09-10-16 Letters to reliably inform Presiding Judge McCoy of Alleged Criminality in Court...

8/9/2019 09-10-16 Letters to reliably inform Presiding Judge McCoy of Alleged Criminality in Court operations, request Rules of Court re: Entry of Judgments -s

1/49

Dr Z

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail:[email protected]

09-10-16 Request that Presiding Judge McCoy provide the Rules of Court for Entry of

Judgment

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:31:22 -0700To: "Charles W McCoy" , [email protected]: joseph zernik Subject: Request for a reasonable explanation of the procedures and rules governing the entry of judgment at the Superior Courtof California for the County of Los Angeles

CHARLES W MCCOYPRESIDING JUDGE,LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURTBy email: [email protected] Fax: (213) 617-7176

Response kindly requested by Monday, October 19, 2009, 5:00pm

RE: Request for a reasonable explanation of the procedures and rules governing the entry ofjudgment at the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles

D

J

D

Z

e

t

L

C

D

0


2/49

Page 2/5 October 17, 2009

B. RELEVANT CALIFORNIA CODE [bold underline added -jjz]

1. Cal Code Civ Proc 664 says:... If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to

the decision of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgmenteffectual for any purpose until entered."

2. Cal Code Civ Proc 664,5 says:664.5. (a) In any contested action or special proceeding other thana small claims action or an action or proceeding in which aprevailing party is not represented by counsel, the party submitting

an order or judgment for entry shall prepare and mail a copy of thenotice of entry of judgment to all parties who have appeared in theaction or proceeding and shall file with the court the originalnotice of entry of judgment together with the proof of service bymail. This subdivision does not apply in a proceeding fordissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legalseparation.(b) Promptly upon entry of judgment in a contested action orspecial proceeding in which a prevailing party is not represented by

counsel, the clerk of the court shall mail notice of entry ofjudgment to all parties who have appeared in the action or specialproceeding and shall execute a certificate of such mailing and placeit in the court's file in the cause.(c) For purposes of this section, "judgment" includes any

judgment, decree, or signed order from which an appeal lies.


3/49

2.5 ASSIGNMENTS TO CENTRAL DISTRICT DEPARTMENTS(a) Appellate Division/Department 70

(1) (Rule 2.5(a)(1) [1/1/95] amended and effective 7/1/2001.)Appellate DivisionAll appeals from judgments entered in any misdemeanor, infraction or limited civilcasein Los Angeles County (except appeals from small claims judgments), as well aspetitions for writs of mandate, prohibition and review (certiorari) in any misdemeanor,infraction or limited civil case, must be heard in the Appellate Division of the SuperiorCourt in the Central District, Room 607. (Code Civ. Proc., 1068(b), 1085(b) and 1103(b).)

(d) Supplemental Proceedings(i) Department 1A. In other than Eminent Domain or Family Law proceedingsthe followingactions, proceedings and procedures in the Central District for unlimitedactions onlyunless otherwise stated below are assigned to Department 1A:

(1) Enforcement of Judgment Proceedings. All enforcement of judgment[with the exception of contempts, appointment of receiver after judgmentand motions requiring discovery rulings]; examples of matters heard

are:.... Court order of sale for real property dwelling pursuant to writ of

execution

3.0 JUDGMENTS (See also LASCR, rule 8.96)


4/49


C, PUBLISHED DECISION OF CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, 2nd DISTRICTFilipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41Cal.App.4th 738 - (Wests annotation of Cal Code of Civ Proc 668.5)

Failure of register of actions to indicate that judgment was in fact entered did not precluderunning of 60-day time period for filing notice of appeal, where judgment was signed by law andmotion judge, since judgment was deemed entered on that date; moreover, in Los AngelesCounty, which does not maintain a judgment book, entry of judgment occurs upon filing ofdocument, which occurred on date that file-stamped copy of judgment bearing facsimilesignature of judge was served. Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist.1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41 Cal.App.4th 738, rehearing denied, review denied.

