Skip to content

>SUSTAIN

May 23, 2008

>

SUSTAIN – THE LA SUPERIOR COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Excerpts from a document filed with the California Court of Appeal , 2nd District.



d. Sustain Incorporates Some Features that Should Never be

Allowed in CMS – Such as Secret Invalidation of Records.


The feature that is most disturbing, is the ability of the judiciary, or possibly

others, to invalidate or vacate records with no notice to parties. Such is

implemented by changing the date of entry of the document, after the fact,

into 00/00/00, or 33/33/33 – applying to an order or a document that was

already filed, entered, and noticed, an invalid entry date. Practically all judges in Samaan v Zernik resorted to this disturbing feature:

i. Item #27, Exh p25 May 14, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte

Application to Shorten Time to Hearing Motion for Reconsideration- secretly invalidated…


The Ex Parte application was a proceeding “off the record”, and later the

minute order was vacated as well. The application by Zernik, Defendant in

LASC, was for reconsideration of serious sanctions set on him (>$2,000) by

Judge Connor, in a situation that in and of itself resulted from denial of access

to Court File records and Minute Orders and dishonest conduct by Att

Keshavarzi. The decision to set the sanctions was somewhat unusual, and the

denial of the motion for shortened hearing on reconsideration could have been

seen as rather harsh as well. The records were eliminated.

None of this could be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None of

this could be figured out using any of the records typically provided to litigants

in LASC.


ii. Item #52, Exh p55, Sept 20, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Due Process and Proposed Referee O’Brien “lodged” Motion for Appointment as Referee – secretly invalidated…

The record shows that this minute order was invalidated after April 30, 2008

by changing the entry date to “00/00/00”. Judge Goodman was with no

authority at that time, and whether he or anybody else invalidated this minute

order, it was a case of falsification of litigation records.

iii. Item #53, Exh p56, OCT 3, 2007 Disqualification of Judge Goodman – secretly invalidated…

Judge Goodman never realized that Countrywide was involved in this case

until about a month after taking over as Presiding Judge. That is very difficult

to accept at face value. But once he realized that, and given his “long term

close personal friendship with the chief legal counsel of

Countywide”, he immediately recused himself.

One must commend his honesty, even if he was late to remember his friends.

But then again, careful inspection of the records shows that he vacated the

minute order after it was issued and noticed to parties… and that he forgot to

notice the parties of the fact that he vacated that order.

One must note that Judge Goodman was with no authority at all after his

recusal, including no authority to vacate his own Minute Order. Therefore, if

he himself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of

falsification of litigation records.

iv. Item #67, Exh p 65, Nov 5, 2007 Judge Segal’s Ex Parte For Shortened Notice Hearing On Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of A Receiver – secretly invalidated…

This is the minute order of Plaintiff’s ex parte to shorten time for hearing on

appointment of receiver. Given the ruling was on Nov 5, 2007, opposition was

due on Nov 6, 2007, that is the next day. Judge Segal decided to generously

allow Defendant two extra days till Nov 8, 2007.

A legitimate Minute Order was issued and incorporated in paper Court file, but

the electronic Court File data shows it was invalidated by changing the entry

date to 33/33/33. No notice was given to litigants.

v. Item #78, Exh p 73 DEC 7, 2007 -Ex Parte Proceedings Before The Honorable Lisa Hart- Cole – secretly invalidated…

The record indicates that Judge Hart-Cole followed the same routines. By the

time she was recused, her records show that she already set the grounds for

running a hearing on Receiver’s ex parte application as an “off the record”

proceeding.
In addition, after issuing the minute order of her own recusal and having a clerk mail it out, which was also entered in the paper court-file, same Minute Order was vacated without making any explicit record of it, just changing the document date to “00/00/00”.

