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
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
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.
.
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
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - 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
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment