Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.10.22
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 17:59:23 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-10-21 Ongoing denial of First Amendment/Common Law rights to access court records – to
inspect and to copy, and Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service –
in Los Angeles County, California, are keys to the alleged racketeering at the Courts.

Los Angeles, October 21 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) released records as evidence
of Public Corruption and Racketeering by Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, Clerk of the Court
JOHN A CLARKE, Judge JACQULINE CONNOR, and others of the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles. Through deprivation of the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records –
to inspect and to copy, combined with denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service,
and routine issuance of invalid minutes, orders, and judgments, which were never authenticated by the Clerk,
but were nevertheless enforced, the Court routinely conducted pretense litigations. The records also detailed
refusal of US Department of Justice to enforce such fundamental Human Rights in Los Angeles County,
California – the most populous in the United States, with over 10 million residents. The records, which
detailed involvement of Bank of America, and Countrywide before it in alleged racketeering at the courts
elaborated on evidence, which was previously provided to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations,
and led to a statement in its recent report on Human Rights in the United States referring to “corruption of the
courts and the legal profession” in California.
The records originated from the caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), however, the practices, which were
documented, were pervasive at the Los Angeles courts. [i] In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), a group of
judges of the Los Angeles Court conducted for almost 5 years (2005-10) a pretense real-estate litigation,
the outcome of which was opined as “fraud being committed” [ii] by a Fraud Expert – FBI veteran, who had
been decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director. The beneficiaries of the
opined real- estate fraud and the alleged racketeering included, but were not limited to Countrywide Financial
Corporation, and later Bank of America Corporation. ANGELO MOZILO (then CEO of Countrywide),
SANDOR SAMUELS (then Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, today- Associate General Counsel of Bank
of America), and BRIAN MOYNIHAN (then General Counsel, today - President of Bank of America), were
all directly involved in the matter. [iii] The US Department of Justice continues to deny Equal Protection in
the case, and according to a letter by the Fraud Expert, [iv] such denial stemmed from refusal to expose or
address the widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.
1. Denial of access to court records – to inspect and to copy
Defendant in Samaan v Zernik was entirely denied access to the paper and electronic Court files for almost the
full first two years of the litigation, regardless of attempts to access the court file through counsel, through
legal services, and by personal appearances at the Office of the Clerk. Declarations by legal services
providers documented the denial of access to such records. [v] [vi]
Therefore, on August 31, 2007, Defendant filed at the court of Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG
complaint under the caption of Samaan v Zernik, pertaining to abuse at the Court, including, but not limited to
the denial of access to court file records – to inspect and to copy. [vii]
On August 31, 2007, Judge ROSENBERG therefore conducted an Ex Parte proceeding on the Complaint.
[viii]
a) Access to electronic court records in SUSTAIN: [ix ][x ]
On August 31, 2007, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG denied Defendant’s request to access the electronic
court file in SUSTAIN – the court’s case management system - under the false claim:
z Page 2/8 October 22, 2010

Sustain is privileged – for the Court only.