One must note that Judge Hart-Cole was with no authority after her recusal,

including no authority to vacate her own Minute Order. Therefore, if she

herself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of falsification of

litigation records.

vi. Item #83, Exh p 78, Supervising Judge Rosenberg, Dec 26, 2008 Minute Order Denying Appellant’s Ex Parte for Due Process – secretly invalidated…

On December 26, 2008, Appellant appeared before the Supervising Judge, to

ask for his civil rights to be restored – access to litigation records, vacating of

false records, etc. Judge Rosenberg denied it all wholesale. But then he

vacated his own Minute Order with no notice to Appellant.

vii. Item #90, Exh p 83, Judge Friedman, Jan 30, 2008 Appellant’s Ex Parte Application to Release Funds that are his Proceeds from the Sale of his Home against his Will, and are Held by the Court with no Legal Authority – secretly invalidated…

On Jan 30, 2008, Appellant appeared Ex Parte before Judge Friedman, and

asked that the Court release his funds, originally ~$800,000, but ever

vanishing, held by the Court with no due authority.

Judge Friedman immediately denied the application, with prejudice, and

warned Appellant that if he asks for it again, Judge Friedman would impose

sanction.

Later – Judge Friedman vacated this order. Therefore, on May 19, 2008,

Appellant came again ex parte to ask for release of his funds. Judge Friedman

was not in that day, so Appellant was seen by Judge Tarle, who denied the

application, with prejudice again.

e. Sustain allows the Judiciary to Run Proceedings “of the record” without notice to parties.

This litigant of course would never have participated in any of these

proceedings, had he known that they were off the record.



i. Item #13 Exh p13 – 10/31/06-11/9/06 Defendant’s
Motion To Expunge Lis Pendens –off the record

Combined, these records demonstrate the proceedings of Defendant’s Motion

to Expunge Lis Pendens, which was managed entirely as an “Off the Record “

procedure. This abuse of the system is pervasive throughout the records, and

is directly tied to the assignment of multiple independent Events to a single

time slot.

An adequately verified Case Management System should not have allowed

such to be practiced. The abuse of the system is also tied to the assignment of

adjudication “Motion Denied” to an Event that was “Case Management

Conference”. Again, a adequately verified Case Management System should

not have allowed that entry.

None of this evidence could ever be found by Appellant had he relied on Case

Summary – the document filed by Defendants as the “Docket”. It appears that

Courtnet and Case Summary rely heavily on text editing, but have minimal

assertions and limitations that are built into the software – in short – it would

tolerate almost anything, but it is not the formal record of the litigation.

None of this could be figured out using records typically provided to

litigants in LASC.

ii. Item #11, Exh p 11, 13, 15, Oct Nov 2006 – Trial Setting Conference – “off the record

The Trial Setting Conference was a proceeding “off the Record”, and no trial

date was ever adequately entered in Sustain, while Judge Connor continued to

manipulate trial dates and to switch between Jury and Non-Jury trials, until

after she was disqualified, Sept 10 2007, when she finally formally entered trial

date into the system at around 4:30pm.

In between, Summary Judgment hearing was conducted less than 30 days

before trial date, as set at that time, with no explicit notice or permanent

record of such. Note the date of entry of Minute Order is not consistent among

the several pages of the Minute Order, changing in the last page from

November 9, 2006 to January 16, 2007.

None of this could ever be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None

of this could be figured out using records typically provided to litigants in

LASC.

iii. Item #31, July 6, 2007 – Indeterminate Party Countrywide Ex Parte Application For A Protective Order – “off the record

Zernik often asked, but never got the answers:



  • • How could Countrywide be Non Party, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross-

    Defendant, Intervenor, all at the same time?

  • • How could the ex parte application of July 6, 2007 be scheduled in the

    first place, at a time that no Discovery Motions were allowed, by a nonparty, at a time that the court was dark?

Now Zernik knows, that the answer is that this was another “off the record”

proceeding. For that reason, the Protective Order that was the outcome of this

hearing was never issued, never recorded, never produced, and never noticed

to Zernik.

But when so desired, such a non-existent Protective Order was deemed by

Judge Friedman very recently – in Feb 2008 – as being “in full force and

effect”, although the order was never seen by that time or after.

Judge Friedman later also found such a non-existent order as the legal

foundation for setting serious sanctions against Zernik exceeding $22,000,

and finding Appellant in Contempt of the Court, all through a Bench Trial,

where Judge Friedman, Triar of Facts, admitted evidence that is writings

produced by Countrywide, with no authentication at all, as was the case with

Judge Connor in Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and Motion for Summary

Judgment .

