allegedly adulterated commencing records in order to undermine the litigations from the start. 13. In both cases, accused denied plaintiffs at the US District Court the right to file papers by eliminating paper from the dockets, conduct which is alleged as deprivation of rights, in and of itself. 14. In both cases, accused permitted counsel, who were not counsel of record to appear and file records with no authority at all. 15. Accused issued minutes, orders, and judgments with no authentication at all, but nevertheless falsely published them in PACER Dockets as “entered”. 16. The accused permitted conduct of numerous dockets transactions by unauthorized court personnel. 17. Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi repeatedly denied complainant access to court records in the cases referenced above, in alleged violation of First Amendment rights. 18. Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi to this date refuses to certify the dockets as such that were constructed pursuant to the authority of the clerk and the law of the United States. 19. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused denied plaintiffs rights under the color of law, including, but not limited to: access to the courts, due process of law, and equal protection under the law. 20. The Honorable Audrey Collins – Chief Judge and Terri Nafisi – Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California, refused to initiate corrective actions after being duly informed. 21. No valid court opinions and judgments was ever entered regarding conduct of the accused, only void, not voidable judicial records were published in false and deliberately misleading PACER dockets. 22. Alleged widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles is drawing both national and international awareness. 23. Remedies are requested by the US Attorney, Central District of California, including, but not limited to equal protection of plaintiffs and all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County. 24. Request for due process in acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints at the US Attorney Office, Central District of California. 25. Links

COMPLAINT Complaint is filed against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, US Judges Virginia Phillips and John Walter, Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi, Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law, through the conduct of false and deliberately misleading court actions in the cases of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California. Upon review of the facts as a whole, a reasonable person would conclude that the accused conducted under the two captions, referenced above,

Page 3/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

pretense litigations, which were never deemed by the Court itself as a true litigation under the law of the US, and as required by ratified international law for a national tribunal for protection of rights. Through such conduct the accused conspired to cover up conduct of judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which is alleged as widespread corruption of the courts. Please also accept instant Citizen’s Complaint as a request for Equal Protection pursuant to the US and ratified international law of all 10 millions, who reside in Los Angeles County, California. 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) US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE b) US Judge JOHN WALTER c) US Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS d) Clerk of the US Court TERRI NAFISI e) Pro Se Clerk CHRIS SAWYER f) Courtroom Assistant DONNA THOMAS Address: US District Court, Central District of California 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

4. General claims Conduct of the accused in the captions, referenced above, included, but was not limited to: a) Commencing were allegedly adulterated by the Court; b) Counsel, who were not counsel of record were permitted to appear and file records with no authority at all; c) Minutes, orders, and judgments were issued with no authentication at all, but were nevertheless published in PACER dockets as “entered”; d) Numerous transactions were conducted in dockets by unauthorized court personnel, e) The court denies access to court records, and f) The Clerk of the Court today refuses to certify the dockets as such that were constructed pursuant to the authority of the Clerk and the law of the United States.

Page 4/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

Through such conduct the accused engaged in pretense of judicial review, where in fact no valid and effectual judicial review was ever conducted. Through such pretense the accused allegedly denied plaintiffs protection of their rights. Therefore, conduct of the accused is alleged as: 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 the courts, i) Denial of access to court records, and j) Denial of due process of law. It should be noted that conduct, which is detailed in instant complaint, is not universally accepted by judges and magistrates of the US District Court, Central District of California. The dockets in the two cases, which are subject of instant complaint, show numerous recusals. 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. Additional evidence pertaining to instant complaint is found at: a) Motion to Intervene filed by Dr Zernik under caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) and related papers at the US Supreme Court. iv Most of the evidence pertaining to instant complaint is provided in the Appendix to the Motion to the Intervene. v b) Records of the US District Court, Central District of California, of the two captions, referenced below, in PACER dockets and in the CM/ECF authentication records - the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings): i. Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) ii. Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) c) 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. d) Complaints, which were separately filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of California, pertaining to conduct of Marina v LA County (BS109420): i. Complaint against Kevin McCormick and the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George – for public corruption and deprivation of rights. vi ii. Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Clerk John A Clarke, and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public corruption and deprivation of rights. vii e) Records under the caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in proceedings of Dr Joseph Zernik was coerced to leave his residence, and

