Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • 09-10-16 Sturgeon V Los Angeles County (BC351286) Los Angeles Superior Court - Request For Presiding Judge McCoy - To Access Court Records To Inspect and To Copy S

    Enviado por

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    48 visualizações2 páginas
    Executive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, John A Clarke – Clerk and Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, of the Los Angeles Superior Court, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and made false representations of entering judgments in the case. · Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law. · Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case. · Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either. The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon. Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered. Requests, which were forwarded to Clerk Clarke and Presiding Judge McCoy to remove false and deliberately misleading court records, published online, were likewise left unanswered. In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come. Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents. The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. Human

    Título original

    09-10-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Los Angeles Superior Court -Request for Presiding Judge McCoy - to Access Court Records to inspect and to copy s

    Direitos autorais

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Executive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, John A Clarke – Clerk and Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, of the Los Angeles Superior Court, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and made false representations of entering judgments in the case. · Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law. · Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case. · Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either. The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon. Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered. Requests, which were forwarded to Clerk Clarke and Presiding Judge McCoy to remove false and deliberately misleading court records, published online, were likewise left unanswered. In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come. Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents. The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. Human

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    48 visualizações2 páginas

    09-10-16 Sturgeon V Los Angeles County (BC351286) Los Angeles Superior Court - Request For Presiding Judge McCoy - To Access Court Records To Inspect and To Copy S

    Enviado por

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    Executive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, John A Clarke – Clerk and Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, of the Los Angeles Superior Court, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and made false representations of entering judgments in the case. · Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law. · Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case. · Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either. The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon. Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered. Requests, which were forwarded to Clerk Clarke and Presiding Judge McCoy to remove false and deliberately misleading court records, published online, were likewise left unanswered. In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come. Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents. The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. Human

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 2

    Digitally signed

    by Joseph H
    Zernik
    DN: cn=Joseph H
    Zernik, o, ou,
    email=jz12345@e
    arthlink.net, c=US
    Location: La
    THE COD PROJECT by Dr Z (not-for-profit tax id application to be filed) Verne, California
    Date: 2009.10.16
    23:51:08 -07'00'

    Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD


    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

    09-10-16 Request filed with Presiding Judge McCoy – for access to court records.

    Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:23:59 -0700


    To: "Charles W McCoy" <12136177176@efaxsend.com>, cmccoy@lasuperiorcourt.org
    From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
    Subject: The latest - special security against me by the court...

    CHARLES W MCCOY
    PRESIDING JUDGE,
    LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
    By email: cmccoy@lasuperiorcourt.org
    By Fax: (213) 617-7176

    Response kindly requested by Monday, October 19, 2009, 5:00pm

    RE: (1) Marina v LA County (BS109420) (2) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Request to
    access court records to inspect and to copy.

    TO PRESIDING JUDGE MCCOY AND THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT: Please take
    notice that I have repeatedly requested from Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE access inspect and
    to copy court records in the two cases referenced above. I am also writing to notice you that the denial
    of access in these two cases was likely to cause harm far beyond the alleged deprivation of civil rights
    under the color of law and deprivation of the implied guarantee for honest services:
    1) In case (1), such denial of access is alleged to prevent me from producing definitive evidence that
    would allow to end the alleged unlawful holding of Atty RICHARD FINE.

    2) In case (2), such denial of access is alleged to prevent me from producing definitive evidence that
    would allow me to end the alleged unlawful proceedings in a case that is likely to harm all 10 millions
    who reside in LA County and deprive them of honest court services for years to come.
    A. Request for access to inspect and to copy Case History Reports/Registers of Actions in
    Sustain in the two cases (1) and (2) above

    I have repeatedly requested from Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE access inspect and to copy the
    Registers of Actions/ Case History Reports of the two case (1) and (2) referenced above. I was
    denied such access for no reason at all.

    Therefore, please accept this notice as a request addressed to you to secure my access to the
    Registers of Actions/ Case History Reports in Sustain, in these two cases to inspect and to copy. Such
    request is made pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).

    B. Request for access to inspect and to copy orders providing the foundation for the authority
    of court officers in the two cases (1) and (2) above

    The two cases (1) and (2) referenced above share the "Dept 1 scheme" - conduct, or attempt to
    conduct of proceedings in Dept 1 of the Central District by Officers of the Court, but with no
    foundation for their authority, and/or unnoticed/ unknown/ undefined foundation for their authority. I
    have previously forwarded requests to (1) Justice JAMES A RICHMAN, and (2) Commissioner
    MURRAY GROSS, requesting that they help me identify the court records in the respective cases that
    were the purported foundation for their authority in such cases. Neither responded.
    z Page 2/2 October 16, 2009

    Therefore, please accept this notice as a request addressed to you, to identify the records, if any, by
    date and title, and to secure my access to such court records that provide the foundation for the
    authority of (1) Justice JAMES A RICHMAN, and (2) Commissioner MURRAY GROSS in the
    respective cases (1) and (2) above.

    In case such records do not exist, or are not in the court's possession, I request that you make a clear
    statement to that effect.

    C. Time is of the essence

    I kindly request that you provide responses by Monday, October 19, 2009, since time is of the
    essence. Atty RICHARD FINE has been allegedly falsely imprisoned for over half a year by now.
    Surely you would not wish to prolong such alleged miscarriage of justice.

    This request is NOT for access from remote location via electronic networks. Please inform me of the
    time and place, on court location where I would be allowed such access. Even if in short notice, I
    would do my best to accommodate the schedules of court personnel.

    Dated: October 16, 2009

    Los Angeles County, California ____/s/ Joseph H Zernik____


    JOSEPH H ZERNIK

    Você também pode gostar