Combined – while courts around the United States rebuke Countrywide

litigation practices, that were documented around the country to include filing

of false and misleading documents, the LASC continues abuse of Plaintiff’s

rights for Speech, Due Process, and Possession, all based on such fraudulent

Countrywide documents.

The right to file mandatory counter claims for fraud, or to have a chance for a

fair hearing on motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 on such fraudulent

documents were consistently denied.

None of this could be discovered based on :”Case Summary”, or records

normally provided to litigants in the LASC.

f. Sustain allowed Judge Connor to file fictitious Minute Orders.

Appellant believes that the integrity of courts in the English speaking countries

depended to a large degree on the checks and balances in the power of Judges

and Clerks. A Judge could write an order, but could never enter it.

On the basis of the partial data provided, Appellant believes that such

distinctions were eliminated in Sustain. The only power remaining with the

clerk to stop an invalid order is to refuse to mail it out.

But then again, it appears that the LA Superior Court holds minute orders

valid even when they are not mailed out to litigants or served in any other way,

in defiance of basic notions of Due Process, or any logic at all.

Judge Connor entered two entirely fictitious Minute Orders:

i. July 9, 2007, Minute Order – Motion for Reconsideration –

The minute order describes a telephonic hearing of motion for reconsideration

that never took place. Apparently this was to replace the minute order that she

vacated, and here she granted the motion for reconsideration. None of it was

reported to litigants – no minute order was mailed out. Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7/Disqualification Of Judge Connor

The record for this proceeding is of critical significance:

It was represented in minute order and also in a letter from Att Keshavarzi to

Retired Judge O’Brien as a proof that Judge Connor ruled that none of Zernik’s

claims of fraud in Countrywide’s documents was valid. And numerous attempts of Zernik to vacate this record, which was entered with no authority at all, and which defies truth and justice, were always denied.



An “on the record” hearing on the Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7

could have overturned the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP

§437c.

Careful analysis of the record in Case History now shows:

Defendant’s filing of statement of disqualification was entered (p105) as:

  • 9/10/07 Document Filed

    Miscellaneous-Other MEMO

    Defendant, & Defendant in Pro Per

Instead of using the correct menu selection in Sustain:

  • 9/10/07 Document Filed

    Affidavit of Prejudice

Judge Connor ran the recusal on her own motion as the only “on the record”

proceeding in this case. Both the affidavit of prejudice and the motion for sanctions per CCP §128.7 were merely “off the record” proceedings in this case.

1) This proceeding is also instructive in examining the use of Courtnet

“Case Summary” – the web-base, publicly-accessible system to

mislead. Under “Proceedings” in Case Summary, the following entry appears:

  • Proceeding: Recusal (Motion for Sanctions) – Motion

    Granted

Obviously, the phrasing is deliberately tangled, to mislead, but the overall

impression is that the hearing was on the Recusal, which was granted. That is

of course the opposite of the record created in Sustain.

And on Aug 30, 2007 Appellant Took Part in What he

Thought was a Status Conference, and in Fact was

Registered as a Hearing on a Motion.

i. Item #45, Exh p 47, Aug 30, 2007 – Status Conference

This proceeding presents an entirely new deception technique: Although the

proceeding was announced as a status conference, here without defendant’s

knowledge, it is defined as a “hearing”. During the proceeding itself, Judge

Connor a couple of times referred to the conference as a “hearing” of a

“motion”. Each time defendant protested that there was no motion before the

court, but Judge Connor did not explain her secret intention – to record the

status conference as a motion to appoint an escrow referee, instead of a

unilateral court appointment. Yet the appointment was going to be a defective

one. The language of the minute order is deliberately defective:

  • The Court appoint Honorable Greg O’Brien,

    Retired Judge as Referee. The court will

    prepare the order to appointing discovery

    referee”

There may be judges who write like this, but not Judge Connor, who is possibly the sharpest in the Santa Monica Court House, and by far te best writer.

On the record there was an adequate order appointing O’Brien discovery

referee, issued secretly in chambers July 27, 2007, and never noticed. But

none of that was ever mentioned. The ingenuity here is in the ability to self eface and appear dum .. when it is useful.