D. CONDUCT OF COURT OF APPEALS, 2nd DISTRICT

Conduct of the Court of Appeals, 2nd District remains inexplicable:1) The online docket of the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District fails to include a field forholding the data for Date of Entry of Judgment, arguably the single most important date in suchrecord.2) In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - In this case criminality by Judge JOHN SEGAL and AttyDAVID PASTERNAK is alleged. Two (2) judgments were purportedly entered, albeit - the first was

entered by Judge JOHN SEGAL when he was not judge of the Superior Court, Ms Darwish wasallegedly deceived to appear before him for bench trial in the Municipal Court of Culver City, on a6-unit rental property in Santa Monica. Three (3) Appeals were purportedly conducted in the case,one (1) resulting in a published opinion ! Compliance with the 60 day limit for notice of appealappeared to have been ignored based on records provided online.3) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)


5/49


2. Please explain why you would not order the Clerk of the Court to immediately proposeamendments in the rules pertaining to Entry of Judgment, to ensure that the LA Superior Courtconducts its business pursuant to adequate published Rules of Court.

Dated: October 16, 2009

Los Angeles County, California ____/s/ Joseph H Zernik____JOSEPH H ZERNIKPO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750Tel: (323) 515-4583Fax:(801) 998-0917


6/49

Dr Z

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: [email protected]

09-10-14 NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM PRESIDING JUDGE MCCOY OF ALLEGED

CRIMINALITIES, AND A REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION - A WRITTEN

RESPONSE.

CHARLES W MCCOYPRESIDING JUDGE,LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

By email: [email protected] Fax: 213 617 7176

Timely response requested by Monday, October 19, 2009, 5:00 pm.

TO Judge McCoy: I am writing to you and also noticing you through the clerks, in order toensure that you were reliably informed of various alleged criminalities committed by thecourt. I request immediate corrective action on your part at minimum - in the form of atimely written response, no later than 5:00pm on Monday, October 19, 2009.

Instant letter is concerned with two records from two different cases In both cases the


7/49


knowledge and on his behalf. (Exhibit B) However, it remained unanswered. Therefore, instant letteris forwarded to the you.

The Judgment record in Exhibit A is invalid, ineffectual and false for the following reasons:1) It is stamped FILED on its face page, with the date of March 4, 2009, but it is signed by Judge

Yaffe on its final page with the date marked March 24, 2009.

2) There is no authentication for the judgment - such as certificate of service and notice of entryfor this record.

3) There is no evidence that it was ever served on the parties.

4) There is no evidence that it was ever entered.

Furthermore, it is likely that upon review by a competent court, conditions at the LA Superior Courtrelative to failure to maintain a Book of Judgments, and the ongoing publishing of false Rules of Courtin re: entry of judgment, would be deemed in violation of basic Human Rights pursuant to InternationalLaw.

REQUEST:

You are requested to confirm that such record as presented in Exhibit 2, page 14/30 in Exhibit A toinstant letter, was NEVER a valid, effectual JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONTEMPT IN RE: RICHARD FINE ofthe Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.

B. Records filed by Atty Mohammad Keshavarzi, from Sheppard Mullin yourformer law-firm PURPORTED NOVEMBER 9, 2009 ORDER APPOINTING DAVIDPASTERNAK RECEIVER BY JUDGE JOHN SEGAL IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)


8/49


3) When I requested to inspect the journal, Atty Pasternak immediately responded with athreat of force. However, I am still of the opinion that the journal is a public record,particularly since Atty Pasternak purports to be an officer of the court.

4) A quick search at the office of Registrar Recorder revealed numerous records producedby Atty Pasternak which shared at least some of the features that led the fraud expert toconclude that Atty Pasternak engaged in real estate fraud in Samaan v Zernik.

