10-02-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and Prospects of Future Honest Court Services in Los Angeles County, California s
Content
Dr Z Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: [email protected] Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou, [email protected], c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2010.02.08 13:41:25 -08'00'
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2010
10-01-08 FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and the prospects of any future honest court services in Los Angeles County, California On February 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:36:00 -0800 To: [email protected] From: joseph zernik Subject: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Surgeon v LA County (BC351286) is a case that held at bay the prospect of any honest court services in LA county in years to come. It was filed as a request for injunctive relief by Plaintiff - taxpayer Sturgeon - represented by Judicial Watch. County of Los Angeles and others were named Defendants in the case. The subject matter was payments by LA County of some $45,000 per judge per year, which remained secret for years, and which the judges uniformly failed to disclose in their outside income statements, and also failed to disclose to parties in cases where LA County was party to litigation. It was also demonstrated that it subsequently became practically impossibly to win a case in LA County against LA County. Disclosure and protest of such payments by the falsely hospitalized Richard Fine raised concerns regarding criminal and civil liabilities of all judges of LA County. Such concerns were addressed through a dubious law, signed by the Governor of California on February 20, 2009 (SBX-2-11), which provided retroactive immunities/pardons to all judges who took such payments. Such law in fact amounted to admissions of criminality of all judges of LA County, who according to media employed a lobbyist, who for the payment of some $60,000 managed to affect the passage of such law within a week out of compliance with rules of the California Senate - with no discussion on the floor of the California Senate and no referral for review by committee. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was donning four hats in Surgeon v LA County(BC351286):
a) Intervenor, siding with Defendant b)
Judge
c) Clerk d) Court venue
Page 2/6
February 8, 2010
Therefore, interest in the Sturgeon v LA County is gratefully appreciated by those of us who live in LA County, where the US government refused to provide equal protection for the 10 million residents against alleged racketeering by the judges of the LA Superior Court. My filing under caption of Sturgeon v LA County in summer 2009 provided detailed analysis of the defective/fraudulent records under such caption. Any comments on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Especially those demonstrating familiarity with the records in the case:
•
The relevant records were posted online in archive under http://inproperinla.com/
•
To find the section dealing with Sturgeon v LA County, use the "Find" function in your browser, typically "Control F". Use "Sturgeon_LA_County", or "BC351286" (no quotes) as query and you would get to the relevant section.
•
Query under "Sturgeon" would also lead you to the court of appeals records in the case.
The case belonged to the series previously designated, for lack of better term: Equity/Enterprise Track of the LA Superior Court. "Equity" referred to Equity Courts. According to three different attorneys, all of whom could be deemed "connected to the court" Equity Courts were operating today in Los Angeles County, California. "Enterprise" referred to RICO Enterprise per 18 USC 1961-8. Following recent discussion in this group, I hope that you now better understand the reasons for such designations. Basic traits of non-cases of the Equity/Enterprise Track were listed below. All conditions previously stated regarding Marina v LA County (BS109420), in ancillary proceedings of which Richard Fine was purported to be arrested, applied in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) as well. •
The ongoing refusal of Charles McCoy - Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke - Clerk of the Court to allow access to the records of the litigation in Sturgeon v LA County, first and foremost among them - the Register of Actions (California docket) remained inexplicable at best, and otherwise - essential prerequisite for the operation of the RICO enterprise.
•
The missing Assignment/Appointment Order for Justice James A Richman, California Court of Appeals, 1st District, and refusal of his office to answer questions regarding the nature of his assignment/appointment in the case, combined with his contradictory designations in the court file as "Judge" "Referee" or "Designee" remained inexplicable at best.
•
Judgment records by Justice James A Richman were all defective on their faces/unentered .
•
Minutes by Justice James A Richman were all defective on their faces/unentered .
•
Appeal to the California Court of Appeals, 4th District, San Diego, was likewise dubious: (a) the Appeal was purported to be from a Judgment by James A Richman in Sturgeon v LA County. However, such judgment was never entered. Moreover, if you review the records of the Court of Appeals, 4th District, you would find that
Page 3/6
February 8, 2010
actually such judgment as never listed as the record from which the appeal was taken. (b) A ruling was purported in such appeal, that the payment to the judges in LA County were "not permitted". However, I never found any copy of the ruling (or the amended ruling for that purpose) of the Court of Appeals, 4th District, which was adequately signed by justices of the Court of Appeals and authenticated by the Clerk of the Court. (c) The purported ruling of the court of Appeals,4th District was never entered as a court record by the LA Superior Court in Sturgeon v LA County, indicating that the LA Superior Court never recognized it as a valid court record. (d) Accordingly, the judges of the LA Superior Court never conceded for one day their right to take the "not permitted' payments. •
The ongoing refusal of Judicial watch to answer any question regarding their role in running such invalid litigation for years, remained inexplicable as well. Given your connection to Judicial Watch, I would be grateful if you alert members of the organization to this aberration.
