Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Executive Summary
A small selections is presented here, from a large volume of evidence of the
operations of an alleged cult of criminality1 among the judiciary in Los Angeles
County, California. It effectively controls the LA Superior Court, the largest
superior court in the U.S., which serves over 10 million residents. It is enabled
through computerized case management systems, which require immediate
attention by the public and the U.S. Congress. Combined with denial of access to
litigation records, the LA Superior Court is a court that must be deemed upon
review in severe violations of Civil Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and
the Amendment, as well as Human Rights, pursuant to ratified International Law.
Here is perhaps a first attempt to outline the scope of such allege corruption, by
brining together evidence from both civil and criminal courts, related LA County
agencies – the Sheriff Department and Office of the Registrar Recorder, and the
conduct of local, state, and federal (FBI) agencies who are fully aware of the
matter.
Federal agencies are not ready, willing, or able to take action against a large group
of the state of California judiciary, which is organized, widespread, and well-
established, and which managed to gain some support also in the U.S. Courts. The
outcome is of global and historic proportions, from the ongoing false imprisonment
of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) for over a decade, to
the colossal collapse of Countrywide, and inability of US agencies to enforce the
law there either. It is proposed that the most direct way to address the problem in
general is through enforcement of (a) Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)
and states and federal rules-making enabling laws. Specific review is demanded of
the alleged criminality of Judge Jacqueline Connor in both civil and criminal
courts, which will also lead to release at long last of the Rampart FIPs.
1
The reference is to the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006), which concluded that a “sub-cult of criminality” was
tolerated in the justice system in Los Angeles County, California. The attempt here is to review the system in its
wider scope – the LA Superior Court both criminal and civil divisions, its relationships with the California Court of
Appeals, 2nd District, with some, small minority of the judiciary at the U.S. District Court, LA, other LA County
agencies, State and U.S. law enforcement- particularly FBI, large corporations such as Countrywide. The claim
here is that “sub-cult”, as it was designated in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report, was an unreasonable
diminution, since such cult, as demonstrated by the evidence here, controls the LA Superior Courts.
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1. STURGEON V LA COUNTY (BC351286) EVIDENCE FOR
MISTRIAL -
Credible evidence demonstrates that the LA Superior Court denied and continues
to deny access to the true official litigation records – the Register of Actions in
Sustain – a public record by law, and false and deliberately misleading alternative
records are published by the court.
Exhibit 1-a: July 27-29. 2009 Denial of Access to Court Records - p21
Exhibit 1-b: Aug 9, 2009 Table of Available Document Images compared to data
available in “Case Summary” online – p43
Exhibit 1-c: August 6, 2009 online Case Summary p53
1. Introduction
The initial framework as defined by the California Code and by the published Rules of Court is simple and
clear.
Cal Code of 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 judgment
effectual for any purpose until entered.
Regarding the requirement to maintain a Book of Judgment, and the requirement for Entry of Judgment into the
Book of Judgments, and Notice of Entry, the LA Superior Court Rules say:
3.0 JUDGMENTS (See Also LASCR, rule 8.96)
a) Original and Copy.
Whenever a proposed judgment is submitted to the court, the original shall be accompanied by
a complete, legible copy.
And the same section continue (underline added):
(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.
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 clerk’s office in each 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 section above also emphasized the critical significance of the clerk in this regard, and the immobility of the
Book of Judgments. Therefore, the location of the Book of Judgments is fixed, and clearly advertised, whereas
the court file may move from place to place, and its location in a give time may not be easily known by the
public at large.
Also the Cal Gov Code § 69844.7 clearly states such intent of the legislators:
1
The writer has no legal education. This writing was originally more as an internal memo, for lack of time to obtain true
expert opinion, it was posted online as an opinion, qualified as it is.
Nothing contained herein shall eliminate the requirement for a judgment book where judgments
and decrees are required to be entered.
Is the framework thus prescribed by the Code and Local Rules of Court in compliance with the U.S
Constitution?
