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/Human_Rights_Alert

CHARLES W MCCOY
Presiding Judge,
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
By email: cmccoy@lasuperiorcourt.org
By Fax: (213) 617-7176

Response kindly requested within 10 days.

RE: Request for initiation of corrective actions in re: (1) False and misleading Local
Rules of Court regarding entry of judgment and maintenance of a judgment book or
its equivalent, and (2) Related alleged and/or opined wrongdoing in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400) and Marina v LA County (BS109420)

Dear Presiding Judge McCoy:

Instant letter is written as a request that the Presiding Judge directly address the October
16, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s letters to Presiding Judge McCoy, [1] in which the Presiding
Judge was requested to explicitly disclose the procedures deemed valid and effectual by
the Court pertaining to the entry of judgment and maintenance of a judgment book or its
equivalent, since the published Local Rules of Court on such matters were deemed false
and misleading. Furthermore, instant letter is a repeat request that the Presiding Judge
initiate corrective actions pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics relative to
publication of honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court and relative to cases listed
below, where wrongdoing was alleged by and on behalf of the Court, which resulted from
the failure of the Court to publish honest Local Rules of Court affected the opined real
estate fraud by the Court in one case and the alleged false imprisonment by the Court in
the other.

The October 16, 2009 letter quoted the law pertaining to entry of judgment and the
requirement that the Court maintain a judgment book or its equivalent:
The California Code of Civil Procedure §664 requires Entry of Judgment as a
prerequisite for such judgment to become “effectual for any purpose”; California
Government Code §69844.7 clearly states “Nothing contained herein shall eliminate the
requirement for a judgment book where judgments and decrees are required to be
entered”; Local Rules of Court, Rule 1.4(e)16(e), states among the duties of the Executive
Officer “to keep a judgment book of its equivalent”, and Local Rules of Court, Rule
3.0(d), states “Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court, which are required
by law to be entered, shall be entered by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her
either in the Public Services Division, of the Central District, or the clerks office in each
2/6 5/3/2010

of the several districts. The judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the judgment
books in the district wherein the same was rendered and no other entry thereof shall be
required.”

The October 16, 2009 letters further noticed the Presiding Judge of the false and
misleading nature of such Local Rules of Court, published by the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles pertaining to the entry of judgment and maintenance
of a judgment book or its equivalent:
Staff of the Clerk’s office repeatedly informed Dr Zernik that the Court maintained no
judgment books for over a quarter century. Likewise, repeated requests, addressed to the
Clerk of the Court and to the Presiding Judge of the Court in the past two and a half
years, requesting to access the judgment book or its equivalent, to inspect and to copy,
were routinely denied.

The October 16, 2009 letters further noticed the Presiding Judge of various related
instances of alleged and/or opined wrongdoing resulting from such conditions prevailing
at the Court:
Such alleged and/or opined wrongdoing pertained to the false representation of records of
the Court as effectual judgments, and wrongfully permitting and/or enforcing their
execution, while in fact such records were void, not voidable judgments, which never
were and are not effectual for any purpose, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure §664, since such judgments were never entered as required by law.
Furthermore, credible evidence documented that while the Court permitted or enforced
execution of such judgments, the Court itself never deemed such judgments as effectual.

Instances listed in the October 16, 2009 letters included, but were not limited to:
a) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – where such conduct led to the deprivation of the
Right for Property, as opined by highly decorated FBI veteran, fraud expert James
Wedick [3] – through fraud in conveyance of title of real property by Attorney
David Pasternak on behalf of the Court, and
b) Marina v LA County (BS109420) – where such conduct led to the alleged
deprivation of Liberty of Richard Fine – through his ongoing imprisonment by the
Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County, which continues to deny access to
any valid and effectual arrest and booking records, and insists on providing false
and deliberately misleading records, listing his arrest and booking as having taken
place at and pursuant to the authority of the non-existent Municipal Court of San
Pedro.

Therefore, instant letter, like the October 16, 2009 letters, requests that the Presiding
Judge initiate corrective actions pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics in the
matters listed above.

The Presiding Judge never responded on the October 16, 2009 letters. However, Court
Counsel Frederick Bennett forwarded to Dr Zernik the October 28, 2009 letter, [2] which
appeared to address some of the matters noted above:
3/6 5/3/2010

1) Regarding failure of the Court to publish honest Local Rules of Court and the
request to disclose the procedures for entry of judgments, which are deemed valid
and effectual by the Court itself, the October 28, 2009 Mr Bennett’s letter stated
the following:

Judgement Book [sic-jz]

Prior to 1974, all judgements of the superior, municipal, and
justice courts were entered in a “Judgement Book.” Code of Civil
Procedure section 668. Although courts in some counties continue to
enter judgments in a judgment book, section 668 no longer no longer
provides the exclusive means of entry. Code of Civil Procedure 668.5
authorizes alternatives, including making a microfilm copy of the
individual judgment, as done in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The paragraph quoted above was distinguished by its irregular spelling,

inconsistent with the spelling used by California Code, and by its failure to
explicitly state the current procedures, which are deemed valid and effectual for
the entry of judgment at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Furthermore, the letter as a whole failed to explicitly state that it was written and
forwarded on behalf of the Presiding Judge of the Court.
2) Regarding initiation of corrective actions by the Presiding Judge in re publishing
honest Local Rules of Court, the October 28, 2009 letter by Mr Bennett remained
silent. Likewise, no evidence of corrective actions by the Presiding Judge was
found to this date pertaining to the publication of Local Rules of Court regarding
the maintenance of a judgment book or its equivalent and/or entry of judgment.
3) Regarding initiation of corrective actions by the Presiding Judge regarding
wrongfully permitting and/or enforcement of the execution of judgments which
were never “effectual for any purpose,” the October 28, 2009 letter by Court
Counsel Bennett remained silent as well. Furthermore, no evidence of corrective
actions by the Presiding Judge pertaining to the alleged wrongdoing in the two
cases listed above was found to this date.

