Digitally signed

Dr Z by Joseph H
Zernik
Joseph Zernik, PhD DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; arthlink.net, c=US
Location: La
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Verne, California
Date: 2010.02.13
05:06:42 -08'00'
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-02-13 Requesting Ombudsman help in re: Complaint re-filed with the Sheriffs Department re:
Large-scale false imprisonments etc.

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:33:32 -0800

To: "Stephanie Maxberry" <SMaxberry@css.lacounty.gov>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: 10-02-13 Thanking Ombudsman Maxberry for generous offer of help, and request for such help in re: Complaint re-filed
with the Sheriffs Department re: Large-scale false imprisonments, including, but not limited to Richard Fine's, and false
hospitalizations of attorneys who filed complaints alleging corruption of Los Angeles Superior Court judges.

TO Stephanie Maxberry, Ombudsman

Los Angeles County, California, by email.

RE: 10-02-13 Thanking Ombudsman Maxberry for generous offer of help, and
request for such help in re: Complaint re-filed with the Sheriffs Department re:
Large-scale false imprisonments, including, but not limited to Richard Fine's,
and false hospitalizations of attorneys who filed complaints alleging corruption
of Los Angeles Superior Court judges.
Dear Ombudsman Maxberry:

Thank you very much for your generous offer of help, copied below. Please also accept the attached digitally
signed letter, copied below, of a complaint filed today with Sheriff Lee Baca.

Following your kind notice below, offering to help to "file a complaint, find out the status of your complaint,
Review your complaint to make sure a thorough process was done" - I am asking for such help as offered. Please
also notice that this is not a request for independent investigation, for interview of witnesses, or for criminal
investigation.

Respectfully,

Dated: February 12, 2010

La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H Zernik, PhD

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

P.S.
I wanted to point out to you that the online complaint form of the Ombudsman's Office did not list the
complaint number issued by the Sheriff's Department as a required field in the complaint. [1] Neither is
any such requirement listed in the respective section of the Los Angeles County code. [2] Needless to
say, I was never able to get any written response on complaints to the Sheriff's Department absent help
from the Honorable Michael Antonovich. However, with help from your good offices, surely the Sheriff's
Department would issue a complaint numbers this time around.
[1] http://inproperinla.com/10-02-12-los-angeles-county-department-of-ombudsman-s.pdf
z Page 2/9 February 13, 2010

[2] http://inproperinla.com/10-02-12-ombudsman-los-angeles-county-code-section-2.37-s.pdf

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010, 00:28:32 Complainant Zernik wrote:

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:28:32 -0800
To: "Sheriff Lee Baca's Headquarter Bureau" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: 10-02-13 Complaint re-filed with the Sheriffs Department re: Large-scale false imprisonments,
including, but not limited to Richard Fine's, and false hospitalizations of attorneys who filed complaints
alleging corruption of Los Angeles Superior Court judges.
Bcc: <ECHummel@lasd.org>, <AMAlvara@lasd.org>, <rpedroza@lasd.org>, <shb@lasd.org>,
<lbaca@lasd.org>, <webemail@lasd.org>, <lbaca@lasd.org>

10-02-13 Complaint re-filed with the Sheriffs Department re:

Large-scale false imprisonments, including, but not limited to
Richard Fine's, and false hospitalizations of attorneys who filed
complaints alleging corruption of Los Angeles Superior Court
judges.

Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-02-13 Complaint re-filed with the Sheriffs Department re: Large-scale

false imprisonments, including, but not limited to Richard Fine's, and false
hospitalizations of attorneys who filed complaints alleging corruption of
Los Angeles Superior Court judges.
To the Honorable Lee Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, by email.

Dear Sheriff Baca:

I am writing to re-file complaints, previously filed with your good offices, in re:

COMPLAINT #1: False arrest and booking data for the falsely hospitalized Attorney
Richard Fine, which the Sheriffs Department refused to correct.