The exact same response, was provided around the same time by staff of the office of then Presiding
Judge J STEPHEN CZULEGER, in what should be deemed an unpublished Local Rule of Court,
violating both the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records and the Due Process/Fair
Hearings rights.
When limited access was gained to SUSTAIN electronic records, in particular - the Register of Actions
(California civil docket), litigation records were discovered, which were entirely removed from the
courtroom reality. SUSTAIN, where records were maintained out of public view, enabled the Los
Angeles Court to retroactively alter the Register of Actions, and to introduce minutes, which were back-
dated by days, weeks, or months, and also to enter fictitious notations of the records filed and the
proceedings held under the caption:
Of particular note were fictitious, false notations by the court of Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR of
records filed by Countrywide Financial Corporation, designated as “Real Parties in Interest” – at the same
time that Judge CONNOR in open court denied any interest by Countrywide in the case. [xi]
Judge CONNOR, likewise, introduced at least twice fictitious, false notations in the Register of Actions of
proceedings, which had never taken place in reality. Of particular note were fictitious, false minutes,
which were introduced on September 11, 2007, a day after Judge CONNOR was recused from the case
following Disqualification for a Cause. In such fictitious minutes, she falsely recorded a September 10,
2007 hearing that had never taken place in reality, and a ruling that had never been ruled – of no fraud in
Countrywide banking records, which were discovered in the case. In contrast, Fraud Expert’s opinion
supported the allegation of extensive fraud in the respective Countrywide banking records. [xii]
Based on review of SUSTAIN records, a qualified opinion was later issued by Prof Eliyahu Shamir,
Hebrew University, Department of Computer Science, who made seminal contributions to Computer
Science, including, but not limited to the development of fundamental tools in language analysis.
The Prof Shamir April 20, 2009 Opinion states:
Dr. Joseph Zernik produces credible documentary evidence and raises serious
allegations concerning existing, rather old computerized systems in the Los
Angeles courts, both civil and criminal divisions: Material deficiencies in safety
against possible fraudulent actions on records, documents, and data by the court
staff.
Such allegations deserve thorough and objective investigation.
We know for fact that the USA has excellent experts able to design, check and
verify the integrity of such systems.
Integrity and public trust of such computer systems are essential for preserving
justice, human rights, and a law abiding community.[xiii]
The case as a whole therefore documented the denial of access to electronic court records in SUSTAIN as
key to enabling the alleged racketeering at the Los Angeles Court.
The failure of the Los Angeles Court for some quarter century to publish Local Rules of Court pertaining
to the operation of SUSTAIN was inherent to the fraud alleged in the operation of the case management
system. All US and the state courts in the United States, whose records were inspected, uniformly failed
to publish rules pertaining to the operation of their respective online public access and case management
systems, in what was alleged as serious violations of Due Process/Fair Hearing rights. Therefore, in
recent years, Dr Zernik repeatedly called upon the US Congress to enact such rules instead. [xiv]
b) Access to paper court file records:
On August 31, 2007, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG informed Defendant that the paper court file
included at that time six volumes, and eventually agreed to permit Defendant limited access - only to three
of the earlier volumes.
z Page 3/8 October 22, 2010