In accordance with the requirement of due process of law, the People are given notice of a judgment in a known
place before a judgment limits the rights of, or imposes a duty on, the People. The short and sufficient answer is
that the Cal Code Civ Proc §664 in and of itself is constitutional, for there is nothing that offends the sets of
rights and duties between We the People and the civil Officers in the Government by establishing a legal
requirement that for a judgment of an Officer of the judicial Power to be a valid order capable of being enforced
upon a member of the People such judgment has to be noted in the specific place identified as the Book of
Judgments. In fact, the facially discernible intent of the state law and the court rule is to ensure that, in
accordance with the requirement of due process of law, the People are given notice of a judgment in a known
place before a judgment limits the rights of, or imposes a duty on, the People. [Paragraph written by Dr
Cordero]
2. Historical background
Historically, the adoption of such instruments named Books of Court, including but not limited to the Book of
Judgments, Register of Actions, Calendar of the Courts, and Index of All Cases, and the creation of the status of
“Public Records” applied to such Books of Court, was a key mechanism to safeguard the integrity of the courts.
Any person, without knowing the specific caption and number of the particular case, and independent of the
location of the court file, could find the final outcome of any and all litigations decided in that particular court.
Any person could also find out if any other person was tried in a particular time period in any of the courts, and
also - what the sentence was in such case. Therefore, such Books of Court, although often underestimated for
their central place in safeguard of the integrity of the courts, are comparable in significance to the Habeas
Corpus, which is universally recognized for its enduring significance. Otherwise stated: It is doubtful that it
could be possible to effectively enforce the Habeas Corpus absent the Books of Court.2
Such mechanisms were also accompanied by the creation of the more clearly defined Ministerial Arm of the
court in the body of clerks. Separation of powers was created, where the judge could render judgments, orders,
and decrees, but none of these was effective until entered by the clerk. And the clerk was the only one
authorized to carry the seal of the court, required for the act of entering the judgments of orders.
Such separation of powers, and an independent Ministerial Arm of the Court, in the body of educated and
honest clerks are critical for the integrity of the courts today as ever before.
California Code of Civil Procedure says:
"Any act required or permitted to be performed by the clerk of a court may be performed by a
judge thereof."
But for our purpose – entry of judgment or order requiring entry into the Book of Judgments, one must also
consider the requirements of service and proof of service, which typically would not be executed by a judge3.
2
These concepts are particularly important relative to the LA Superior Court, where it is universally agreed the many
people were sentenced to long prison terms, the number is likely to be in the thousands, as the result of framing by the
LAPD, prosecutors, and judges. In the ten (10) years since such facts were first disclosed, no investigative committee was
able to make any progress in resolving the situation, deemed “associated with the most repressive dictators and police
states. “ (Chemerinsky 57 Guild Prac. 121 2000). Careful reading of the reports suggests that none of the committees
had access to Books of Courts.
3
The case at hand provided a notable exception: On July 23, 2007, Judge Connor entered a Minute Order as response to
Disqualification for a Cause on July 12, 2007, that is – later than the time allowed by law. It was entered with a defective
In conclusion: The spirit and the letter of the original law and rules relative to entry of judgment and notice of
entry of judgment was to make the entry of judgment, a clear, final, public, and indisputable manifestation of
the administration of justice, in a manner that its time and date are clearly recorded, and the record of such
transaction is kept in a fixed location in a public record, easily accessible to any person.
Various other sections of the California Codes and the California Rules of Court, LA County Local Rules of
Court, seemed to attempt to adjust the code and the rules of court to the changing technology, where the courts
are departing from paper-based documents, and moving to other means of record maintenance, but such
changes, combined with Case Law, particularly case law from California Court of Appeal, 2nd District,
described below, muddied the water.
The current state of affairs, as described in here, can be demonstrated by the 1995 published opinion of the
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, residing in Los Angeles County, and counting a number of former
judges of the LA Superior Court among its ranks. It is important to keep such facts in mind, given that events
in Samaan v Zernik, which showed the same court, and the U.S. District Court, LA as well, denying defendant
in the LA Superior Court his right of access to trial court litigation records4, particularly – the LA Superior
Court’s Book of Judgments5, with no explanation at all. Moreover, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd also
initially allowed the LA Superior Court to file false and deliberately misleading records in lieu of Register of
Actions. That incident was not unique or result of an error, since the LA Superior Court engaged in the same
conduct – filing false and deliberately misleading records for the Register of Actions also in the U.S. District
Court, LA. And when Defendant file a motion to remove such from the record, the Court of Appeal – instead
of adjudicating on the motion before them, as required by the California Code of Judicial Ethics, eventually
asked the Clerk of LA Superior Court to withdraw such fraudulent records, without setting the record straight
on what took place in their court6. denying Defendant’s request for Judicial Notice of the true and correct Trial
Court litigation records – Minute Orders and Register of Actions, which combined clearly show the evidence
for racketeering in the LA Superior Court.