COMPLAINT #2: False or Missing Information Regarding Arrest and Booking of

Numerous Inmates Held by the Sheriffs Department

COMPLAINT #3: False Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause, Appearing As

Cover Up For False Imprisonments.

Since October 2009 I have been repeatedly filing such complaints with the Sheriff's Department. Details of
z Page 3/9 February 13, 2010

the three complaints listed above are provided in the digitally signed letter, attached, and copied below,
addressed the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Supervisor, County of Los Angeles.

Separately, I received today an email from Ms Stephanie Maxberry, Ombudsman of County of Los
Angeles. In such email she described to me the Sheriffs Department Complaint process as follows:

After a complaint is filed, the person receives a letter from the Sheriff Department stating the matter is being
investigated and a copy of their complaint on a form entitled, Watch Commanders Service Comment
Report. In the upper right hand corner of this form is a 5 or 6 digit number that can be referenced when
calling or writing about the complaint. At the conclusion of the complaint process, the person receives
another letter informing him/her of the outcome.

I therefore request that you accept this email notice, and the attached digitally signed letter as a repeat complaint
and issue Watch Commanders Service Comment Report with a 5 or 6 digit number at its upper right hand corner
pertaining to the three complaints listed above.

Respectfully,

Dated: February 13, 2010, La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California

Joseph H Zernik, PhD

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Email
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

___________

Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-02-09 Complaint Filed with Los Angeles County Supervisor of Refusal of

Office of the Ombudsman to Respond on Complaints.

Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:14:41 -0800

To: "Michael D. Antonovich" <fifthdistrict@lacbos.org>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Constituent's request for help in Inquiry on the Office of the Ombudsman RE: Complaints
regarding the Sheriff's Department
Please see attached, digitally signed letter, also copied below. --jz
______________
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
10-02-08 Request for Inquiry by the Honorable Michael Antonovich, County of Los Angeles
Supervisor, for Response by the Office of the Ombudsman, County of Los Angeles, in re:
Complaints against the Sheriffs Department, County of Los Angeles, California.
To the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor;
z Page 4/9 February 13, 2010

