>NO VALID LITIGATION RECORDS
There are no valid Trial Court Litigation Records in Samaan v Zerniks because:
1) The Minute Orders, as shown in paper Court File, are almost without exception back-dated and therefore invalid
Sustain allowed the Judges to back-date Minute Orders. For example – Minute Order: Re-Asssignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor, a key document, purportedly establishing the authority of Judge Connor in this case, appears in the paper Court File with a date of 11/1/2005. This document is in fact dated 1/30/2006, almost 3 month later, as seen in the electronic file of that Minute Order.
Two sets of documents were submitted to the California Court of Appeal this week –
- a) Minute Orders with dates as shown in paper Court File
- b) Minute Orders with dates as shown in electronic Court File.
There are hardly any documents where these two dates match. Such cannot be valid Litigation Records.
2) The Minute Orders that are shown in paper Court File, were almost without exception entered without the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing to parties and without a Notice of Entry, as required by law, and therefore are invalid
In many of the Minute Orders, a note was included “Notice Waived” without any base at all. Such waive could not be possibly valid, since in most proceedings only 2 out of 4 parties were present. Therefore, the 2 parties that were not present could not possiby waive notice.
Ovbiously, the Court could not execute Notice as required by law – the parties would certainly have noticed it when the mail would arrive at times months, other time weeks after the time listed in the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing
3) The document that the Superior Court presented both in United States Court and in Court of Appeal as the valid Litigation Record –Case Summary, is diclaimed by the Court itself an not a formal Court document at all.
The Superior Court, fraudulently tried to present in both United States District Court and in California Court of Appeal a document titled “Case Summary“, from the online Courtnet system, as the valid litigation record.
But the Superior Court itself disclaims this document as invalid.
- The Courts and County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis and typically by parties of record and participants, does not constitute the official record of the court. Any user of the information is hereby advised that it is being provided as is and that it may be subject to error or omission. The user acknowledges and agrees that neither the Los Angeles Superior Court nor the County of Los Angeles are liable in any way whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided.
4) The Superior Court is avoiding ever presenting the Sustain report titled: “Case History“, which the Court itself is using as “Register of Actions“.
The Superior Court established a custom that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, U.S. Code, California Code and California Rules of Courts – it keeps electronic litigation records as confidential and does not allow access to such to litigants and counsels.
The Los Angeles Superior Court falsely claims:
- “Sustain data are privileged – for the Court only“
And strangely enough, the Court has been able to get away with that for years.
The Superior Court is avoiding ever presenting the “Case History” report from Sustain since this document presents evidence for misconduct by the Judiciary – false and deliberately misleading litigation records.
- The Minute Orders are invalid records with evidence of deliberate insertion of false and misleading dates, and no valid notice to parties of their entry.
- The Case History from Sustain is never presented by the Court as a litigation record – for a good reason – it includes evidence of misconduct by the Judiciary.
- The Case Summary report that is presented in Court by LA Superior Court is disclaimed by the same court as not a valid litigation record.