In addition, it should be noted:

1) None of the judgments and orders in question, copies of which were attached
and/or linked in the October 16, 2009 letters, was adequately authenticated, as
required by law. Therefore, such records were false on their face, void, not
voidable.
2) Before and/or after receipt of the October 28, 2009 letter by Court Counsel
Bennett, Dr Zernik has conducted exhaustive searches for judgments in a number
of cases, including, but not limited the two cases referenced above. Neither the
purported August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, nor the purported November 9,
2007 Order Appointing Attorney David Pasternak Receiver in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) were ever found in the microfilm judgment archives of the Court. [4]
The purported March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt in re: Richard I
Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109420) was never found in the microfilm
4/6 5/3/2010

judgment archives of the Court, either.[4] Therefore, such records were never
entered in a book of judgments or its equivalent, as required by law, and were and
are void, not voidable, and were and are never effectual for any purpose.
3) Regardless, the Court and the Presiding Judge, to this date, have refused to initiate
corrective actions, while Richard Fine remains held for over a year in solitary
confinement, and while Joseph Zernik has never received a penny in
compensation for his lawful property wrongfully taken by the Court for private
use, both with actions – with no foundation in the law whatsoever.
4) Although only one case is listed above, which was opined as real estate fraud
under the guise of litigation at the Los Angeles Superior Court, and only one case
was listed above of alleged false imprisonment under false judgment of the Court,
numerous examples of both types were identified by Dr Zernik. Therefore, large-
scale false imprisonments and numerous instances of real estate fraud were listed
in the April 19, 2010 report filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations
as part of the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the
United States - as the highlights of alleged Human Rights abuses by the courts in
Los Angeles County, California,. [5]
5) Compelling evidence documented that the Los Angeles Superior Court, serving
the most populous county in the United States – with over 10 million residents –
has engaged in such conduct for well over a decade, patronized by the most senior
officers of FBI and the US Department of Justice.

Therefore, the Presiding Judge is kindly requested:

1) To provide a response within 10 days, explicitly disclosing what procedures the

Court deemed as valid and effectual for the maintenance of a judgment book of its
equivalent and for the entry of judgment at the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles;
2) To initiate corrective actions pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics
relative to the publication of honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court
pertaining to the maintenance of a judgment book or its equivalent and the entry
of judgment at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles;
3) To initiate corrective actions pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics
relative to the alleged and/or opined wrongful permitting and/or enforcement of
execution of judgments which never were and never will be “effectual for any
purpose”: (a) August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court and November 9, 2007 Order
Appointing Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and (b) March 4, 2009
Order and Judgment of Contempt in re: Richard I Fine in Marina v LA County
(BS109420).
4) To explicitly state that response is on behalf of the Presiding Judge, in case the
Presiding Judge again resorts to response by Counsel.

Dated: May 3, 2010

Joseph Zernik
5/6 5/3/2010

By: _____________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email: <jz12345@earthlink.net>

CC:
1) US Attorney General
2) FBI
3) US Secret Service
4) US Marshal Service
5) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Senator from California
6) The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Senator – Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
7) The Honorable John Conyers, Congressman – Chair of the Judiciary Committee
8) The Honorable Carl Levin, Senator – Chair of the Committee for Investigations.
9) Law School faculty
10) United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

LINKS:

[1] October 16, 2009 letters by Dr Joseph Zernik to Presiding Judge Charles McCoy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30119483/09-10-16-Letters-to-reliably-inform-Presiding-
Judge-McCoy-of-Alleged-Criminality-in-Court-operations-request-Rules-of-Court-re-
Entry-of-Judgments-s

[2] October 28, 2009 letter by Court Counsel Frederick Bennett to Dr Joseph Zernik
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30017888/09-10-28-Bennett-Court-Counsel-on-Denial-of-
Access-to-Sustain-Registers-of-Actions-Books-of-Judgmentss

[3] Opinion letter of decorate FBI veteran James Wedick regarding fraud in conveyance
of title by Attorney David Pasternak on behalf of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/07-12-17-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-David-
Pasternak-Grant-Deeds-opined-as-fraud-by-James-Wedick-ss

[4] Declarations of Dr Joseph Zernik regarding search for judgments in the microfilm
judgments archive of the Los Angeles Superior Court:
a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30876871/08-07-28-Search-for-Judgment-in-Samaan-v-
Zernik-in-Microfilm-Judgment-Archive-of-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court
b) http://www.scribd.com/doc/25146604/10-01-08-Declaration-in-re-Records-From-La-
Superior-Court-Archives-s
c) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-
Appendix-IX-b-Zernik-apos-s-Declaration-in-re-April-16-2010-search-for-records-in-
the-Courts-microfilm-judgments-archive-s
6/6 5/3/2010

[5] Human Rights Alert report filed with the United Nations as part of the 2010 UPR
(Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States:
a) Press Release
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Filed-UPR-Report-
with-the-United-Nations
b) Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/10-04-18-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Submission-
to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010-Universal-Periodic-Review-of-the-US-s
c) Appendix
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Appendix-
for-Submission-to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010-UPR-of-the-United-States-s
d) UPR Tool Kit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/10-04-13-UPR-Tool-Kit-Urban-Justice-Center-
USA-provided-by-UN-office-of-High-Commissioner-for-Human-Rights
e) The Road Ahead
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30456173/10-04-24-The-Road-Ahead-Richard-Fine-online-
public-access-PACER-and-case-management-systems-CM-ECF-of-the-US-courts-and-
the-2010-UN-Review-of-Hu