By email "Michael D. Antonovich" <fifthdistrict@lacbos.org>

Dear Supervisor Antonovich:
Thank you for your help, absent which I would never have received any written response from the
Sheriffs Department regarding my requests for records pertaining to the Liberty, or deprivation thereof,
of two attorneys who had been falsely hospitalized in Los Angeles County. I am likewise writing to ask
your help in inquiring why the Office of Los Angeles County Ombudsman would not respond on my
complaints against the Sheriffs Department, pertaining to the Liberty, or deprivation thereof, of many
persons in Los Angeles County, California.
I have filed several complaints in the past few months with the Office of the Ombudsman, no response
was ever received. After I left a phone message, I received a timely return phone call by Ms Rose
Curry from the Office of the Ombudsman on January 6, 2010. She explained to me by phone that her
office had no authority to review complaints against the Sheriffs Department. Such claims stood in
sharp contrast with public notices which were found posted in public areas in the Sheriffs facilities, and
which explicitly stated that the address for complaints regarding the Sheriffs Department was the Office
of the Ombudsman
Let me first state that the Sheriffs Department facilities at Twin Towers, where design followed the
function principle of transparency, must be deemed progressive and enlightened, and are likely to be
second to none. The Sheriffs Department, likewise, was equipped with information infrastructure that
was state of the art, and was well suited for the needs of the Department. The staff of the Sheriffs
Department was likewise found to be overall well-trained, helpful, and friendly. On such background,
the issues raised below were more conspicuous in that there seemed no reasonable explanation for
them, except for wrongdoing at the administrative/managerial level. The concerns raised below are
particularly serious, since they pertain to deprivation of liberty of many, possibly thousands of persons.
I therefore respectfully request the help of your good offices in inquiring on the Office of the
Ombudsman, County of Los Angeles, to provide answers on the following three complaints, all alleging
Page 2/7 February 10, 2010
wrongdoing related to deprivation of Liberty of persons in Los Angeles County, California, and mostly
related to alleged dishonest manipulations of computerized information systems:
1) COMPLAINT #1: False arrest and booking data for the falsely hospitalized Attorney
Richard Fine, which the Sheriffs Department refused to correct.
a. Reconstructed Chronology and Facts Surrounding the Arrest and Booking of Richard
Fine:
Following is a reconstructed, most plausible chronology, based on review of the records in the case
and also based of media reports regarding events that took place in open court.
i. Prior to the March 4, 2009 proceedings at the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, Court of Judge DAVID YAFFE, a request was forwarded to the Sheriffs Department to
have the WARRANT DETAIL present in the proceeding, with the understanding that the proceedings
would likely end with the sentencing and jailing of Atty RICHARD FINE. Therefore, the WARRANT
DETAIL, of about ten Sheriff Deputies was present in the March 4, 2009 proceedings from the start.
ii. On March 4, 2009, Judge DAVID YAFFE of the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, conducted in open court a false public display of sentencing proceedings. In fact, the
March 4, 2009, proceeding was later entirely eliminated from the litigation chronology published online
by the court. [1] At the end of such false public display, Judge David Yaffe pronounced in open court
the sentencing of RICHARD FINE for continuous confinement, as evidenced in court reporters
transcript. [2]
iii. On March 4, 2009, at 11:05 am, through such oral directives, Judge DAVID YAFFE
affected the arrest of Attorney RICHARD FINE by the Sheriffs WARRANT DETAIL on the premises of
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, City of Los Angeles. Such
events were witnessed by many, were reported by media, and were indisputable facts. [3]
iv. On March 4, 2009, at 11:05 am, Judge DAVID YAFFE failed to produce any written
record to provide the adequate legal foundation for the arrest of RICHARD FINE. No warrant was
produced, and likewise, no honest, valid, and effectual conviction and sentencing record was
generated. Instead, Judge DAVID YAFFE proceeded to create a contradictory written record in the
court file, which reflected neither conviction, nor sentencing or jailing of RICHARD FINE.
v. Events stated above until such time were recounted with no implication of any
intentional wrongdoing by the WARRANT DETAIL of the Sheriffs Department. In contrast, conduct of
the WARRANT DETAIL later than such time, could not be plausibly explained in a manner that was
consistent with honest conduct in compliance with the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of
RICHARD ISAAC FINE.
z Page 5/9 February 13, 2010

