Skip to content

>OPEN QUESTIONS …

July 4, 2008

>

OPEN QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD OF BET TZEDEK AND THE LEGAL COMMUNITY AT LARGE IN PREPARATION FOR THE JUSTICE BALL, JULY 19, 2008

Is there any truth to these absurd claims?

  • The Los Angeles Superior Court and its honorable judges have been hiding its Books of Cout – Book of Judgments, the Index of All Cases and the Registers of Actions, all Public Records by law, for the last 25-30 years?
  • The Los Angeles Superior Court and it honorable judges have been engaged in racketeering in the last 25-30 years, by creating false, deliberately misleading legal records, that the Court kept “privileged” on its secretive computer system – Sustain (and which by law must be Public Records)?
  • The Los Angeles Superior Court and its honorable judges eliminated the Books of Court, Public Records by law, some 25-30 years ago, when they introduced the computerized system, Sustain, with no public oversight, in violation of the U.S. Rule Making Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. §2071 – 2077), and that Sustain from inception, was designed to defraud the public?
  • The Los Angeles Superior Court also uses the Sustain to transfer records and “Informal Briefs” to the Court of Appeal, in violation of rules of court, and any concept of Due Process, with no notice or service to parties in such actions?
  • Three of the past leaders of House of Justice – Bet Tzedek — David Pasternak, Sandor Samuels, and Terry Friedman, were jointly involved in racketeering acts?

Is so:

  • How come nobody in this large and prosperous legal community ever said anything in 25-30 years?
  • Is it correct to conclude that there was not a single honest judge in Los Angeles in the last 25-30 years? Any honest judge facing such conditions had to report it to the appropriate authorities pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(2) and/or protested and/or resigned…
  • 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.
  • Is it true to conclude that the Court of Appeal , 2nd District must be deemed incollusion with this racket?
  • Shouldn’t the Board of Bet Tzedek, or its ethics committee, if there is one, look into the issue of conduct of its board members past and present and reach some conclusions?

Dated: July 4, 2008

By:

_________________

Joseph Zernik

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