Page 5/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

his residence was taken for private use with no compensation at all, in what was opined by high reputation fraud expert as real estate “fraud being committed,” 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: i. Complaint against David Pasternak and others –for public corruption and deprivation of rights.
viii

ii. Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering. ix g) Paper filed for peer review in a scholarly conference: Data Mining of the Networked US Courts, x and 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. 7. Both cases at the US District Court - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08cv-01550) - originated from alleged widespread corruption of judges of the Superior Court of California, and deprivation of rights under the color of law. Both cases, referenced above, originated from litigations at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, where minutes, and orders were never authenticated by clerk, and where judgments were never authenticated and never entered as required by California Code of Civil Procedure to make them “effectual for any purpose”. Regardless, in both cases, judges of the Superior Court of California affected the enforcement of such void, no voidable judgments, in what is alleged as part of a pattern of corruption and deprivation of rights: a) In Marina v LA County (BS109420) – Richard Fine was arrested with no warrant on March 4, 2009, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since, with no judgment, conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. b) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – Joseph Zernik was forced in November 2007 to leave his residence under threat of force, unlawful but credible, his home was possessed by the court for purported “specific performance”, fraud in conveyance of title was committed, as opine by fraud expert, and the property was taken for private use with no compensation at all. No judgment, and no writ of execution were ever entered in the case. 8. In both cases conduct of the accused at the US District Court amounted to a deliberate attempt to cover up corruption at the Superior Court, and permit the alleged deprivation of rights at the State Court; Therefore conduct of the accused is alleged as public corruption, in and of itself. It is therefore alleged that upon investigation it would be found that the accused, through their conduct at the US District Court – a national tribunal for protection of rights, were in fact acting to cover up widespread judicial corruption of judges at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and large-scale deprivation of rights in Los Angeles County, California. 9. In both cases at the US District Court accused allegedly adulterated commencing records in order to undermine the litigations from the start. Both case ended up at the court of US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, where it is alleged that commencing records were adulterated in both cases, in collusion of staff of the office of the Clerk of the Court and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas: a) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) i. The docket shows that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt #1) was filed by former US prosecutor Richard Fine on March 20, 2009. In contrast, the stamp on the petition, as it appears in the

Page 6/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

PACER docket shows the date of March 19, 2009. However, the stamp was altered by hand, with no explanation at all, to show the date of March 20, 2009. Moreover, the stamp “FILED” used on the petition (Dkt #1), and numerous other records in both cases of the US District Court, referenced above, was not the electric stamp at the Clerk’s Office, which automatically generates date and time stamp. Instead, it is alleged that the stamp used on numerous papers in both cases at the US District Court was a manual stamp, kept by accused Donna Thomas, and operated with no authority at all. Through the use of such stamp, it was possible to manipulate dates of filing of various records. ii. The docket shows that the Petition (Dkt #1) was modified on March 24, 2009, with no authorization by plaintiff, and with no explanation at all. It is alleged that the modification on March 24, 2009, was conducted with no authority at all, and amounted to adulteration. iii. The Petition (Dkt #1), which came into possession of the Clerk of the Court on March 19, 2009, included evidence that was purported to be a March 4, 2009 Judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. However, on its last page such record was signed and dated March 24, 2009 by Judge David Yaffe of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Richard Fine stated that such record was never in his possession on March 4, 2009, at the time of his arrest at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, at the courtroom of Judge David Yaffe. Further efforts to establish the origins of the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment, signed on March 24, 2009 by Judge David Yaffe, and the manner in which it made its way into the petition, were unsuccessful. However, it is alleged that upon investigation it would be found that Attorney David Naftalin was involved in the adulteration Richard Fine’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and that Attorney Naftalin’s involvement in this matter was with no authority at all. b) In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) i. On March 5, 2008, complainant Dr Zernik presented Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer with valid summons. Pro Se Clerk refused to sign and issue such summons. Instead, Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer generated and issued false and deliberately misleading summons in this case, now shown under the complaint (Dkt #1). Such conduct is alleged as adulteration of court records. ii. Later, upon discovery of the alleged adulteration and deceit by Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer, Dr Zernik appeared again at the office of the clerk, and again presented Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer with valid summons. Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer again refused to issue valid, honest, and effectual summons. Moreover, Mr Sawyer explained to Dr Zernik that he was doing so pursuant to directives by US Magistrate Carla Woehrle. iii. It is alleged that conduct of Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer and US Magistrate Carla Woehrle in this matter were intended to establish the litigation under the caption of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv01550) as an invalid, pretense litigation from the start. Requests, which were filed with the Clerk of the Court and Chief Judge of the US Court, Central District of California, for investigation of alleged adulteration of court records in the two cases, referenced above, were never answered. 10. In both cases, accused denied plaintiffs at the US District Court the right to file papers by eliminating paper from the dockets, conduct which is alleged as deprivation of rights, in and of itself. a) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): An unknown number of records filed by former US prosecutor Richard Fine were omitted from the docket, with no due process of law. b) In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550):