vi. On March 4, 2009, at 11:05 am, the Sheriffs Department later falsely stated that
RICHARD FINE was arrested at the Municipal Court of San Pedro. Such statements were provided
repeatedly in response to inquiries. Such statements contradicted reports by media and by witnesses
that RICHARD FINE was arrested at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court of
Judge DAVID YAFFE. However, the Sheriffs Department refused to support such statements with the
official, valid signed records of the arrest and booking, such as the Los Angeles County Booking and
Property Record from the countywide Sheriffs information systems, where the exact location and time
of an arrest were listed, together with the name, authority, and signature of the arresting Police
Officer/Sheriff Deputy. Instead, the Sheriffs Department insisted on repeatedly providing unsigned
printouts from the Sheriffs online Inmate Information Center, a derivative record, which could not be
deemed an official record, since it included neither the name of the person who created such record,
nor his/her authority, and no signatures at all. [4]
vii. On March 4, 2009, at 12:32 pm, the Sheriffs Department later falsely stated that
Richard Fine was booked at the Municipal Court, City of San Pedro. No Municipal Court, City of San
Pedro existed in the first place. In addition, by 12:32pm on March 4, 2009 the evidence showed that
there was no warrant to support the arrest and booking, neither was there any conviction/sentencing
record at all available to the Sheriff to support the arrest and booking. Therefore, no valid Booking
Record could be produced corresponding to such false claims by the Sheriffs Department, polished to
this date in its online Inmate Information Center [5]
The preponderance of the evidence indicated that instead of driving Richard Fine from the Superior
Court of California County of Los Angeles, on North Hill Street a distance of about 1 mile to the Twin
Towers IRC (inmate reception center), to conduct the booking, Richard Fine was indeed driven over 20
miles to San Pedro. However, no Municipal Court existed in San Pedro for almost a decade. Today,
what existed in San Pedro was an Annex of the Superior Court, with only one Judge, who was not
Judge DAVID YAFFE, and a miniscule Sheriffs unit. The Sheriff Deputy on duty at the Annex of the
Superior Court, San Pedro, stated that there were no booking facilities at the San Pedro Annex of the
Page 3/7 February 10, 2010
Superior Court, and that no booking ever took place there in many months, surely that Sheriff Deputy
denied that Richard Fine was ever booked there.
All bookings in Los Angeles County were executed through countywide information system, based on
uniform computerized terminals, which were highly secured. Each terminal had to be registered with
the Sheriffs Department, and the operation of such terminals was controlled through high security login
implementation, based on fingerprints of the Police Officer/Sheriff Deputy, serving as unique
identification of the person affecting the booking, equivalent to digital signatures. Based on such
fingerprints the system automatically recognized the operator and verified his authority to affect such
booking. The very same terminal was quipped with glass platens for scanning and recording the
fingerprints of the persons being booked. The terminal was also equipped to capture the booking
photos, and entry of other required information e.g. warrant and court case reference to support the
arrest and booking.
The preponderance of the evidence indicated that while the true and honest Annex of the Superior
Court of San Pedro and its tiny Sheriff Unit had no terminal installed to execute bookings, somewhere
in the San Pedro facility, a terminal was left operational, which was falsely registered as constituting a
terminal under the authority of the no longer existent Municipal Court, City of San Pedro. It is further
alleged that upon investigation by the Ombudsman, it would be found that on March 4, 2009, at 12:32
pm, a person, who was a Deputy Sheriff from the Sheriffs WARRANT DETAIL, and whose fingerprints
were recognized by the system as authorized person, falsely operated such falsely registered terminal
under the false authority of the no longer existent Municipal Court, City of San Pedro, to affect a false
booking record for Richard Fine.
Therefore, it was alleged that a record, false as it might be, had to exist in the Sheriffs Department
information system for the booking on March 4, 2009, 12:32 pm, from the falsely registered terminal
under the authority of the non-existent Municipal Court, City of San Pedro. However, such record was
deemed by the Sheriffs Department itself as an invalid record. Therefore, the Sheriffs Department
refused to produce the Los Angeles County Booking and Property Record corresponding to the stated
booking of Richard Fine, on March 4, 2009, 12:32 pm, and in response to inquiries by Los Angeles
Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich, the Sheriffs Department responded with a letter, dated
December 29, 2009, which stated that it was not required to produce records which did not exist. [4]
One should note that such booking records, regarding of the fact that they were likely to be found false,
upon investigation by the Ombudsman, were public records pursuant to California Public Records Act,
6254(f), which defined what records were exempt and what records must be produced. Investigative
z Page 6/9 February 13, 2010

