.

page counter

Why was this blog created?

All further in-house efforts to further justice in the US justice system are futile. These efforts are only worthwhile to the degree that they provide additional documentation of the widespread corruption of the US justice system.

Our focus must be on the international community.

In November 2010 the United Nations will review for the first time ever the Human Rights record of the United States. Corruption of the justice system was the core of reports filed by Human Rights Alert and others for the April 2010 deadline.

In August 2010 the US State Department is scheduled to respond on the reports, and in November 2010 the UN will conduct the review session and issue the report, and set goals, which the US would be asked to reach between 2010 and the next scheduled review in 2014.

Between now and November 2010, we must focus on informing and lobbying the nations that sit on the review panel, to ensure that the most effective report is issued.

This blog was created in hope that the French Government would support a UN UPR report that calls upon the US federal government to provide equal protection under the law to all who reside in the United States.

Please call or write your elected representatives. Please ask that the French Government support in November 2010 the issuance of a UPR report by the United Nations, which calls upon the US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

S'il vous plaît appelez ou écrivez vos représentants élus. S'il vous plaît demander que le soutien du gouvernement français en Novembre 2010, la publication d'un rapport par les Nations Unies, qui invite le gouvernement américain à respecter ses obligations et responsabilités en vertu de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme.

S'il vous plaît signer la pétition - Libérer Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 ans, ancien procureur des États-Unis, a montré, que les juges de comté de Los Angeles avait pris «interdit» les paiements (appelé par les médias "pots de vin").Le 20 Février 2009, le gouverneur de Californie a signé «immunités rétroactives" (amnesties) pour tous les juges à Los Angeles. Moins de deux semaines plus tard, le 4 Mars, 2009 Richard Fine a été arrêté en audience publique, sans mandat. Il est détenu depuis en isolement cellulaire à Los Angeles, en Californie. Aucun jugement, condamnation ou la peine n'a jamais été inscrit dans son cas.

S'il vous plaît signer la pétition - Libérer Richard Fine:

Saturday, July 31, 2010

10-07-31 Demande de droits de l'homme d'alerte pour l'US commissions judiciaires Congrès à créer par la loi de gestion des cas et des systèmes d'accès public en ligne des tribunaux américains.

Human Rights Alert's Request for US Congress Judiciary Committees to Establish by Law the Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts. Los Angeles, July 31 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) forwarded a request to the US Congressional Committees on the Judiciary for urgent review and legislative initiative regarding case management and online public access systems of the US courts.  Such systems were introduced over the past decade through a large-scale project by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, albeit with no public oversight.  Moreover, the courts failed to publish Rules of Courts to govern their operation.  Evidence was provided that such systems have caused precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts, particularly in the areas of Banking Regulation and Human Rights. The evidence showed that litigations, which were widely reported by media as court actions, were only pretense, with no valid judicial review at all.

The following key deficiencies were identified:
1)       All courts that were examined, from the District Courts, through the Courts of Appeals, to the US Supreme Court, have failed to publish Rules of Court to set the legal foundation for the operation of case management and online public access systems, in apparent violation of Due Process rights.
2)       The manner in which case management and online public access systems were operated today, the public at large, and even attorneys could not distinguish between valid and effectual court records and records that were deemed void, not voidable by the courts themselves.  Both types of records were published in online public access systems in a manner that had to be deemed as serious violation of various fundamental Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights. 
3)       Public access was routinely denied to critical judicial records, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights, and the range of judicial records, which were publicly accessible varied among the courts with no foundation at the law at all.
4)       The key role of Clerks in authentication of court records, which was established over the centuries as a critical safeguard for integrity of the courts, was largely eliminated - a sea change in administration of the courts, which was never established by law. Dockets were now constructed by unauthorized persons, and the Clerk refused to certify them. Unauthenticated judgments were entered in the Index of Judgments with no authority at all.
5)       Discrimination against pro se litigants, and unprecedented authority for counsel to enter court records with no prior review by authority of the Clerk, which were established in the case management systems, undermined Due Process and Fair Hearing rights.
6)       Similar conditions were documented in the courts of the several states as well.