However, as it later turned out, Judge ROSENBERG deceived Defendant regarding the number of court
file volumes held by the Court at the time. The court file in fact held at the time seven volumes. One of
them, “Volume IV Continued” – by far the largest court file in the case (over 700 pages) - was discovered
only later. [xv] “Volume IV Continued” was created out of any chronological order, in disregard of the
law, and concealed in it were various particularly incriminating records, including, but not limited to:
i. Large volume of records filed by Countrywide Financial Corporation, which filed papers in the case
under the fraudulent party designation of “”Non Party”, while the Court interchangeably designated it
in its records “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Cross –Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Real Parties in Interest”,
and more, all with no legal foundation at all.
ii. Records pertaining to a pretense August 9, 2007 Summary Judgment proceeding conducted by Judge
JACQUELINE CONNOR.
2. Physical harassment and intimidation:
At the end of the August 31, 2007 proceeding, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG demanded that Defendant
withdraw his Complaint, which was stamped “FILED” by the Court, and which served as the basis for the ex
parte proceeding, which he conducted. When Defendant refused to withdraw the papers, two armed Sheriff
Deputies engaged in physical harassment of Defendant in an empty courtroom, in attempt to plant the papers
on his body, in what Defendant at the time perceived as a life-threatening incident. Through passive
disobedience Defendant managed to safely exit the Court without accepting the papers. [xvi]
Defendant consequently filed a complaint with Presiding Judge J STEPHEN CZULEGER regarding conduct
of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG in the matter. Presiding Judge CZULEGER referred the complaint to
Assistant Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY, who in turn referred it to Supervising Judge GERALD
ROSENBERG for review. Supervising Judge ROSENBERG found that the complaint was “based on vague
facts and [is] unsupported by even the smallest shred of evidence. [xvii]
3. Denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearings right for notice and service
No minutes were ever served or noticed by the court of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for the August 31,
2007 proceeding, as was the practice of the court throughout under the caption of Samaan v Zernik.
Of note, on September 5, 2007, Defendant appeared before Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR in an Ex Parte
Application for Enforcement of the Due Process right for Notice and Service. Judge CONNOR promptly
denied the Application.
4. Conduct of “off the record” court proceedings:
Later it was also discovered that Judge ROSENBERG failed to create any record of the August 31, 2007 ex
parte proceeding – it was in fact conducted as an off the record, off the calendar court hearing. [xviii]
Review and analysis of the Register of Actions in the case showed that a large number of the proceedings,
which were conducted in open court, were in fact registered in the official docket of the Court in a deliberately
invalid manner, with no adjudication at all. However, litigants, counsel, and the public at large, who are
routinely denied access to the Registers of Actions of the Los Angeles Court, cannot discern such conduct of
the Court. [xix]
Of particular note in this regard was the July 6, 2007 proceeding, which was conducted by Judge
JACQUELINE CONNOR under the guise of Ex Parte Application for “Protective Order” by Countrywide
Financial Corporation. The application, which in fact should have been deemed a request for an abusive gag
order, [xx] was later found to have been conducted in a dark courtroom, off the calendar and off the record. It
was recorded by Judge CONNOR in the Register of Actions with the notation “Proceeding not recorded”.
[xxi]
5. Denial of Access to National Tribunals for Protection of Rights
z Page 4/8 October 22, 2010

Records, which were previously released, documented the effective denial of access to the US courts in efforts
to protect Human Rights in the matter at hand, from the US District Court, Central District of California,
through the US District Court, Washington DC and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to the Supreme
Court of the United States. [xxii]
6. Refusal of US Department of Justice to enforce the law.
Starting 2008, Dr Zernik filed with US Department of Justice requests for Equal Protection of the 10 million
residents of Los Angeles County, California. The requests alleged racketeering by the judges of the Los
Angeles Court, and claimed that enforcement of the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court
records, in and of itself, would be sufficient to put an end to such conduct.
US Department of Justice refuses to this date to enforce the First Amendment/Common Law right to access
court records – to inspect and to copy – in Los Angeles County, California, even after inquiries by US
Congress. Moreover, responses on the matter, which were provided by senior US Department of Justice
Officers, KENNETH KAISER – FBI Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations and KENNETH
MELSON – then Director of US Attorneys Office, to the US Congress, were alleged as fraud on the US
Congress. [xxiii]
A series of complaints were separately filed with US Department of Justice regarding the conduct of judges,
officers of the court, and/or financial institutions in particular cases of the Court. [xxiv] US Department of
Justice continues to refuse to acknowledge receipt or respond on the complaints. Such refusal of US
Department of Justice and FBI to provide Equal Protection explained in the August 21, 2008 letter by Fraud
Expert and FBI veteran James Wedick in their reluctance to expose the widespread corruption of the courts in
Los Angeles County, California. [xxv]
7. Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, may be extreme, but are not unique at all.
The case at hand was part of evidence, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the
United Nations as part of the first ever, 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United
States. Consequently, Staff report of the HRC later noted “corruption of the courts and the legal profession”
in California. [xxvi]
Likewise, in a July 2010 keynote address to the Annual Conference of Chief Justices of the state courts, Prof
Laurence Tribe, in his capacity as Senior Counsel, US Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative,
warned that the state courts in the United States might become indistinguishable from courts in “third world”
nations. [xxvii]
8. “Corruption of the courts” is tightly linked to abuse of Human Rights and failing banking regulation.
The case at hand also documented the tight linkage between corruption of the justice system, abuse of Human
Rights, and failing banking regulation in the United States.