records were exempt, but arrest (paragraph (1)) and dispatch records (paragraph (2)) had to be
produced.
viii. On March 4, 2009, at 4:31 pm, the first ever records related to arrest and booking of
RICHARD FINE were received by the Sheriffs Department through an anonymous fax transmission
from Judicial Services - the Sheriffs unit at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central District, City of Los Angeles. [5] Such fax transmission was received with no fax transmission
cover sheet, and the identity of of the sender and the receiver were never disclosed to this date. Such
papers were alleged to be yet additional false and misleading records, and the Sheriffs Department
refused to produce such records either as the foundation for the arrest and booking of RICHARD FINE
in response to inquiries by Los Angeles County Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich.
However, such records, false as they may be, were generated by the purported authority of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, City of Los Angeles, Court of
Judge DAVID YAFFE, and therefore, contradicted the records from the online Inmate Information
Center, which stated that the arrest and booking were affected by the Municipal Court, City of San
Pedro. Moreover, such records did not exist on March 4, 2009, at 12:32 pm, to provide the authority for
the booking of Richard Fine.
ix. Regarding the false data in the Sheriffs Department online Inmate Information Center it
should be noted that regardless of numerous requests over the past half year, the Sheriffs Department
refused to correct the false data, which was published online regarding the arrest and booking of
Richard Fine.
b. Complaint #1: Requests for review by the Office of the Ombudsman on the Matter of the
Arrest and Booking of Richard Fine:
Request is for review by the Office of the Ombudsman of key facts that were alleged above:
i. That the Sheriffs Department kept no functional booking terminal of its countywide
booking information system, which was registered under the honest, true, and valid authority of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, San Pedro Annex.
ii. That the Sheriffs Department kept a false and deliberately misleading functional
Page 4/7 February 10, 2010
booking terminal of its countywide booking information system, which was left registered under the
authority of the non-existent Municipal Court, City of San Pedro, after the termination of such courts,
almost a decade ago.
iii. That on March 4, 2009, at 12:32 pm, a Deputy Sheriff of the WARRANT DETAIL
falsely operated the falsely registered booking terminal under the false authority of the non-existent
Municipal Court, City of San Pedro; That such Deputy Sheriff logged into such terminal through affixing
his fingerprint to the terminal, as a digital signature of an authorized person; That through such false
and deliberately misleading conduct a false and deliberately misleading booking record was produced
for RICHARD FINE; That such record, namely - Los Angeles County Booking and Property Record
dated March 4, 2009, time-stamped 12:32 pm, in fact existed in the Sheriffs information system, but
was deemed invalid by the Sheriffs Department, and therefore, was never produced in response to
inquiries by Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich; That the claims by the Sheriffs
Department in response to inquiries by the Honorable Michael Antonovich, that no such records
existed, were false claims; That through such false and deliberately misleading conduct of a Sheriff
Deputy of the WARRANT DETAIL, Attorney Richard Fine, 70 years old former US Prosecutor was
deprived of Liberty for almost a year - from March 4, 2009 and to this date.
iv. That the Sheriffs Department constructed a system of double-books, including the
countywide booking information system based on the booking terminals on the one hand, and the
online Inmate Information Center on the other hand; That the parallel operation of such systems was
used to conceal the false operation of the false and deliberately misleading booking terminal in San
Pedro through the production of invalid, but unsigned records from the online Inmate Information
System instead of producing records from the countywide booking information system, bearing digital
signatures - the Los Angeles County Booking and Property Record.
v. That the case of Richard Fine demonstrated how such Double Books systems were
employed for deprivation of Liberty, and the urgent need for publicly accountable validation (certified
functional logic verification) of such systems.
2) COMPLAINT #2: False or Missing Information Regarding Arrest and Booking of
Numerous Inmates Held by the Sheriffs Department
a. Alleged Facts RE: False or Missing Information Regarding Arrest and Booking of
Numerous Inmates
Review of data from the Sheriffs Department online Inmate Information System and from the national
z Page 7/9 February 13, 2010