Absurd as it may sound: during the conference, defendant, who by now was

familiar with Judge Connor’s conduct asked her on the record ‘to be diligent in

completing an appointment in compliance with the law’ and offered the use of

ADR forms. Judge Connor, on the record, explained that she had no intention

of issuing an appointment in compliance with the law.

Later, retired Judge O’Brien, on Sept 7, 2007, will present defendant with this

defective minute order as the sole source of his authority as an escrow referee

to seize defendant’s property.

Obviously, the Order Appointing Referee, marked in Case History (P103) as

signed and entered, was either the same, alternatively – it was some secret

order, like the one from July 27, 2007, that was never noticed to anybody,

including Judge O’Brien.

In “Event Complete” (P103), one notes that in this case the “Hearing-Other”, which Defendant participated in without even being aware of it, was in fact the “on the record” proceeding in this case. The “Status Conference” was in fact an “off the record” proceeding here.

At the end of the “Event” note, and also at the end of “Event Complete” one

finds a manually entered comment as part of the language of the minute order:

“jt 9-07-07”

Obviously, Jury Trial (albeit, the record indicates parties agreed to non-jury

trial) date was still manually carried, not entered in Sustain, and here Judge

Connor forgot that just two days earlier she continued it to Jan 11, 2008.

h. On Sept 14, 2007, the Supervising Judge, the Hon Rosenberg, secretly filed documents in the file, with no notice to litigants.

On page 113 in Case History one finds the following entry:

  • 09/14/07 Document Filed

    Memo

    Miscellaneous- Other

    Dism-Plaintiff In Pro Per

    (2) Documents received by facsimile

    service and filed per the direction of the

    Supervising Judge of the West District

    the Honorable Gerald Rosenberg.

    Filed By ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant

The record copied above, in full, is probably the reduced essence of the use of

Sustain as an instrument of fraud on Defendant Zernik in the West District, LA

Superior Court:

  • 1. The notice is cryptic and deliberately misleading.
  • 2. No notice was given to litigant of this unusual filing.

    3. Nobody expected that Zernik would ever lay his hands on Case

    History by Sustain. In fact, among the numerous attorneys Zernik

    questioned on this point, none ever obtained Sustain records during

    litigation, except that some, but a minority, get Minute Orders at times.
  • 4. The honorable Gerald Rosenberg is:

    Not – Zernik, Joseph – Defendant, and also

    Not – Dism-Plaintiff in Pro Per

This unusual filing is nothing less than direct intervention by the Supervising

Judge, who preached to Defendant Zernik his lack of authority to even vacate

the groundless minute order filed after disqualification by a judge lacking in

authority at all. Obviously the Supervising Judge is authority to hear motions

to vacate judicial acts, under the stipulations prescribed by law.

To this day Defendant Zernik does not know what documents were filed by

Judge Rosenberg, but an educated guess suggests that they were papers

including the proposed order for appointment of O’Brien as Escrow Referee,

produced by Plaintiff’s Counsel and O’Brien, together, as a remedy for the

deliberately defective orders produced by Judge Connor. Of course there was

nothing to prevent Plaintiff from filing the proposed order with a motion per

Due Process.

Similarly, on Dec 13, 2007, Judge Friedman signed an order, Appellant still

does not know for sure what it was. With no advance notice at all, this proposed order was moved for a hearing on

Sept 20, 2007, see row #52 below, during what was noticed as Case

Conference. An introductory comment by Judge Goodman, was obviously

disingenuous, when he claimed had no idea where the papers came from (yet

he brought them for immediate hearing).

i. A person Reviewing the Case as a Whole Would Also Reasonably Entertain the Doubt that Sustain, as Operated in Santa Monica, but not in Beverly Hills, Allows Financial Mismanagement or Worse.



The record from Dec 7, 2007, Ex Parte in Beverly Hills before Judge Hart –

Cole is unique, since it shows that the system in Beverly Hills is set to print

the register number of the action (here – #BH490068002). Register

numbers were deleted from all the Santa Monica clerk’s printouts. This is

further evidence that the Santa Monica system was especially suitable for

abuse of Due Process.
But since the register numbers are tied to payment for moving party, all Journal Entries in Santa Monica, typically for $40.00 each, are with no ID

number.

j. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based systems



It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were

discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration

should be given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter

balance to the judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions.