Key features were outlined of the desired legislation:
1)       Any case management and online public access systems should be recognized as inherently affecting changes in court procedures. Therefore, their installation must be established by law. Validation of such systems must be undertaken prior to their installation, in a manner that is legally and publicly accountable - e.g. through agencies under control of the legislative branch.
2)       Data that must be entered only by authority of the Clerk of the Court should be defined, including, but not limited entries in the online dockets, where the name, authority, and digital signature of the person entering the data should be publicly accessible.
3)       All court records must be publicly accessible, pursuant to First Amendment, Due Process, and Public Trial rights, including, but not limited to all authentication records, unless access is denied by law or through documented sealing orders.
4)       Authentication records of the US District Courts (NEF - Notices of Electronic Filing) and the US Courts of Appeals (NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity) must be re-drafted, to form valid certification of authentication records, clear and unambiguous reference should be included in such records to the judicial records being authenticated, as well as visible names, authority, and digital signatures of those issuing the authentication records � as signs of intention to take responsibility. Dockets must be constructed only by authority of the Clerk.  Judgments must be entered into the Judgment Index only by the authority of the Clerk.
5)       Counsel must not be permitted to enter court records in the dockets with no prior review by authority of the clerk; pro se litigants and counsel should be given equal standing in access to such systems.
6)       Key provisions of such legislation should apply to the courts of the several states as well.
Conditions now prevailing in the US justice system were deemed as undermining the framework of lawful and effective government.  Such conditions incurred risks that cannot be easily assessed to stability of US financial infrastructure, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law. 
The proposal was copied to the US State Department and the United Nations, as part of the pending, first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems by the legislative branch.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
The proposal was also copied to the Basel Accord Committee, since in such Accords, the US government made commitments for honest and effective regulation of the US banking system, valid risk assessment, and effective risk reduction.
LINKS01-07-31-Human-Rights-Alert-s-Request-for-the-Judiciary-Committees-to-Establish-Case-Management-and-Online-Publi

Thursday, July 29, 2010

10-07-29 Une preuve supplémentaire de la fraude à la Cour suprême des États-Unis, dans Re: Richard Fine

William Suter
Clerk of the US Supreme Court

Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court, in re: Richard Fine 
Los Angeles, July 29 - Human Rights Alert (BGO) released additional evidence of fraud at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Lerory Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement.  Records recently retrieved from the US Supreme Court file in the case failed to discover any valid court records supporting the purported denial of the Application in the Supreme Court Conference either on April 23, 2010, as scheduled, or on April 26, 2010, as noted in the online Supreme Court docket. [1] Court records also failed to show any record of service and notice to the parties of the purported denial.  Information obtained from the imprisoned former US prosecutor Richard Fine, likewise, indicated that he had never received any notice and service at all of the purported denial.

The Application was first submitted to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The online Court docket noted denial by Justice Kennedy on March 12, 2010, and Richard Fine received a notice to that effect as well.  However, the notice was by Counsel Danny Bickell, who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk. Moreover, the notice was unsigned, and the copy in Court file was never stamped "FILED". Furthermore, there was no valid record of denial by Justice Kennedy to form the legal foundation for such notice. 
[2]


Former US prosecutor Richard Fine then re-submitted the Application to Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who in turn referred it to the US Supreme Court conference, scheduled for April 23, 2010.

Prior to the April 23, 2010, Mr Danny Bickell, again - with no authority at all, eliminated from the court file records filed in the case, which included evidence, including, but not limited to details of his March 12, 2010 invalid notice of denial by Justice Kennedy.  Mr Bickell's conduct relative to the March 12, 2010 notice and the consequent elimination of records from the Court file was subject of a complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC.
 [3]


On April 23, 2010, outcome of the conference remained unknown.  However, an April 26, 2010 note in the US Supreme Court online docket, [1] indicated denial of the Application.  The records, which were obtained on July 26, 2010 from the Court file, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 2010 denial note in the online Court docket.

Therefore, it was alleged that the case documented the repeated publication of false and deliberately misleading notes in the online US Supreme Court docket, the issuing of false notices by unauthorized US Supreme Court staff relative to the purported March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, and failure of the US Supreme Court Justices to dispose of matters before them.

Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing on February 20, 2009 of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.  Since March 4, 2009, he has been imprisoned in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.  Albeit, no warrant was ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing was ever entered in his case.

The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems, and denial of access to true judicial records:
1)      The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
2)      The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.
3)      The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.
4)      The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal.
5)      The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 and April 23/26, 2010 denials, which were not supported by the Court records in the case.  Access to true dockets in the case management system of the Supreme Court was yet to be permitted.