VINE Link system demonstrated that the case of Richard Fine was not unique at all: [6]
i. About 30% of the named inmates in the online Inmate Information Center had no
booking number available at all; [6]
ii. About 50% of inmates in the online Inmate Information Center had false and
deliberately misleading data published online, providing the legal foundation for their arrests as based
on court actions of various non-existent Municipal Courts of various cities in Los Angeles County. [6]
iii. While the vast majority (~90%) of inmates in the past year were assigned booking
numbers around 2,000,000, the various surveys consistently showed that about 10% of inmates were
assigned booking numbers around 1,300,000, which were not correlated with any specific time or
location of the arrest and booking. [6]
iv. Data extracted from the online VINE Link system, which was stated to be based on
data received from the Sheriffs Department, County of Los Angeles System, was entirely inconsistent
with data from the online Inmate Information Center of the Sheriffs Department, County of Los Angeles.
[6]
v. For comparison purposes survey was conducted also of the data in the Law Library,
County of Los Angeles Catalog. The honest, valid, and effectual cataloging of books in such library
appeared to be in almost perfect order, in sharp contrast with the data of Inmates in the County jails.
Therefore, there was no doubt that staff of County agencies was competent and capable of handling
such tasks, and that the conditions of the Sheriffs Department information systems were not the
outcome of nave errors, incompetence, or lack of training.
b. Complaint #2: Requests for review by the Office of the Ombudsman on the Matter of the
Arrest and Booking Data of Numerous Inmates in Los Angeles County Jails:
i. It was alleged that upon investigation by the Ombudsman it would be found that
terminals were left operational in various locations throughout Los Angeles County, which were falsely
registered under the no longer existent Municipal Courts.
ii. It was alleged that the case of Richard Fine was not unique at all, and bookings are
routinely affected through such falsely registered booking terminals purported to be of non-existent
Municipal Courts of various cities.
Page 5/7 February 10, 2010
iii. It was alleged that the evidence showed that upon investigation by the Ombudsman it
would be found that the online Inmate Information System falsely included menus that falsely listed as
available options the listing of arrest, bookings, and court actions under the no longer existent Municipal
Courts of various LA County cities, and that such false menu options were routinely used to publish
false data in the online Inmate Information Center.
iv. It was alleged that the issuance in parallel of booking numbers in two series, one
around 2,000,000, and the other around 1,300,000, was inconsistent with honest operation of such
countywide booking information system, and that upon investigation it would be found that at least two
systems were operated in parallel. It was further alleged that for honest operation of such system, all
booking numbers must be consecutive in a manner that is directly correlated with the time of booking.
Any departure from such consecutive order must have a reasonable justification.
v. It was alleged that investigation of the discrepancies between the VINE Link data and
the online Inmate Information Center data would reveal further dishonesties in the administration of
such systems.
vi. It was alleged that conditions demonstrated through such data surveys demonstrated
how such Double Books systems were employed for deprivation of Liberty many persons, and that it
was further likely that latinos were more prone to abuse by such systems, therefore, implying racebased
discrimination in such abuse.
vii. It was alleged that upon investigation, it would be concluded that there was an urgent
need for publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of such systems.
3) COMPLAINT #3: False Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause, Appearing As
Cover Up For False Imprisonments.
a. Alleged Facts Regarding False Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause
RICHARD FINE and RONALD GOTTSCHALK, two attorneys who filed complaints alleging corruption
of the judges of Los Angeles Superior Court, were falsely hospitalized with no probable medical cause.
Such cases were not unique. After such facts were published and advertised by instant complainant,
others came forward and stated that they were subjected to similar treatment by the Sheriffs
Department. In the cases of the two individuals listed above, such false hospitalizations were
associated with arrests with no warrants and no valid authority. Of particular concern were:
i. The false hospitalization of Richard Fine, by now ongoing for almost a year, with no
z Page 8/9 February 13, 2010

medical justification at all.