The authorities of the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully

prescribed and segregated, to generate appropriate checks and balances.

k. CMS’s Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor the Quality and Integrity of the Courts



The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems

must not allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing.

Without accurate docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the

system can become a valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The

contribution of the ministerial staff in this process needs to be emphasized,

and their personal accountability for each act of docketing, which must bear a

personal digital signature that is easily visible.

l. The Common Feature – The Culture of Silence



The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that

“true remedy is in filing an appeal from order for

appointment of receiver”.

But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal,

like the Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California

Code of Ethics Canon 3D(1).

They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff

by Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut

in its directive.




Canon 3D(1) says:



  • D. Disciplinary Responsibilities

    (1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that

    another judge has violated any provision of the

    Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or

    initiate appropriate corrective action, which may

    include reporting the violation to the appropriate

    authority.

  • None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.

    Plaintiff believes that best explanation for what takes place in the LA Superior Court is found in a paper by Erwin ChemerinskyThe Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.

    In it he states:

  • “Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart

    Division of the Los Angeles Police Department

    framed innocent individuals by planting evidence

    and committing perjury to gain convictions.

    Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes

    they did not commit and were convicted by juries

    because of the fabricated cases against them. Many

    individuals were subjected to excessive police force

    and suffered very serious injuries as a result.

    Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin

    with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what

    the officers did. This is conduct associated with the

    most repressive dictators and police states. It

    occurred in Los Angeles….

    … the … report is lacking in the following ways:

    O First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem,

    and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.

    O Second, the report fails to recognize that the

    central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police

    Department… the “Code of Silence”..

    O Third – the …report fails to consider the need for

    structural reforms…

    O Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system

    are unduly minimized…”

Much of what is stated above is directly applicable to the LA Superior Court, in

particular the statement regarding the “Culture of Silence”. Chemerinsky concludes with a statement that is also applicable here:

  • “No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…”

1. progress by the Judicial Council, in order to avoid errors made in the

introduction of Sustain in LASC over 20 years ago. In particular, this complaint emphasizes the unusual mode of operation of Sustain, the case management system in the West District, Los Angeles Superior Court, which different than its use in Central District. Moreover, Appellant shows significant differences in the usage pattern even between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, both court houses of the West District.

3. Open Questions:

  • Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship

    between These Unusual Rules of LASC, and the Unusual Events

    Surrounding Entry of Judgment in Samaan v Zernik?

  • Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship

    between These Unusual Rules of LASA and the Fact that LA County
    was Designated by the FBI “Epicenter” of the “Real Estate Fraud Epidemic”?

Appellant states that he believes that a reasonable person, reviewing Samaan v

Zernik as a whole would be hard pressed not to conclude that the answer is

“Yes” to both questions. The Court of Judge Connor was not only permissive of

Real Estate Fraud – it was supportive of it.

And the succession of judges the presided in Samaan v Zernik after her, all

with no Reassignment Order and with no authority at all, engaged in dishonest

conduct in attempts to cover up the whole affair and stand by a colleague,

instead of standing by the Law and the Constitution, as they have vowed to do

in their Oath.



Interviews with at least a couple of dozen attorneys who were experienced in

Real Estate litigation also revealed that they all had unanimous opinion –

under no circumstances would any of them agree to claim fraud and deceit in a

Real Estate litigation in the Santa Monica court, regardless if it is true or not.

The excuses were far fetched. Eventually, an older attorney, Larry Rothstein

provided a straight forward answer:


”First – the Judge will never listen to a claim of fraud,

and second – the Judge will only hold it against you.”



Indeed, when Appellant insisted on exposing the fraud in Samaan v Zernik

(SC087400), Judge Connor explained in open court to Appellant’s newly

retained counsel on Aug 21, 2007 – that she considered Appellant “A Pest

and that she ”treat[ed] him accordingly”.