Notice of the newly discovered records of the US Supreme Court was also submitted to the US State Department and the United Nations.  Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert as part of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States in the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April 2010 UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.

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


LINKS
[1] 10-07-28-RE-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Additional-Evidence-for-Fraud-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-pertaining-to-purported-denial-of-the-Application-in-Confe
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/[2] Alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/[3] Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
Human Rights Alert - NGO  
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
*     "Innocent people remain in prison"
*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*   
"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*   
"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."     Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
2010 UPR OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATESApril 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

10-07-27 Martha Minow, doyen de la Harvard Law School, sollicité pour la représentation dans Re: fraude alléguée en US Records Cour suprême


Martha Minow
Dean, Harvard Law School
Martha Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicited for Representation in re: Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records Los Angeles, July 27 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, solicited Martha Minow, Harvard Law School Dean,  for representation in original action in the Supreme Court of the United States, pertaining to alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records and misprision by William Suter, Clerk of the Court. [1]Human Rights Alert claimed fraud in notices issued by Court Counsel Danny Bickell pertaining to Applications in Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), which claimed denial by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively, and in the corresponding online dockets of the Court. The notices were claimed to be false on their faces and issued with no authority at all by Counsel Danny Bickell. [2] [3]Moreover, notice in Fine v Baca was shown to have no foundation in records of the Court file.
Both cases pertained to penalties imposed on attorneys who represented clients in causes, which were not favored by government.
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.  He has been imprisoned in solitary confinement for the past 17 months in Los Angeles, California, with no warrant ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing ever entered.
Attorney Orly Taitz represented clients in cases questioning the native, born citizenship of President Barack Obama.  Serious sanctions were imposed on her.
The alleged abuse represented intimidation of counsel who stood for the rights of the people, and collusion of the courts at all levels in creating false public perception that such conduct was reviewed by the courts and was found in compliance with the law.
The courts transitioned to internet based publication of records and dockets - albeit with no validation of such systems and with no Local Rules of Courts to govern such practices.  The courts published unverified online records, which the courts themselves never deemed valid court records, but which media and the public at large falsely assumed were true and valid court records.  In parallel, the courts restricted access to true court records. 
The request forwarded to Dean Minow detailed such conduct relative to the imprisonment of Richard Fine:
1) The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.
3) The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.
4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal.
5) The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, which was not supported by the Court records in the case.  Access to true court dockets of the Supreme Court's case management system was yet to be permitted.
Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert in the context of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States as part of the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.
The April 2010 UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
LINKS:[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34940014
[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/[3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/

Contact:Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGOHuman Rights Alert - NGO
Human Rights Alert 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 County, 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 in the United States.
Locations of visitors to this page
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
http://droitsdelhommealertelosangele.blogspot.com/
http://inproperinla.com/
http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
http://ireport.cnn.com/people/HumanRightsA?numResults=10&view=documents
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?*     
"Innocent people remain in prison"*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*   
"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*   
"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."     Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339

April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/

Sunday, July 25, 2010

10-07-25 William Suter, greffier de la Cour suprême des États-Unis appelé à certifier des copies de dossiers à Re: Richard Fine, Orly TAITZ

William Suter
US Supreme Court Clerk
William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz
Los Angeles, July 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court to certify the online dockets of Applications pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the dockets from the Court’s own case management system. [1]
Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively.
Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that were not favored by government.
In the former – Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles Superior Court judges of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”), which necessitated the signing by the California governor of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”).  Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. No warrant was ever issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”.
In the latter – Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her.
In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel Danny Bickell.  However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the dockets and the respective letters by Danny Bickell.
Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and ambiguous in both design and operation. 
Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations, 
[4] as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. 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 Rights Alert 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 County, 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 in the United States.
LINKS
[4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/

Saturday, July 24, 2010

10-07-24 Révélation de greffier Honnête et pur de tout soupçon: Les greffiers et l'émergence de la surveillance Direction générale de la direction des Cours fédérales


William Suter
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the US
Misprision of ClerkPure and Honest Beyond Suspicion: The Clerks and the Emergence of Executive Branch Supervision of the Federal CourtsHistoric review, linked below, [1] highlights the key role of Clerks of Court in integrity of the courts, or lack thereof.  It also emphasizes the need for executive branch oversight of the clerks, which otherwise - left for supervision only by the judges who appointed them, are prone to corruption.