ii. The false hospitalization of Ronald Gottschalk in a psychiatric ward, with no medical
justification at all, where he indicated that he was coerced to intake psychiatric medications, with no
medical justification. Ronald Gottschalk also claimed that he was denied access to medically required
food and medication for his diabetes, and that efforts were made to extract from him admission of
suicidal tendencies and/or other fictitious psychiatric disorders.
b. Complaint #3: Requests for review by the Office of the Ombudsman on the Matter of False
Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause
i. It was alleged that JOHN H. CLARK, MD, CCHP-A, Chief Medical Officer, Sheriffs
Department, County of Los Angeles, must be held accountable for all hospitalizations by the Sheriffs
Department, and that he should provide reasonable explanations for the false hospitalizations of
Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk.
ii. It was alleged that the facts in this matter demonstrated the urgent need for publicly
accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of an information system that would
document the medical authority for any hospitalization by the Sheriffs Department, County of Los
Angeles.
Past help from the good offices of Supervisor Michael Antonovich was critical in obtaining written
responses from the Sheriffs Department. I hope that inquiry by your good offices would likewise
produce written responses by the Office of the Ombudsman, County of Los Angeles, on the three
complaints, listed above. Such complaints place emphasis on the urgent need to ascertain the integrity
of computerized information systems in the County of Los Angeles, California, which at present are
hazard for the Liberty of any resident of this county.
Respectfully,
Dated: February 09, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph H Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
Page 6/7 February 10, 2010
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
[1] Litigation chronology of Marina v LA County (BS109400), published online by the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, which failed to list at all the false public display of March 4, 2009 as
part of litigation proceedings:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-07-13-courtnet-case-summary-s.pdf
[2] Transcript of Proceedings of March 4, 2009 that led to the arrest and jailing of Atty Richard Fine.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-5_transcript-of-march-4-
2009.pdf
[3] March 4, 2009 and March 5, 2009 Media Reports which documented the arrest of Richard Fine on
March 4, 2009 at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, City of Los
Angeles, Central District, North Hill Street.
http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-full-disclosure-network-att-richard-fine-jailed-in-attempt-to-disqualify-lajudge.
pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-03-05-met-news-court-sentences-disbarred-attorney-fine-to-jail-forcontempt.
pdf
[4] January 8, 2010 Letter by the Office of the Honorable Michael Antonovich, providing responses of
the Sheriffs Department to inquiries by the Honorable Michael Antonovich. In such responses the
Sheriffs Department refused to produce California Public Records that were the honest, valid, and
effectual arrest and booking records of Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk, stating that it was not
required by California Public Records Act to produce records which did not exist. Instead, the Sheriffs
Department produced invalid records from the online Inmate Information System.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeatmailing-
of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-inclu
[5] March 4, 2009, 4:32pm Records which were faxed on from Judicial Services, Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, regarding the arrest and jailing of Richard Fine, with no
authentication at all, and were later purported to be the records that provided the foundation for the
z Page 9/9 February 13, 2010

arrest and jailing. Such records never existed at 12:32 pm to provide the foundation for the booking,
and also contradicted the false arrest and booking data in the online Inmate Information Center that
stated the foundation for the arrest and booking to be the Municipal Court, City of San Pedro:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26609353/09-03-04-Fine-v-Sheriff-2-09-cv-01914-False-Fine-Judgment-
Records-filed-May-1-2009-by-LA-Superior-Court-as-purported-response-in-US-District-Court
[6] Online Surveys of data in the online Inmate Information System of the Sheriffs Department, which
demonstrated large-scale recording of false and deliberately misleading data regarding the arrest and
booking of numerous persons:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24809956/10-01-04-Los-Angeles-Sheriff-Department-Inmate-information-
Center-data-survey-Jose-Martinez-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/10-01-11-Sheriff-s-Department-of-Los-Angeles-County-Inmate-
Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24816245/10-01-05-Sheriff-s-Department-of-Los-Angeles-County-Inmate
Page 7/7 February 10, 2010
Information-Center-data-survey-John-Smith-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25067457/10-01-11-Los-Angeles-Law-Library-Catalog-Data-Survey-
California-Code-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25315610/10-01-16-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-Department-inmatedata-
survey-VINE-vs-Inmate-Information-Center-re-Jose-Martinez-Jose-Rodriguez-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26618214/10-02-09-VINE-Link-Records-of-falsely-hospitalized-attorneys-
Richard-Fine-and-Ronald-Gottschalk-s