5) Finally, I searched the Rules of Court, and also inquired at various offices I concluded thatin the absence of Book of Judgments, there was no office or record that registeredReceiverships and their accounts, to countercheck against the court file, outside the CentralDistrict. Therefore, I will have to rely upon your responses in this critical matter.

REQUESTS:

1) You are requested to confirm that the record presented in Exhibit 1, page 4/30 in ExhibitA to instant letter was NEVER a valid, effectual ORDER APPOINTING PASTERNAK RECEIVER ofthe Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.

2) You are requested to confirm that Att David Pasternak was never a true validreceiver of the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles in Samaanv Zernik (SC087400) if that case were ever a case of the Superior Court, or in anymatter pertaining to Joseph Zernik.

3) You are requested to instruct the clerk of the court to immediately dismiss the casebased on the failure of Samaan to ever pay her filing fee for the complaint.

4) You are requested to explain why all fees in this case are listed as Journal Entry,whereas in true cases of the court they are listed as Filing Fees, Motion Fees.


9/49



10/49

Joseph Zernik DMD PhDFax: (801) 998-0917 Email: [email protected]; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

09-09-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Marina v LA County (BS109420): Demand forcorrective actions regarding abuse based on propagation of ineffectual, false, co

records.

John A Clarke

As an Individual,And in his Capacity as

Executive Officer/Clerk of the CourtSuperior Court of California

For the County of Los Angeles

Facsimile: [email protected]:[email protected]

Response demanded no later than Friday, September 18, 2009, 5:00 pm.

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Please take notice. You failed to respond or take action

in regards to previous notices of false proceedings and false court records. Here, again,evidence is provided of the abusive effects that such false records were and are used for, and

your actions are demanded, pursuant to your authorities and duties as stipulated by law,

i l di b t t li it d t C l G C d 69840 69848


11/49

Page 2/3 September 17, 2009

whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided

2. Demand that you do not collude in false, unnoticed proceeding on September 23, 2009.

Neither you, nor anybody else provided valid notice for such proceeding, and yet, as in the

past, Judge Terry Friedman, pretending to be Presiding Judge, Att David Pasternak,pretending to be Receiver under such caption, and Bryan Cave, LLP pretending to appear

as authorized by Bank of America Corporation as Non Party under such caption, may

continue to convene, with no foundation in the law, on the grounds of the Superior Court,

with your collusion, as if it were a valid, effectual proceeding of the Superior Court ofCalifornia.

Given that you have refused to demands to certify such caption as an effectual case of theSuperior Court, and also refused to give notice of such proceeding, this is a demand that you

prohibit any Deputy Clerk from participating in such event on September 23, 2009. Likewise

that you prohibit any Deputy Clerk from entering any additional Minute Orders under suchcaption. Such conduct, as convening proceedings on the grounds of the Superior Court,

and entering minutes and other records under captions that were not valid, effectual cases ofthe Superior Court, upon review was likely to be deemed part of a pattern of racketeering

activity.

3. Propagating invalid, ineffectual, false, paper court records in Samaan v Zernik

b 9 2007 O d A d k h ll d d


12/49

Page 3/3 September 17, 2009

alternatively invalid, ineffectual court record, as you deem fit. Allowing the ambiguity to

stand is abusive.

4. Propagating invalid, ineffectual, false, paper court records in Marina v LA County

March 4, 2009 Judgment for Jailing of Att Richard Fine that allowed and allows

ongoing depriving a person of liberty.

The case of Samaan v Zernik is not unique at all at the Los Angeles Superior Court. In

another case, Att McCormick, on behalf of the LA Superior Court, filed on May 1, 2009, in

U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, in opposition to a habeas corpus petition, a purported

Judgment from the case of Marina v LA County (Exhibit 2).

2

Such false record wasstamped on its face FILED, March 4, 2009. However, on its last page, it was certified byJudge David Yaffe, with the date of March 24, 2009. Such Court record, misrepresented by

Counsel for the Court, and invalid on its face, was used to deprive Att Richard Fine of liberty

for the past half year.