Human Rights Alert (NGO) is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human
Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles,
California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management
systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.

LINKS
[i] Records released herein pertained to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). However, the denial of access to court records at the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, is pervasive. Of particular concern was the denial of access to the Registers of Actions (California civil dockets), for example, in
the following two cases, also claimed as pretense litigations of the Court:
a) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) – a case pertaining to the taking by judges of the Court of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”),
which required the enactment of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for all judges of the Court. The conduct of Sturgeon v LA
County was claimed to undermine any prospect of honest court services at the Court in years to come. See [xxiv] (g), below.
b) Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420) – including, but not limited to pretense ancillary
proceedings, which led to the imprisonment under solitary confinement for 18 months of former US prosecutor, 70 yo Richard Fine
z Page 5/8 October 22, 2010

with no warrant and no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered. Incredibly, the Court refused to release the Register of
Actions of the case throughout the purported review of the habeas corpus of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Central District of
th
California, US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. See [xxiv] (e), below.
[ii] 07-12-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, David Pasternak’s Grant Deeds in re: 320 South
Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, opined fraud expert and FBI veteran as fraud by James Wedick.
In pertinent parts, the James Wedick’s Opinion states:
Accordingly, based on above observations MR. WEDICK opines an immediate investigation
should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the circumstances behind any fraud being committed
so that appropriate local, state, and federal authorities can be notified, including the appropriate
court.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/
See also [iv], below.
[iii] ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR SAMUEL, both Officers of Countrywide at the time, were named among Defendants in 27 Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California. See details regarding their involvement at:
08-05-27 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt # 062: First Amended Complaint:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30766354/
[iv] August 21, 2008 informal letter by fraud expert and FBI veteran James Wedick, informed Dr Zernik that FBI Special Agent, who was assigned to the
case agreed with Mr Wedick that the case involved real estate fraud. However, Mr Wedick’s letter expressed the concern that FBI would not provide
Equal Protection in the case, since it would involve addressing widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.
08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide Dr
Zernik protection against real estate fraud:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29713733/
[v] Attempts to access the Court file in Samaan v Zernik were conducted through counsel, through legal services providers, and in person. On August 6,
2007, Mr Alex Rodriguez, Office Manager of DDS Legal Services, Los Angeles, California, provided a declaration pertaining to denial of access to the
Court file.
The August 6, 2007 Alex Rodriguez Declaration states:
I, Alex Rodriguez, do declare as follows:
1. I am the Manager for the Los Angeles office of DDS Legal Support.
2. A DDS client, law Offices of Deborah R. Bronner, requested
that copies of certain documents from the court file in Samaan v.
Zernik Case No. SC087400. These requests were made numerous
times between March 2007 and July 2007.
3. After each request, I directed an Attorney Service runner to fulfill
the client's order and make the requested copies. However, each time,
the DDS Attorney Service runner was told by the clerk in the clerk's
office that the file was not available.
4. On Monday August 6, a DDS representative picked up copies from
Volume One and Volume Two. However, the DDS representative was
informed that Volumes Three and Volume Four are not available.
Executed this 6th day of August, 2007 in Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of the perjury of the law of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
[signature]
Alex Rodriguez
07-08-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Declaration of Alex Rodriguez, Office Manager, DDS
Legal Services in re: Denial of Access to Court file.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39846787/
[vi] The Office of the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, likewise, to this date, refuses to provide certified copies of minutes, orders, judgments,
docket. Attempt to obtain such certified copies were made through counsel, through legal services, and in person.
On February 13, 2008, Jose Salazar, Manager, Court Services, at DDS Legal Services, Los Angeles, provided a declaration in the matter.
The February 13, 2008 Jose Salazar Declaration states:
I, JOSE SALAZAR, hereby declare as follows:
1. Tam an employee of DDS LEGAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS, and
MANAGER, COURT SERVICES. .As such, I have personal knowledge of
the facts set forth herein, which I know to be true and: correct and, if called
as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto.
This declaration is submitted at the request of Joseph Zernik.
2. A request for certification of certain court file documents in Samaan v
Zernik (SC08400) was first delivered by DDS Legal Support Systems to
Debbie Witts, Court Manager, Civil Unlimited, Los Angeles Superior Court,
West District, on Peb 1, 2008.
3. Almost every other day after that DDS Legal Support Systems attempted to
retrieve the documents requested for the certification and/or the certificates
themselves from Ms Witts herself, or from other court employees at the
Clerk's Office, Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, Santa Monica.
4. As of this date, no documents and no certificates were ever obtained from
the court. Normally, such certificates are obtained the very same day or
within a few days. In 7 years that I have worked as employee of DDS Legal
Support Systems, I have never encountered a case where DDS Legal
z Page 6/8 October 22, 2010

