Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
10-
10-03-
03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA
Superior Court
The communications below provide discussion of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which is one of the best
examples of the alleged large scale fraud perpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusion
of LA Superior Court and the County of Los Angeles in the operation of servers of online court information.
Such alleged fraud is conducted in parallel to denial of access to true court records of the LA Superior Court -
alleged large-scale deprivation of First Amendment rights.
The alleged fraud in operation of such online servers was the subject of a recent request for assistance by LA
County Ombudsman Stephanie Maxberry, in filing a complaint against the person/agency of the County of Los
Angeles, who were accountable for the collusion in conduct of the fraud.
~~jz
Hi R:
I am amazed when you, as an attorney, make such false statements on major legal matters at
ease.
"not permitted" payments - thereby documenting the liabilities faced by such judges.
• Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is also one of the best examples of widespread corruption
of the judges of LA Superior Court, supported by deprivation of the First Amendment rights of all 10
millions who reside in LA County - to inspect and to copy court records.
• Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is one of the best examples of the alleged large scale fraud
perpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusion of LA Superior Court and
the County of Los Angeles in the operation of alleged fraudulent servers of online court information,
which were the subject of a recent request for assistance by LA County Ombudsman Stephanie
Maxberry,
• Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is NOT an example of the transfer of a case against LASC
from LASC to another venue as you have falsely stated.
What are the true facts in the matter of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)?
1) The LA Superior Court refused and continue to refuse to allow access to inspect and to copy the
Register of Actions (California civil docket) of Sturgeon v LA County, the same way that it refused
and continue to refuse to allow access to the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County
(BS109420), the case where Richard Fine was purported to be jailed.
2) There is no valid order on file for the transfer of the case of Sturgeon v LA County.
3) Justice James A Richman, who presided in the case for some years, did so with no valid legal
record to support his authority to preside in the case.
4) While James A Richman signed his papers "Sitting as Judge by Assignment", the LA Superior
Court, tripling/quadrupling as the court, the clerk, the judge, and intervenor in this case, routinely
referred to Justice Richman as ruling "By Reference, not by Assignment". Judicial Watch of
Southern California, whose conduct of this case remained an enigma, referred to Justice Richman
in its the latest appeal records, as presiding "By designation".
It is a classic example of conduct of the LA Superior Court - Was Justice Richman a Judge? A
Referee? A Designee?
The Office of Justice James A Richman refused and continue to refuse to answer on questions to
this effect forwarded to his office. A reasonable person, upon review of the records would likely
conclude - Justice James A Richman was engaging in his conduct in Sturgeon v LA County as
neither a Judge, nor a Referee, nor a Designee.
5) Of note, Justice James A Richman was engaging in his conduct from Department 1 of LA
Superior Court Central District. The same conduct, judicial officer presiding from Department 1
with no Assignment or Appointment Order was the key dispute for which Judge Yaffe purportedly
sentenced Richard Fine to jail: Judge Yaffe insisted that Commissioner Murray Gross was
permitted to preside as a Debtor Examiner with no Appointment Order at all, while Richard Fine
justly claimed that Murray Gross had no authority at all absent such Appointment Order.
1) Please provide a valid official court record that establishes the foundation of Sturgeon v LA
County (BC351286) as a true case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
2) Please provide a valid official court record that establishes that the case was transferred, as you
Page 3/4 March 8, 2010
falsely claimed.
3) Please provide a valid official court record that established the authority of Justice James A
Richman to preside in the case.
~~jz
Hi R:
...My experience with Ramona Ripston and Samuel Parker at SC ACLU was that they
would not touch with a 9 foot pole anything related to corruption in Los Angeles
County.
I approached them regarding the violations of First Amendment rights of all 10 million
residents of LA County - failure to keep Book of Judgments, and hiding of the
judgment entry listings, of the true Register of Actions, of the true Calendars of the
Courts, and of the True Index of All Cases.
After repeated requests and denials, they explained that I was making fuss about
"archaic issues"...
~~jz