This is a demand that you provide a statement on the record, that the paper filed May 1, 2009

by Mr McCormick in opposition to Att Richard Fines Habeas Corpus Petition at the U.S.

District Court LA, on behalf of the LA Superior Court was and is a valid, effectual courtrecord; alternatively was and is an invalid, ineffectual court record, as you deem fit.

Allowing the ambiguity to stand is abusive.

Your responses, including notice of corrective actions pursuant to your duties as a Clerk of

th C t i d d d l t th F id S t b 18 2009 5 00


13/49


14/49

5

10

~ 0 D t Y t ! ~ 1 1 ORIGINALSHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership \Including Professional CorporationsPHILLIP A. DAVIS, Cal. Bar No. 110430MOE KESHAVARZI, CaL Bar No. 223759333 South Hope Street, 48th FloorLos Angeles, CaliFomia 90071-1448Tele{>hone: 213-620-1780Facsimile: 213-620-1398Attorneys for PlaintiffNivie Samaan

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DTSTR1CT

NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual;Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. SC 087400Honorable John A. SegalrProposed] Order Appointing David J.

234

6789

111213


15/49

5

10

234

6789

111213

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT David 1. Pasternak ("Receiver") shall beappointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of the real property locatedat 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally described as:

Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the City ofBeverly Hills,County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per maprecorded in book 83 PAGE (S) 94 and 95 ofmaps, in theoffice of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").1. Before perfonning his duties, the Receiver shall execute a Receiver's

oath and file a bond in Department 0 with surety thereon approved by this Court, in thesum of $10,000.00, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Receiver's duties.

2. Within seven (7) days of his appointment, the Receiver is to discloseto all parties any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company he hires toassist in the management of the estate.


16/49

234

78910I I 1213

after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zemik fails to sign anysuch documents the Receiver shall have the power to sign said documentations on behalfofZemik.

4. The Receiver shall prepare and serve monthly statements reflecting

Estate, incurred for each monthly period in the operation and administration of thereceivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver may disburse fromEstate funds, if any, the amount of each statement. Notwithstanding periodic payment offees and expenses, fees and expenses shall be submitted to the Court for its approval andconfirmation in the form of either a properly noticed interim request for fees, stipulation oall parties, or Receiver's Final Account and Report.


17/49

23456789

lO111213

7. The Receiver shall be paid his usual hourly billable rate, not to excee$475.00. All costs incurred by the Receiver and his attorneys in the performance of theirduties, including, but not limited to, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds

8. Any and all expenses of the operation of the Estate are the risk of theReceivership, and not the personal obligation of the Receiver.

9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in increments of$10,000.00 bearing interest at eight percent (8%) per annum for up to $50,000.00 to anyperson or parties. All funds loaned to the Receiver pursuant to such ReceivershipCertificate(s) shall be deemed to be a lien of first priority which shall be repaid prior to allother encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.

10. The Receiver and the parties to this case may, at any time, apply to


18/49

123456789

10111213

policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession of the estate. If sufficientinsurance coverage does not exist, the Receiver shall immediately notify the parties to thilawsuit and shall have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficient all-risk and liabilityinsurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, thif the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek instructionfrom the Court with regard to whether insurance shall be obtained and how it is to be paidfor. If consistent with existing law, the Receiver shall not be responsible for claims arisinfrom the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.