Support Systems asked for such certificates on behalf of a litigant or a

counsel and certificates were delayed this long and/or denied.
I make this declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California. Signed here, in Los Angeles, California, February 13, 2008.
[signature]
JOSE SALAZAR
MANAGER, COURT SERVICES
DDS LEGAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS
08-02-13 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - denial of access to court record: Declaration of Jose
Salazar, DDS Legal Services
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39848713/
[vii] The Common Law right to access court records – to inspect and to copy - was re-affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon
v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) as inherent in the First, Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States.
[viii] 07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ex Parte Appearance before Supervising Judge
GERALD ROSENBERG, in re: Complaint filed by Defendant regarding denial of access to court file records, and declaration regarding physical
harassment at the proceedings:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39887992/
See also [xiv], below.
[ix] Of note, SUSTAIN, the case management system of the Superior Court of California, is produced and maintained by The Daily Journal – the largest
daily legal newspaper in California. Today it is used by other state courts as well, e.g. in the State of Georgia.
[x] SUSTAIN was implemented at the Los Angeles Court around 1985, at a time that California Supreme Court Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE served
in leadership positions at the Los Angeles Court. Ronald George refuses to answer on any questions on the subject. The system must be deemed fraud
in both its design and its mode of operation by the Court. See also [xiii], below.
[xi] 08-04-17 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #046: Inexplicable under Assumption of
Honesty - Sustain Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, page 1
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30971554/
[xii] Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - fictitious minutes introduced by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR after Disqualification for a Cause, pertaining to a
hearing that was never heard and a ruling that was never ruled regarding fraud in Countrywide banking records. See under:
Complaint against Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR pertaining to her conduct at both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35592511/
[xiii ] 09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Opinion Letter regarding electronic records of the Los Angeles Superior Court in
Sustain - the case management system of the Court:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30454036/
[xiv] 01-07-31 Human Rights Alert’s Request for the Judiciary Committees to Establish Case Management and Online Public Access System
of the US Courts by Law:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/
[xv] 07-11-20 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court file - "Volume IV-Continued" - evidence of
Judicial Fraud on the Court and Racketeering:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39843935/
[xvi] October 10, 2007 Declaration of Joseph Zernik re: Harassment and Hostile Environment in Court, filed as part of complaint against Supervising
Judge GERALD ROSENBEG:
In parts pertinent to events of August 31, 2007 at the court of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG regarding Dr Zernik’s request to access court file, the Dr
Zernik’s Declaration states:
41. …A bit later the supervising judge came in and Ruth presented to him the envelope. He opened it and started reading, and he
was visibly upset. The main issue was access to Court File.
42. He angrily said to me he will show me that it was easily accessible. He called a few places, but seemed to have no luck. After
that he said to me: “now I will show you hand on management” still in an angry tone. And he left the Courtroom, apparently
searching for the file. Eventually, he came back, with only 3 out of 6 volumes. He was visibly even angrier than before when
he came back.
43. He tossed the volumes on the table in the well in front of bench, and told me to mark the pages I wanted to copy, then the
Clerk’s room will arrange the copying. I told him that I wanted to copy it all. He said fine. Then said that my understanding is
that the copies will not be done on the spot, and I wanted to be able to compare the original and the copies at the time I pick
up the copies.
44. He got even more upset with me. He said something to the effect that I was implying that they were going to cheat. I said that
it was standard procedure, if later I had to declare that this was a full and complete copy. He then agreed, but was visibly very
upset. Then before he was going to leave the room, he tossed at me my complaint and said that now, that he got me the
court file, I could take my complaint back.
45. I refused to take it. I said that it was the copy that I filed with the court. And he said something like: are you trying to tell me that
there is more there than just getting you to copy the file. And I said: yes, there are a number of issues. He then got more and
more upset, and said I had to take it back, and I repeated my position.
46. Immediately, the two armed guards in the courtroom approached me, and tried to force me to take the complaint back. I was
fearful. I did not know these two particular guards. I also did not even notice them as individuals, it was just persons trying to
force me to do something against my will. I was not going to yield. But I immediately raised my hand to my head. I was very
fearful that somehow they will fake an incidence of Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile
environment at the courthouse violence on my part and shoot me. I slowly retreated from the courtroom, with my hands
all the time still up to my head.
47. I was walking to the Clerk’s Office to ask them to copy the file. I was still with my hands up on my head. And the two sheriffs
were still around me all the time, trying to plant the complaint on my body, but I was no longer afraid, since there were people
around us.
z Page 7/8 October 22, 2010