Page 7/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

i. Numerous records, which were filed by Dr Zernik, were omitted from the docket, with no due process of law. ii. In one instance, Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer explained to Dr Zernik that records that included evidence of alleged corruption of judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, named defendants at the action at the US District Court, would be excluded from the docket pursuant to instructions by US Magistrate Carla Woehrle. iii. Later, Dr Zernik filed a record (Dkt #105), xi including the conformed face pages of such records, which were filed but excluded form the docket at the US District Court, Central District of California with no due process of law. It is alleged that such conduct by Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer and US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and others amounted to serious deprivation of rights pursuant to US law and ratified international law. 11. In both cases, accused permitted counsel, who were not counsel of record to appear and file records with no authority at all. a) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) – Attorney Kevin McCormick appeared while not authorized by his purported clients, after being retained by the California Judicial Council under a false case caption, as detailed in complaint, linked below. Through such false appearances he filed false evidence, false declarations, false motions. It is alleged that upon investigation it would be discovered that he had no communications with his purported clients whatsoever. b) In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – i. Bryan Cave, LLP falsely appeared on behalf of Countrywide and Bank of America, while the office of then General Counsel Timothy Mayopoulos repeatedly informed Dr Zernik that they were not authorized to appear, as detailed in complaint filed with the US Attorney Office. ii. David Pasternak appeared simultaneously as represented by counsel and in pro se, in alleged violation of the law. iii. Attorney Sarah Overton appeared purportedly on behalf of Judges of the Superior Court. It is alleged that upon investigation it would be discovered that, like Attorney McCormick, the California Judicial Council, which now refuses to answer any questions in this regard, retained her under false caption. Therefore, it is alleged that Attorney Overton appeared with no authority at all, in violation of the law. 12. Accused issued minutes, orders, and judgments with no authentication at all, but nevertheless falsely published them in PACER Dockets as “entered”. a) General Order 08-02, xii purported to establish the authentication records of the US District Court, Central District of California. The US District Court, Central District of California, failed to publish Local Rules of Court pertaining to its authentication records after the transition to administration of the Court in CM/ECF. No reference at all was found in the Local Rules of Court xiii to the authentication records in CM/ECF. The failure to publish honest and valid Local Rules of Court, and conduct of the complaints referenced above absent published valid and effectual local rules is alleged as deprivation of Due Process rights, in and of itself. Certain information was published instead in the General Order 08-02. However, general orders are no substitute for honest, valid, and effectual local rules of courts. In pertinent parts, xiv General Order 08-02 prohibited external hyperlinks in any court records, declared that acceptance of electronic filing constituted entry of a record in the case docket, established the NEF as the certification by clerk of court records, and the electronic “document stamp” as validating the authenticity and