14. The Receiver shall be authorized to pay all legal obligations of thePROPERTY outstanding and coming due.

15. Zcmik and his respective agents, employees, representatives andanyone acting in concert with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably


19/49

. ,

2345678910111213

16. The parties and their respective agents, employees, representativesand anyone acting in concert with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from engagingin any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer thereceivership estate and exercise management and control over the PROPERTY.Dated: November ~ , 2 0 0 7

Hon. 0 n L. SegalJUDGE OF TH SUPERlOR COURT

ilOHN L. SEGAL

THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIfICATE ISAITACHED IS l\ FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COpyOF THE OR1BINAlISSUED BY THIS OfFICE ON__.......;:;.,;E:::.;:C:.....O=-f 2001 OF RECORD.ATrEST - - - ~ ~ " - A - ......, t f I ' ---John A. Clarke, Execuf i ( ofthe Superior Court of " ~ County


20/49

PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATIONRECORDING REQUESTED BY:UNITED TITLE COMPANY

12117107AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP llIll 11111 11111 1111111111 1IIIr II1I1 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR 20072759872OS ANGELES, CA 90071-1448

THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY

ORDER APPOINTING DAVID J. PASTERNAK AS RECEIVER


21/49

5

10

234

6789

I 11213

PROOF OF SERVICESTATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteenyears and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 333 South HopeStreet, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-1448.On October 26, 2007, I served the following document(s) described as (PROPOSEDIORDER APPOINTING DAVID J. PASTERNAK AS RECEIVER on the interestedpany(ies) in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes and/orpackages addressed as follows:

Robert 1. Shulkin, Esq. Joseph ZernikThe Law Department 320 S. Peck DriveColdwell Banker Residential Beverly Hills, California 90212Brokerage Company [email protected] San Vicente Blvd., Ninth FloorLos Angeles, CA 90049-6510Facsimile: (310) 447-1902robert.shu Iki [email protected]

0 BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection andprocessing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be depositedwith the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at


22/49


23/49

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 16


24/49




25/49

Case 2:09 cv 01914 JFW CW Document 16 2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 2 of 16



26/49




27/49




28/49

Case 09 c 0 9 J C ocu e t 6 ed 05/0 / 009 age 5 o 6



29/49

g



30/49

g



31/49



32/49



33/49



34/49



35/49



36/49



37/49



38/49



39/49


40/49

[email protected],, 01:36 AM 10/16/2009, 09-10-15-mccoy-confirm-false-records+exh-s

To: [email protected], From: joseph zernik Subject: 09-10-15-mccoy-confirm-false-records+exh-s.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional

Cc:Bcc:Attached: c:\documents and settings\dr z\application data\qualcomm\eudora\attach\09-10-15-mccoy-confirm-false-records+exh-s.pdf;

Please see enclose record. Timely response is requested by Monday, October 19, 2009.


41/49

THE COD PROJECT by Dr Z (not-for-profit tax id application to be filed)

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: [email protected]

09-10-16 Request filed with Presiding Judge McCoy for access to court records.

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:23:59 -0700To: "Charles W McCoy" , [email protected]: joseph zernik Subject: The latest - special security against me by the court...



RE: (1) Marina v LA County(BS109420) (2) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Request toaccess court records to inspect and to copy.


42/49


Therefore, please accept this notice as a request addressed to you, to identify the records, if any, bydate and title, and to secure my access to such court records that provide the foundation for theauthority of (1) Justice JAMES A RICHMAN, and (2) Commissioner MURRAY GROSS in therespective cases (1) and (2) above.

In case such records do not exist, or are not in the court's possession, I request that you make a clearstatement to that effect.

C. Time is of the essence

I kindly request that you provide responses by Monday, October 19, 2009, since time is of theessence. Atty RICHARD FINE has been allegedly falsely imprisoned for over half a year by now.Surely you would not wish to prolong such alleged miscarriage of justice.

This request is NOT for access from remote location via electronic networks. Please inform me of thetime and place, on court location where I would be allowed such access. Even if in short notice, Iwould do my best to accommodate the schedules of court personnel.

Dated: October 16, 2009

Los Angeles County, California ____/s/ Joseph H Zernik____JOSEPH H ZERNIK


43/49

Dr Z

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: [email protected]

09-10-16 Request that Presiding Judge McCoy provide a reasonable explanation for the

denial of access to court records.