48. At the clerk’s office (Room 102) they left that brown envelope on the counter, next to me, and left the room. I finished my
business, and then left that room as well. I left the brown envelope behind me. Within seconds, Darlene was running behind
me, asking me to take the envelope. I told her that it was not mine, that it belonged to Dept A.
07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ex Parte Appearance before Supervising Judge
GERALD ROSENBERG, and declaration regarding physical harassment at the proceedings
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39887992/
[xvii] October 15, 2007 Response by then Assistant Presiding Judge McCoy and Supervising Judge ROSENBERG on complaint against Supervising
Judge ROSENBERG:
a) In pertinent parts, the Assistant Supervising Judge Charles McCoy October 15, 2007 letter states:
I have referred your most recent letter to the Honorable Gerald
Rosenberg, Supervising Judge of the West District.
…
I have asked Judge Rosenberg to review your letter and respond directly to you after
he has had an adequate time to consider your request.

b) In pertinent parts, the Judge ROSENBERG October 19, 2007 response on the complaint for physical abuse at his court states:
Dr. Zernik, your references to willful misconduct, subversions of justice, fraud,
deceit, venal corruption, the concealment of abuses, and the manipulations of entry of
court data are based on vague facts and are unsupported by even the smallest shred of
evidence.
I have witnessed firsthand your unsupported allegations when you claimed that
you had no access to the court files…