Appellant entered a comment
to that effect in his Aug 30, 2007 Case Management Statement, expecting that Judge Connor would finally recuse herself. But Judge Connor only made a comment about Appellant ‘throwing it in her face’, and Appellant had to file for recusal for cause again on Sept 10, 2007. Only then Judge Connor finally recused.

g. This California Court of Appeal Should Declare Samaan V Zernik

Mistrial




The issues reviewed here, do not involve the finding of facts in the Aug 9,

2007 Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, where Judge Connor was

Triar of Facts, a whole subject in and of itself, which is one of the subjects of

underlying the appeal from the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to

CCP §437c.

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the circumstances surrounding

the appointment of Att David Pasternak as Receiver. In an unusual generous

comment, this Court of Appeal itself wrote that:




Petitioner’s true remedy is in an appeal from the Order Appointing Receiver



The issues reviewed here also do not involve the determination of the Courts of

Judge Segal and Judge Friedman to rob Appellant of his home equity,

proceeds from the sale of his home against his will, purportedly pursuant to

the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court for Specific Performance. Those funds are

indefinitely held by the Court with no legal foundation at all.

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the fraudulent conveyance of real

property title by Receiver Pasternak recently uncovered by Appellant. Since

Receiver Pasternak, following the Appointment Order by Judge Segal, was

determined to convey title to the property without any reliance on the Aug 9,

2007 Judgment by Court, he needed to avail himself to practices that are out of

compliance with the law, including straight forward fraud. [As a reminder –

Receiver Pasternak appears as one of the LASC’s favorite receivers, by the

sheer number of transactions showing under his name in the Registrar’s office,

and the number of cases showing in review of LASC records, all regardless of

his own declaration of his exorbitant fees.]

This review of the operation of Sustain – LASC CMS – in the Santa Monica

Court House is submitted to the California Court of Appeal in support of the

motions named below, and concurrently with them:

1) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s Petition of April 1, 2008,

amended April 4, 2008, in which Appellant requested that the Court of

Appeal take corrective action to stop conduct of other judges that is in

violation of the California Code of Ethics, Canon 3D(1), and was denied

with no explanation at all. This review of the operations of Sustain – the

LASC provides plenty of additional examples of unethical conduct by

judges relative to Samaan v Zernik, which Appellant himself was not

aware of and did not have appropriate evidence for at the time of filing

that Petition, as a result of the LASC’s ongoing denial of access to

litigation records.

2) Request to Set Aside the Court of Appeal’s ruling on Appellant’s January

24, 2008 Petition in Re: Judge Friedman’s response to Affidavits of

Perjury for Cause on Jan 11 and Jan 15, 2008, which was denied on the

basis of timeliness relative to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit. In view of the

dishonesty in the stated Date of Entry on the Minute Orders of both Jan

11 and Jan 15, 2008 this court may consider that Petition timely relative

even to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit.

3) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s request that the Justices of

the Court of Appeal who decide this case file a Statement on the Record

relative to their relationships with the judges named here, given the

unusual nature of this case. Appellant requests alternatively, that any

Justice that served as a Judge in the LASC since the introduction of

Sustain, recuse from this case.

4) Request to rescind the filing of the Reporters’ Transcript and the Clerk’s

Transcript filed by the LASC. Both were filed with no counsel signature,

out of compliance with CCP §128.7, and both include false and

deliberately misleading records, again trying to cover up dishonest

conduct of judges. In particular, the Clerk’s Transcript includes a copy of

“Case Summary” from Courtnet, which in included where a Register of

Action should have been included.

This review is also submitted concurrently with a request for Receiver

Pasternak to resign as Receiver, for violation of the Oath he took when

assuming that position, by offering Appellant to support release of Appellant’s

funds held by Receiver, if Appellant drops the U.S. complaint against Att

Pasternak.




This review limited itself to the dishonest conduct involved in the docketing

and recording of litigation involved in the operation of the LASC’s Case

Management System – Sustain. And yet, the issues related to abuse of United

States Constitutional rights for Due Process revealed in this review are

sufficient in and of themselves to deem Samaan v Zernik Mistrial and vacate

all rulings, orders, and Judgments.

Appellant requests new rulings in the matters listed above, and suggests that a

just and appropriate ruling is to declare Samaan v Zernik Mistrial.

Respectfully submitted,



Dated: May 20, 2008

_______________________________


JOSEPH ZERNIK

DEFENDANT & CROSS-COMPLAINANT

in pro per
Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s