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:02:21 -0700To: "Charles W McCoy" , [email protected]: joseph zernik Subject: Request for a reasonable explanation of the legal foundation for the denial of access to electronic court records inSustain



RE: Request for the legal foundation of denial of access to the electronic court records inSustain


44/49


Such notation was entered in July 2007 by the Court of Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR, but wasback-dates by 3 years, The absurd date, was prior to the date of filing the complaint - October 25,2005, and also prior to the date any of the underlying events took place. Such date ensured that thenotation would remain prominently displayed on page 1 of the Case History Report. Furthermore, itdesignated COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC - "Real Parties in Interest" at a time that my claimsthat the whole alleged malicious prosecution in Samaan v Zernik was fabricated based on falseCountrywide records were dubbed "Conspiratorial Theory". It also stood in contrast to the filing ofpapers, accepted by the Clerk fo the Court, by COUNTRYWIDE, and later by BANK OF AMERICACORPORATION, under the false and deliberately misleading fabricated party designation of "NONPARTY". Indeed, after I filed notice of the alleged criminality in such court records, such notationdisappeared from the Register of Actions, albeit - with no nunc pro tunc or any service or notice toparties.

On a couple of c occasions I was given the following as a purported reason for the denial of access tocourt records: "Sustain is privileged - for the court only". These exact words were pronounced by(a) Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG and (b) Staff of the Office of Presiding Judge. At othertimes, staff of the Office of the Clerk provided the following explanation: "Sustain records are

internal court records" Therefore, these words impressed me as an "ORAL RULES OF COURT". Iallege that such ORAL RULES OF COURT would be in violation of the law on their faces - for the factthat they were never published. In addition - such ORAL RULES OF COURT allegedly contradict thelaw,. and were used to allegedly deprive the 10 millions who reside in LA County of their mostfundamental rights for a quarter century


45/49



46/49

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: [email protected]

09-10-16 Request for Presiding Judge McCoy to confirm of invalidity of August 17, 2009

Minute Orders in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:23:25 -0700To: "Charles W McCoy" , [email protected]: joseph zernik Subject: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Request for confirmation of alleged invalidity of court

record that are Minute Orders in Sustain.



RE: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Request for confirmation of alleged invalidity of courtrecords that are Minute Orders in Sustain.

TO PRESIDING JUDGE MCCOY AND THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT Pl t k


47/49


6) I hold, based on my understanding of computers and programming that such name printed under

the signature line was an automatic function in Sustain, similar in nature to "Mail Merge", and that thevalue entered in the field depends on the User Name and ID entered at LOGIN. Therefore, the defectseen in these Minute Orders is likely to reflect dishonest manipulation in Sustain by Deputy Clerk MGODDERZ. However, most likely such manipulation required collusion by others. Such concernscould have been easily dismissed or affirmed by simply inspecting the AUDIT DATA of the respectiveitems in Sustain. However - access is denied, as noticed before, with no reason at all.

Request:

Please accept this notice as a request addressed to you:

1) Please inspect and copy the AUDIT DATA of the August 17, 2009 Minute Order issued to me inSustain by Clerk M GODDREZ in Dept 1, for proceeding, where Justice JAMES A RICHMANpresided, and please provide me with a true and correct copy of the contents of the AUDIT DATA ofthis minute order.

2) Please confirm [or deny] that the August 17, 2009 Minute Order issued to me in the caption ofSturgeon v LA County (BC351286)was an invalid, ineffectual court record.

Copy of the August 17, 2009 Minute Order is provided below.

Notice:


48/49


________________________________________________________________________________

August 17, 2009 Minute Order in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)

The minute order can also be viewed at:http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-17-denial-zernik-exparte-leave-to-file.PDF


49/49

09-10-16 Letters to reliably inform Presiding Judge McCoy of Alleged Criminality in Court...

Documents

Transcript of 09-10-16 Letters to reliably inform Presiding Judge McCoy of Alleged Criminality in Court...