[xviii] Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Sustain. No
mention is found of the August 31, 2007 ex parte proceeding before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for Access to Court Records:
10-01-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Register of Actions (California civil docket) with a
preface:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29712101/
[xix] The Court routinely denies access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other court records. Therefore, litigants, counsel, and the
public-at-large must resort to reliance on records, which are provided by the Court in its online public access system. However, the online records are
published by the Court with disclaimers, which make it clear that such records were never deemed as true and valid court records by the Court itself.
In pertinent parts the standard online Court Disclaimers states:
"COURT disclaims all warranties, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of... accuracy
and fitness for a particular purpose..."
"COURT and the County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from
this web site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis, does not constitute the official record of
the court and cannot be used as evidence in court."
"COURT and the County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from
this web site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis, does not constitute the official record of
the court and cannot be used as evidence in court."
"In no event shall COURT, Los Angeles County or any other governmental agency, entity or body
or any vendor or service provider associated with any of our online efforts be liable for damages of
any nature based on any theory of liability, including but not limited to contract, negligence or other
torts (including intentional torts)..."
10-09-19 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Standard Disclaimer, as it appears on the on the Courts web site
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39881015/
[xx] The July 6, 2007 Countrywide’s Ex Parte Application for Protective Order sought to prohibit Defendant from any communications with persons
“associated” with Countrywide and its then Chief Legal Counsel SANDOR SAMUELS. Conduct of Defendant, which was listed in the Application as
justification for the request for “Protective Order”, included, but was not limited to Defendant’s communications with a retired Judge, with a rabbi – in his
Chambers, and with a Senior Countrywide Underwriter, who had been dismissed a couple of years earlier from her job. The record of the Countrywide
July 6, 2007 Application was later eliminated from the paper court file records under the caption of Samaan v Zernik.
07-07-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide: Ex parte application for a Protection/Gag Order
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25002347/
[xxi] Samaan v Zernik (SC08700) - Register of Actions entries by Judge JACQUELINE CONOR pertaining to the July 6, 2007 “Non-Party”
Countrywide’s Ex Parte Application, which was recorded with the notation: “Proceeding not recorded”
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35589304/
[xxii]10-10-20 The US Courts established a policy excluding any papers pertaining to judicial corruption from the First Amendment right to file petitions:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/39788364/
[xxiii] 10-03-04 Dr Zernik's Complaint Filed with US Department of Justice Inspector General against KENNETH MELSON and KENNETH KAISER for
fraud on the US Congress:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29660111/
[xxiv] US Attorney Office, Central District of California, refuses to acknowledge receipt, or provide any answer on any of the complaints below.
a) 10-06-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Complaint against David Pasternak – for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color
of Law Pursuant to US Law, and Deprivation of Human Rights Pursuant to Ratified International Law:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/H
b) 10-06-28 Complaint against Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court – for public corruption,
deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, and deprivation of human rights through large-scale false imprisonments, including, but not
limited to the ongoing imprisonment of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Person).
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33647477/H
c) 10-07-04 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and the California Judicial
Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George – for public corruption, deprivation of civil rights under the color of law – Pertaining
to Habeas Corpus Petition of 70 Year Old Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine.
z Page 8/8 October 22, 2010

Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/H
d) 10-07-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Complaint against Brian Moynihan, Bank of America, and Attorneys Jenna Moldawsky and John
Amberg - for public corruption and financial institution fraud, relative to their conduct in at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33971099/H
e) 10-07-07 Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420) - Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Los Angeles
Superior Court, and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and others – for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/H
f) 10-07-12 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Complaint against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others at the US District Court, Central
District of California – for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34194403/H
g) 10-07-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Complaint for Public Corruption against James A Richman – Justice of California
Court of Appeals, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke – Clerk, of the Los Angeles Superior Court in RE: Conduct of
pretense litigation:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34408770/
h) 10-07-18 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal – Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, Attorney
David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE: Conduct of pretense litigation – alleged real estate fraud by the Court.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/H
i) 10-07-22 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Complaint for Public Corruption against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal,
2nd District, RE: Conduct of three pretense appeals – alleged real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/H
j) 10-08-09 Complaint for Public Corruption and racketeering against Judge Jacqueline Connor and Others at both the Civil and Criminal
Divisions of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35592511/H
k) 10-08-13 RE: Karimi v Mithawaila (BD518503) - Complaint against Attorney David Pasternak and the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, for public corruption and racketeering in pretense receiverships at the Court.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35828312/H
l) 10-08-22 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - Complaint against former Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak,
Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI) and others - for public corruption and racketeering by judges, financial institutions, and large law-firms
in pretense proceedings at the Court.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36266839/H
[xxv]08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide
Dr Zernik protection against real estate fraud
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29713733/
[xxvi] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States - "corruption of the courts
and the legal profession" in California
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
[xxvii] 10-07-26 Prof Laurence Tribe's Keynote Remarks at the Annual Conference of Chief Justices s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35916291/