•
Judicial Watch's Attorney Orfanedes, based in Washington DC, was possibly duped.
•
Attorney Sterling Norris, who for all practical purposes runs Judicial Watch of Southern California as his private territory, deserved some additional review. He is retired from the corrupt LA justice system, where I was informed and believed he served as prosecutor. He was on personal basis with judges who were the key to corruption in LA County, including, but not limited to Jacqueline Connor, whom I deem the Madrona of organized crime in LA County. I was informed and believed that he was also personal friends with the subject of your writing elsewhere - California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron, Coming soon- deep house music!
Fraud in the Court (101) Essentials of Non Cases of the Equity/Enterprise Track at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Non Cases are the cornerstone of judicial corruption in the United States today, in both state and US courts, are surely another subject that is never taught in law school. Therefore, let me offer you the overview: •
Commencing records must be defective/unentered.
•
Termination records must be defective/unentered as well.
•
No valid commencement of jurisdiction may be entered - no valid assignment to a judge, no valid reference, etc.
Page 4/6 •
February 8, 2010
No valid dispositive order on jurisdiction may be entered - no valid order on disqualification, either denying or granting it.
•
All executable orders that may be issued by the court must be defective on their faces, and must not be entered, which explains the plethora of unsigned orders and judgments in the US today.
•
No court fees may be collected, where any mention is explicitly provided that such fees were for court services.
•
Public access to court records that would provide definitive evidence of the racketeering by the judges must be denied. Today - such denial of access is often achieved through implementation of fraudulent case management systems at the courts.
On February 8, 2010 Paula wrote: From: "Paula" To: Subject: Ronald George (Judgepedia) vs. Ronald M. George (Wikipedia) - and Zernik's story Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:03:19 -0500 X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000; On Christmas day, 2009 I wrote to you guys about a post I made regarding Ronald George. Well, I just went to look for the entry on Wikipedia because I needed to verify one of the links to the Sturgeon case. My posting regarding SBX2 11 under Ronald George, was not on Wikipedia. I forgot, it's on Judgepedia... not Wikipedia. I believe Wiki kept deleting it or moving it into history. I finally got it to stick, on Judgepedia, which looks just like Wikipedia. On Wiki's current entry for Ronald M. George, there's nothing regarding SBX2 11 and other corruption involving the chief justice of California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_M._George Here's the entry in Judgepedia, where I posted about SBX2 11L http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Ronald_George. Here's what you get now under Ronald George: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_George It appears what has happened is that the middle initial M. was added to Ronald George. Now if a person happens to land on the old Ronald George in Wiki, there's a link there to the new unimproved version of Wiki's Ronald M. George. Interesting! And here's a story about Wikipedia: http://www.banned-in-america.net/wikipedia-us-govt-fraud.html. Paula
Page 5/6
February 8, 2010
P.S. I just posted to my website about Joe Zernik's exposure of the corporation fraud... which Janet sent. www.dirtydecisions.com Now I'm going to post about Judgepedia vs. Wkipedia entries on Ron George, and include the Les Sachs/Wiki story.
On February 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:23:06 -0800 To: [email protected] From: joseph zernik Subject: Re: Ronald George (Judgepedia) vs. Ronald M. George (Wikipedia) - and Zernik's story Paula: Thanks for the notes. Papers and subjects previously banned in Wikipedia are gaining readership elsewhere: 1) Large-Scale False Imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California: http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=f03_1263860781 Leaked: January 19, 2010; 454 Views 2) Richard Isaac Fine: http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=90f_1264590719 Leaked: January 27, 2010; 115 Views 3) Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=c7f_1264673024 Leaked: January 28, 2010; 116 Views __________ http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/09-12-17-Richard-Isaac-Fine-Review-e Reads: 253 http://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/01-05-01-Rampart-FIPs-Rampart-First-Trial-PBS-Frontline-Rampart-FalseImprisonments-s Reads: 252 Best read in Scribs, by a large margin, remained that simple analysis showing the fraud in the Los Angeles County Sheriff Jail computer, which applicable also to the case of Richard Fine: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24809956/10-01-04-Los-Angeles-Sheriff-Department-Inmate-information-Centerdata-survey-Jose-Martinez-s Reads: 805 The most alarming deletion in Wikipedia was related to events that took place under Katrina in the article on Human Rights in the USA. The article itself was lengthy and self- congratulatory in nature. When water levels were rising, guards in prison in New Orleans, Louisiana, abandoned the prison, while leaving the prisoners locked in their cells to drown. The references were from:
Page 6/6
February 8, 2010
a) UN High Commissioner on Human Rights report. b) Paper in The Nation. Needless to say, hardly anybody in the US ever heard of the story, since it was hardly covered by mainstream media. Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron, Coming soon- deep house music!
Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou, [email protected], c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2010.02.08 13:41:25 -08'00'
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2010
10-01-08 FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and the prospects of any future honest court services in Los Angeles County, California On February 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:36:00 -0800 To: [email protected] From: joseph zernik Subject: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Surgeon v LA County (BC351286) is a case that held at bay the prospect of any honest court services in LA county in years to come. It was filed as a request for injunctive relief by Plaintiff - taxpayer Sturgeon - represented by Judicial Watch. County of Los Angeles and others were named Defendants in the case. The subject matter was payments by LA County of some $45,000 per judge per year, which remained secret for years, and which the judges uniformly failed to disclose in their outside income statements, and also failed to disclose to parties in cases where LA County was party to litigation. It was also demonstrated that it subsequently became practically impossibly to win a case in LA County against LA County. Disclosure and protest of such payments by the falsely hospitalized Richard Fine raised concerns regarding criminal and civil liabilities of all judges of LA County. Such concerns were addressed through a dubious law, signed by the Governor of California on February 20, 2009 (SBX-2-11), which provided retroactive immunities/pardons to all judges who took such payments. Such law in fact amounted to admissions of criminality of all judges of LA County, who according to media employed a lobbyist, who for the payment of some $60,000 managed to affect the passage of such law within a week out of compliance with rules of the California Senate - with no discussion on the floor of the California Senate and no referral for review by committee. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was donning four hats in Surgeon v LA County(BC351286):
a) Intervenor, siding with Defendant b)
Judge
c) Clerk d) Court venue
Page 2/6
February 8, 2010
Therefore, interest in the Sturgeon v LA County is gratefully appreciated by those of us who live in LA County, where the US government refused to provide equal protection for the 10 million residents against alleged racketeering by the judges of the LA Superior Court. My filing under caption of Sturgeon v LA County in summer 2009 provided detailed analysis of the defective/fraudulent records under such caption. Any comments on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Especially those demonstrating familiarity with the records in the case:
•
The relevant records were posted online in archive under http://inproperinla.com/
•
To find the section dealing with Sturgeon v LA County, use the "Find" function in your browser, typically "Control F". Use "Sturgeon_LA_County", or "BC351286" (no quotes) as query and you would get to the relevant section.
•
Query under "Sturgeon" would also lead you to the court of appeals records in the case.
The case belonged to the series previously designated, for lack of better term: Equity/Enterprise Track of the LA Superior Court. "Equity" referred to Equity Courts. According to three different attorneys, all of whom could be deemed "connected to the court" Equity Courts were operating today in Los Angeles County, California. "Enterprise" referred to RICO Enterprise per 18 USC 1961-8. Following recent discussion in this group, I hope that you now better understand the reasons for such designations. Basic traits of non-cases of the Equity/Enterprise Track were listed below. All conditions previously stated regarding Marina v LA County (BS109420), in ancillary proceedings of which Richard Fine was purported to be arrested, applied in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) as well. •
The ongoing refusal of Charles McCoy - Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke - Clerk of the Court to allow access to the records of the litigation in Sturgeon v LA County, first and foremost among them - the Register of Actions (California docket) remained inexplicable at best, and otherwise - essential prerequisite for the operation of the RICO enterprise.
•
The missing Assignment/Appointment Order for Justice James A Richman, California Court of Appeals, 1st District, and refusal of his office to answer questions regarding the nature of his assignment/appointment in the case, combined with his contradictory designations in the court file as "Judge" "Referee" or "Designee" remained inexplicable at best.
•
Judgment records by Justice James A Richman were all defective on their faces/unentered .
•
Minutes by Justice James A Richman were all defective on their faces/unentered .
•
Appeal to the California Court of Appeals, 4th District, San Diego, was likewise dubious: (a) the Appeal was purported to be from a Judgment by James A Richman in Sturgeon v LA County. However, such judgment was never entered. Moreover, if you review the records of the Court of Appeals, 4th District, you would find that
Page 3/6
February 8, 2010
actually such judgment as never listed as the record from which the appeal was taken. (b) A ruling was purported in such appeal, that the payment to the judges in LA County were "not permitted". However, I never found any copy of the ruling (or the amended ruling for that purpose) of the Court of Appeals, 4th District, which was adequately signed by justices of the Court of Appeals and authenticated by the Clerk of the Court. (c) The purported ruling of the court of Appeals,4th District was never entered as a court record by the LA Superior Court in Sturgeon v LA County, indicating that the LA Superior Court never recognized it as a valid court record. (d) Accordingly, the judges of the LA Superior Court never conceded for one day their right to take the "not permitted' payments. •
The ongoing refusal of Judicial watch to answer any question regarding their role in running such invalid litigation for years, remained inexplicable as well. Given your connection to Judicial Watch, I would be grateful if you alert members of the organization to this aberration.