Page 8/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

notice of the record. The order established that pro se litigants would be required to continue filing records on paper, and that electronic filing of records, which were filed by pro se litigants on paper, would be executed by the clerk. However, the NEF itself was never defined in the General Order 08-02. Moreover, it should be noted that General Order 08-02, in contrast with other general orders of the US District Court, Central District of California, was published with no verification by a judge at all, and with no name of its author either. b) In both cases, the accused routinely issued NEFs, which failed to include the “Document Stamps”, and therefore were void, not voidable judicial records. In both Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and Judges John Walter and Virginia Phillips, respectively, issued minutes, orders, and judgments with invalid NEFs – missing the pertinent “Document Stamps”. There simply is no explanation that would be consistent with the furtherance of justice for the issuance of such defective NEFs on a routine basis. c) The Accused Denied Plaintiffs Notice and Service of the NEFs on Routine Basis. Through conduct of the accused, plaintiffs former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Dr Zernik were routinely denied service of NEFs in the cases referenced above. Even had the NEFs been valid and effectual, such service and notice, where plaintiffs are served invalid authentication records could not possibly be deemed valid notice and service. d) The accused posted in PACER dockets void, not voidable minutes, orders, and judgments, which were never duly authenticated by the Court. Such records, which were minutes, orders, and judgments, and which were issued with no authentication at all, were consequently also posted in PACER dockets as if they were valid and effectual court records, which required “full faith and credit”. Such conduct is alleged as production fraud on the people. In short, in both cases the accused conducted invalid litigation, but generated the pretense of valid and effectual judicial review. 13. The accused permitted conduct of numerous dockets transactions by unauthorized court personnel. In both Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) numerous docket transactions were conducted by accused Donna Thomas, a court staff person, albeit – never authorized as a Deputy Clerk. Therefore – Ms Donna Thomas was acting with no authority at all. Donna Thomas is alleged as central to the adulteration of court records and the elimination of papers filed in court from the dockets. 14. Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi repeatedly denied complainant access to court records in the cases referenced above, in alleged violation of First Amendment rights. For months, complainant Dr Zernik filed requests with Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi, to access court records – to inspect and to copy. The Clerk of the Court repeatedly denied such rights, particularly regarding the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) the authentication records. Eventually, partial access was gained, where the NEFs in question proved to be false on their faces. Such conduct is alleged as serious abuse of First Amendment rights and also of Human Rights under ratified international law. Such conduct is alarming, since absent access to the NEFs there is no way for

Page 9/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

the public to discern whether litigations at the Court were honest, valid, and effectual litigations, or only pretense. In addition, starting September 2009, only six (6) months after complainant Richard Fine filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dr Zernik filed requests with the Clerk of the Court to access the paper records filed by former US prosecutor Richard Fine. The Clerk of the Court denies access to such records, with no explanation at all. Later, the Clerk of the Court claimed that the records were shredded. However, when requests were filed for the records which were certification of the shredding, such access was denied as well – again - with no explanation at all. Such conduct is particularly alarming, since it came following Dr Zernik’s request, also denied, for investigation of alleged adulteration by the court of the habeas corpus petition (Dkt #1) in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). 15. Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi to this date refuses to certify the dockets as such that were constructed pursuant to the authority of the clerk and the law of the United States. Repeated written requests were forwarded to Terri Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, to certify the captions referenced above, and their dockets as such that were constructed pursuant to the authority of the Clerk and the law of the United States. Clerk Nafisi refuses to answer on such requests. Such conduct is particularly alarming, since a reasonable person, upon review of the facts in instant complaint, would surely conclude that the accused colluded in production of dockets which the accused themselves deemed void, not voidable. 16. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused denied plaintiffs rights under the color of law, including, but not limited to: access to the courts, due process of law, and equal protection under the law. Therefore, a reasonable person, upon review of the facts as a whole, would conclude that the litigations under the captions, referenced above, were never deemed by the court itself as true litigations, only a pretense. Such conduct is alleged as serious deprivation of rights of plaintiff, who came to the US District Court to protect their rights. Instead, the US District Court is alleged to have further abused their Constitutional, Civil, and Human rights, including, but not limited to access to the courts, due process of law, and equal protection under the law. 17. The Honorable Audrey Collins – Chief Judge and Terri Nafisi – Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California, refused to initiate corrective actions after being duly informed. Repeated notices were forwarded to the Chief Judge and Clerk of the Court, duly informing them of the conduct described above, and requesting that they initiate corrective actions. The Chief Judge and Clerk of the Court refused to do so. 18. No valid court opinions and judgments was ever entered regarding conduct of the accused, only void, not voidable judicial records were published in false and deliberately misleading PACER dockets. As detailed in the Motion to Intervene, xv the review courts failed to enter any valid and effectual orders or mandates in these cases: a) Both plaintiffs filed petitions with the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Such petitions were addressed through unsigned orders, which were served with no authentication (NDAs – Notices of Docket Activity) at all. b) Plaintiff Richard Fine further filed an appeal with the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The appeal was likewise addressed through orders and a mandate, none of which were signed by a judge and none of which was served on appellant Fine with a valid authentication record.