The evidence is overwhelming of the central role of clerks of courts in corruption of the justice system in the United States today:

a) At the Supreme Court of the USClerk WILLIAM SUTER permitted Counsel DANNY BICKELL to issues unsigned notices of denial of applications by the Justices, e.g. in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), while not authorized as Deputy Clerk, and with no valid records to provide the foundation for such notices. Complaint alleging public corruption was filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC. 
[3]
b) At the US District Court, Central District of CaliforniaClerk TERRI NAFISIpermitted unauthorized personnel to construct the dockets and issue court minutes, orders, judgment in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine.  Clerk Nafisi now refuses to certify the docket as one that was constructed pursuant to the law of the US and by authority of the clerk. 
Complaint alleging public corruption was filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles.
[2]
c)  At the Superior Court of California, County of Los AngelesClerk JOHN CLARKE ran certain litigations, such as Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737)where none of the judges were assigned, and where all court fees were falsely designated as "Journal Entry". Such practice was deemed by accountancy textbooks the cardinal sign of high level financial management fraud.  Moreover, both the clerk and the presiding judge refused to disclose the ultimate designation of such funds, and the Clerk refuses to certify the dockets in such cases as ones that were conducted pursuant to the law of California. 
Complaint alleging public corruption and real estate fraud by the court  was filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles. [4]
US Attorneys Office so far refuses to take action, or even acknowledge receipt of the complaints.

Any help in identifying any cases in recent history, where either US or state court clerks were prosecuted by US Dept of Justice, would be greatly appreciated.
LINKS[1] http://inproperinla.com/10-07-23-order-in-th-court-history-of-clerks-of-us-courts.pdf[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34194403/10-07-12-Complaint-for-public-corruption-against-US-Magistrate-Carla-Woehrle-and-others-at-the-US-District-Court-Central-District-of-California-s[3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/10-07-01-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleged-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-Rights-s[4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/10-07-19-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-Judge-John-Segal-Clerk-John-Clarke-Attorney-David-Pasternak-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-iHuman Rights Alert - NGO
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGOHuman Rights Alert 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 County, 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 in the United States.http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
http://droitsdelhommealertelosangele.blogspot.com/
http://inproperinla.com/
http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
http://ireport.cnn.com/people/HumanRightsA?numResults=10&view=documents
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Locations of visitors to this page
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?*     "Innocent people remain in prison"
*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*   "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*   "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."    
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
____________Pure and Honest Beyond Suspicion: The
Clerks and the Emergence of Executive
Branch Supervision of the Federal Courts,
1839�1869
As the federal government attempted to centralize its operations and
to regulate the conduct of its officers during the three decades spanning
the middle of the nineteenth century, the clerks� relationship to
that government was transformed. This transformation was effected by
three separate legislative initiatives: a resolution requiring the clerks to
submit regular reports of their fees to the Secretary of the Treasury; a
pair of laws limiting the total amount of fees each clerk was allowed to
retain; and another law establishing a uniform fee schedule. This section
describes these initiatives in more detail while providing an account
of some of the difficulties encountered by officials within the
executive branch in enforcing them.
The Reporting Requirement of 1839The need for some kind of oversight of the clerks and the fee system
had been apparent since at least 1818, when it was discovered that
Theron Rudd, the clerk of the District Court for the Southern District
of New York, had absconded with more than $117,000 he had embezzled
from the court.
4 7 The incident exposed the inherent problem of
entrusting court administration to fee-collecting clerks supervised
almost exclusively by the judges who appointed them.
4 8

Thursday, July 22, 2010

10-07-22 Plainte déposée contre la Cour d'appel de Californie, 2ème arrondissement - Public corruption, le racket