•
Judicial Watch's Attorney Orfanedes, based in Washington DC, was possibly duped.
•
Attorney Sterling Norris, who for all practical purposes runs Judicial Watch of Southern California as his private territory, deserved some additional review. He is retired from the corrupt LA justice system, where I was informed and believed he served as prosecutor. He was on personal basis with judges who were the key to corruption in LA County, including, but not limited to Jacqueline Connor, whom I deem the Madrona of organized crime in LA County. I was informed and believed that he was also personal friends with the subject of your writing elsewhere - California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron, Coming soon- deep house music!
Fraud in the Court (101) Essentials of Non Cases of the Equity/Enterprise Track at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Non Cases are the cornerstone of judicial corruption in the United States today, in both state and US courts, are surely another subject that is never taught in law school. Therefore, let me offer you the overview: •
Commencing records must be defective/unentered.
•
Termination records must be defective/unentered as well.
•
No valid commencement of jurisdiction may be entered - no valid assignment to a judge, no valid reference, etc.
Page 4/6 •
February 8, 2010
No valid dispositive order on jurisdiction may be entered - no valid order on disqualification, either denying or granting it.
•
All executable orders that may be issued by the court must be defective on their faces, and must not be entered, which explains the plethora of unsigned orders and judgments in the US today.
•
No court fees may be collected, where any mention is explicitly provided that such fees were for court services.
•
Public access to court records that would provide definitive evidence of the racketeering by the judges must be denied. Today - such denial of access is often achieved through implementation of fraudulent case management systems at the courts.
On February 8, 2010 Paula wrote: From: "Paula" To: Subject: Ronald George (Judgepedia) vs. Ronald M. George (Wikipedia) - and Zernik's story Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:03:19 -0500 X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000; On Christmas day, 2009 I wrote to you guys about a post I made regarding Ronald George. Well, I just went to look for the entry on Wikipedia because I needed to verify one of the links to the Sturgeon case. My posting regarding SBX2 11 under Ronald George, was not on Wikipedia. I forgot, it's on Judgepedia... not Wikipedia. I believe Wiki kept deleting it or moving it into history. I finally got it to stick, on Judgepedia, which looks just like Wikipedia. On Wiki's current entry for Ronald M. George, there's nothing regarding SBX2 11 and other corruption involving the chief justice of California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_M._George Here's the entry in Judgepedia, where I posted about SBX2 11L http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Ronald_George. Here's what you get now under Ronald George: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_George It appears what has happened is that the middle initial M. was added to Ronald George. Now if a person happens to land on the old Ronald George in Wiki, there's a link there to the new unimproved version of Wiki's Ronald M. George. Interesting! And here's a story about Wikipedia: http://www.banned-in-america.net/wikipedia-us-govt-fraud.html. Paula
Page 5/6
February 8, 2010
P.S. I just posted to my website about Joe Zernik's exposure of the corporation fraud... which Janet sent. www.dirtydecisions.com Now I'm going to post about Judgepedia vs. Wkipedia entries on Ron George, and include the Les Sachs/Wiki story.
On February 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:23:06 -0800 To: [email protected] From: joseph zernik Subject: Re: Ronald George (Judgepedia) vs. Ronald M. George (Wikipedia) - and Zernik's story Paula: Thanks for the notes. Papers and subjects previously banned in Wikipedia are gaining readership elsewhere: 1) Large-Scale False Imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California: http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=f03_1263860781 Leaked: January 19, 2010; 454 Views 2) Richard Isaac Fine: http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=90f_1264590719 Leaked: January 27, 2010; 115 Views 3) Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=c7f_1264673024 Leaked: January 28, 2010; 116 Views __________ http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/09-12-17-Richard-Isaac-Fine-Review-e Reads: 253 http://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/01-05-01-Rampart-FIPs-Rampart-First-Trial-PBS-Frontline-Rampart-FalseImprisonments-s Reads: 252 Best read in Scribs, by a large margin, remained that simple analysis showing the fraud in the Los Angeles County Sheriff Jail computer, which applicable also to the case of Richard Fine: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24809956/10-01-04-Los-Angeles-Sheriff-Department-Inmate-information-Centerdata-survey-Jose-Martinez-s Reads: 805 The most alarming deletion in Wikipedia was related to events that took place under Katrina in the article on Human Rights in the USA. The article itself was lengthy and self- congratulatory in nature. When water levels were rising, guards in prison in New Orleans, Louisiana, abandoned the prison, while leaving the prisoners locked in their cells to drown. The references were from:
Page 6/6
February 8, 2010
a) UN High Commissioner on Human Rights report. b) Paper in The Nation. Needless to say, hardly anybody in the US ever heard of the story, since it was hardly covered by mainstream media. Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron, Coming soon- deep house music!