Page 10/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

c) Plaintiff Richard Fine further filed an application with Associate Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy never issued a ruling on the application in compliance with the Local Rules of Court of the US Supreme Court. d) Plaintiff Richard Fine then further filed an application with Associate Justice Ginsburg of the US Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg referred the application for a conference of the Court. The Conference failed to review the application. 19. 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 xvi 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,xvii 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.xviii Additional news sites, where press releases are routinely issued by Dr Zernik and Human Rights Alert, have recorded thousands of additional readers. xix Furthermore, an online archive was established, xx 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. xxi Manuscript was filed for peer review by high-level international conferences in computer science, detailing the alleged fraud in records of the US District Court in the case referenced above. xxii 20. Remedies are requested by the US Attorney, Central District of California, including, but not limited to equal protection of plaintiffs and all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County. 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 former US prosecutor Richard Fine and for Dr Joseph Zernik under US law and under ratified international law. b) Equal protection of all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County under US and ratified international law. c) Investigation and prosecution of the accused, if necessary, in re: allegations of public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law. It should be noted that the request 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). xxiii 21. 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

Page 11/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

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 12, 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 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) http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/ iii Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001) http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/ iv Motion to Intervene filed by Dr Zernik under caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court 1) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/ 2) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/
i

Page 12/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

3) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/ 4) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/ 5) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/ 6) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendices http://www.scribd.com/doc/34050423/ v Motion to the Intervene and related papers, filed at the US Supreme Court under Fine v Sheriff (09A827) – See (iv), above. vi Complaint against Kevin McCormick and the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George – for public corruption and deprivation of rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/

Complaint against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public corruption and deprivation of rights http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/ viii Complaint against David Pasternak – for public corruption and deprivation of rights http://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/ ix Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33971099/ x Data Mining of the Networked US Courts http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520631/ xi Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01914), Dkt #105 - Paper filed by Dr Zernik, as evidence of denial of the right to file papers in court under: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34173011/ xii General Order 08 02 of the US District Court, Central District of California: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/ xiii Local Rules of Court of the US District Court, Central District of California: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28862438/ xiv Pertinent parts of the General Order 08-02 of the US Court, Central District of California: http://inproperinla.com/10-06-18-pertinent-parts-of-general-order-08-02-s.pdf xv See links in (iv) above. 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

vii

Page 13/13

July 12, 2010

TOC

http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/ xx Online archive documenting corruption by Bank of America and other financial institutions: http://inproperinla.com/ xxi Intense interest by the Russian Republic in corruption of US courts and banking regulation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33910548/ xxii Manuscript filed for peer review reviewing the alleged fraud in records of the Sheriff of Los Angeles County and large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California. See (x), above. xxiii Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) – see (i), above.