photo of the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles photo of the Second District Court of Appeal in Ventura
Los Angles, July 22 – complaint [1] was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District - alleging public corruption in three pretense appeals originating from a pretense litigation in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), which proceeded from 1998 to 2006, and was alleged in a previous complaint as real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts.
Justices DANIEL CURRY, CHARLES VOGEL, J HASTINGS, AND NORMAN EPSTEIN, Clerk of the Court of Appeals JOSEPH LANE, and Attorneys RICHARD GREEN (Green & Marker), MITCHEL J. EZER (Ezer Williamson & Brown), and DAVID PASTERNAK (Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton) – were listed as accused of public corruption and deprivation of rights in conduct amounting to racketeering by the Courts in three pretense appeals in Galdjie v Darwish - B163970, B179667, and B191327.
Previous complaint detailed conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court - where a group of Judges and the Clerk colluded to take the 6-unit Santa Monica rental property of Defendant Darwish. The hallmark of the alleged fraud at the Superior Court was in directing Defendant Darwish in May 2002, on a day that Jury Trial appeared was schedule at the Court, to proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where an anonymous “Muni Judge” conducted a pretense “Court Trial” and falsely represented entering judgment in the case. Defendant Darwish provided a declaration that it was Judge John Segal.
Superior Court records showed that neither a Judgment, nor an Appealable Order was ever entered in the manner required by California law to make it “effectual for any purpose”. 
.
Table 1: Appealable events in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as falsely recorded in the Register of Actions (California civil docket), Los Angeles Superior Court
.
Date - - - - -Judge- - - -  Nature of Judicial Record or Proceeding- - -Comments
1 05/20/02 “Muni Judge” Ruling on Submitted Matter Alleged fraud in registration of a judgment. “As to the first cause of action, the court enters judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff…”
2 05/07/04 Segal, John Hearing-Other Alleged fraud in registration of an Order Appointing Receiver.

The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District ran three (3) pretense appeals in the case – two of them were denied, and the third was voluntarily dismissed.
California law is clear regarding jurisdiction the Court of Appeal to conduct appeals only in entered judgments, when Notice of Appeal was filed within 60 days from the Date of Entry of Judgment or Appealable Order. 
Records of the Court of Appeals, 2nd District showed:
a) The first appeal was listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of September 5, 2002, a date on which neither proceeding nor filing was listed at the Superior Court. The respective date of Notice of Appeal was listed as December 19, 2002.
b) The second appeal was listed with no “Judgment Date” at all.
c) The third appeal was listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of April 26, 2006. The only proceeding or filing at the Superior Court on that date was “Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application To Extend Time To Close Escrow” – not an appealable court action.
.
Table 2: Appeals in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as falsely recorded in the online public access system of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
Appeal # - - - “Judgment Date” *- - - Notice  --Trial Court- - - Cal Court- - - Disposition 
- - - - -  --  - - - - - -  -- - -- - - - - - -  --   - -- - - - - - - Judge- - - - - - -Appeal Justices
1 B163970 09/05/02 12/19/02 Segal, John Curry, Daniel Affirmed in full
Vogel, Charles Final
Hastings, J. Signed Published
113 Cal.App.4th 1331
2 B179667 None Listed 11/24/04 Segal, John Curry, Daniel Affirmed in full
Epstein, Norman Final 
Hastings, J.

3 B191327 04/26/06 05/18/06 Segal, John None Listed Voluntary dismissal
Final
* The public access system of the California Court of Appeal does not list any Dates of Entry of Judgments
.
The complaint alleged that the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in such pretense appeals committed numerous serious violations of the law. 
The complaint further alleged that the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, through a series of decisions over more than a decade colluded with the Los Angeles Superior Court in ambiguation of both entry of judgment and notice of entry of judgment, and jointly, the Courts created conditions that enabled racketeering, as detailed in the complaint.
The complaint further alleged that in such pretense appeals, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, joined forces with the Los Angeles Superior Court in efforts to establish “oral modifications of real estate contracts” as permitted by law. Los Angeles County was distinguished already in the early 2000s in FBI reports as “ the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud”. The complaint alleged that the Courts themselves were central to propelling the County to such distinction.
The complaint further noted that the online public access system of the California Courts of Appeals failed to include any registration of the Dates of Entry of Judgments. Therefore, the online public access system was alleged as fraud by design an in operation, and the enabling tool for racketeering by the Courts.
The complaint against the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, 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 Rights Alert 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 County, 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 in the United States.

LINKS
[1] 10-07-22-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-the-California-Court-of-Appeal-2nd-District-in-Re-Public-Corruption-racketeering-in-Galdj
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/

CC:
1) Prof David Burcham – former Dean, Loyola Law School
2) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School
3) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project
4) UPR Office of the United Nations
5) UPR Office of the US State Department: 
6) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein – Senator from California
7) US Senate and House of Representatives – Judiciary Committees
 
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." 
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted." 
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339