That case - Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41
Cal.App.4th 738 - is summarized in West’s annotation of Cal Code of Civ Proc §668.5 as follows [underline
added – jz]:
Failure of register of actions to indicate that judgment was in fact entered did not preclude
running of 60-day time period for filing notice of appeal, where judgment was signed by law and
motion judge, since judgment was deemed entered on that date; moreover, in Los Angeles
County, which does not maintain a judgment book, entry of judgment occurs upon filing of
document, which occurred on date that file-stamped copy of judgment bearing facsimile
signature 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.
This decision is not one that stands on its own. Review of the legal status in Los Angeles County and
California shows a series of decisions in the last couple of decades, coincidental with the period of introduction
of court case management systems, and the transition from Book of Judgments which is paper-based to several
other technologies, including microfilm, tape image storage, word processors, and more recently – digital
imaging.
Proof of Service by a judge for self, purportedly indicating mailing only to one party, which denies ever receiving such
mail.
4
Denial of access to LA Sup Ct records by Ca Ct of Appeal, 2nd District:
5
Denial or access to LA Sup Ct Book of Judgments, by Ca Ct of Appeal, 2nd District and U.S. District Court, LA.
6
Filing of false records by LA Superior Court, motion to remove such records, and the Court of Appeal handling of the
situation are recorded in:
While the code cited above implies that there must be a Book of Judgments in each County, and while Local
Rules of Court of LA County reinforce such notion, stating that a Book of Judgment must be kept in each
District of the County, the case law stated above - Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency – states as a
matter of fact, with no further explanation that:
“…Los Angeles County [which] does not maintain a judgment book…”
Conditions in LA County, relative to discrepancies between the codes and rules of court on the one hand, and
case law on the other hand, and discrepancies between California Rules of Court & LA County Local Rules of
Court, and the Court’s actual practice generate conditions that are vague and ambiguous.
Such conditions may be particularly misleading if judgment is filed as part of litigation records, during a period
where the parties are filing pleadings on such judgment prior to “entry”.
The conduct of the LA Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik was clear: It treated the case as one where no
judgment was entered. The clerks of the court were positive that no judgment was entered. Therefore no Writ
of Execution was issued, and eventually – fraudulent Grant Deed were recorded by David Pasternak. In fact,
there was no valid documentation on file to show service of the judgment, and only one party – Defendant -
acknowledged service of the judgment. Plaintiff claimed in open court that he would not consider this judgment
as valid, and that he had never been served with such judgment, and that he had never seen such judgment.
In contrast - the conduct of the California Court of Appeal 2nd District may be open to various interpretation,
but they are obviously irreconcilable with the conduct of the LA Superior Court. In particular, the California
Court of Appeal never clarified why it held the judgment as entered, in view of documentation provided by
Appellant that the judgment in question was never even served properly.
The concern is not only for the purpose of filing an appeal, which is most typically the context in which such
issue is discussed. As shown in Samaan v Zernik, the context is also the finality of a case. In an ambiguous
situation such as created in the LA County, the court could proceed and litigate and issue order at will after the
purported entry of judgment.
4. Opinion Rendered
Zernik opines that Such conditions as seen in Los Angeles County today are vague and ambiguous. The entry
of judgment as well as precise and clear definition of the date of entry of judgment are given unique
significance in the law. Samaan v Zernik shows two California Courts - the LA Superior Court and the
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, through their judicial actions, treating the validity of entry of the Aug 9,
2007 judgment in diametrically opposite manners. There is no clear definition of the entry of judgment, and
with it, also date of entry of judgment becomes ill-defined. Even the existence of a specific place identified as
the Book of Judgments in Los Angeles County appears to be deliberately blurred, in part through conditions
described as denial of public access to public records that are the Books of Court. Such denial of public access
to Books of Court on its face appears as severe violation of Due Process. Therefore, combined, one must deem
conditions in LA County relative to the law on entry of judgment, and its practice by the LA Courts, in
violation of Constitutional rights of the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment for Due Process of the Law.
.
.
.
1
08-04-06 Press Release California Judicial Council
2
00-00-00 REPLY Heading #13 SUSTAIN- RACKETEERING’S ENABLING INSTRUMENT
3
00-00-00 REPLY Heading #14a PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED RULES OF COURT LASUPCT
for the documentation of the logical structure, its faithfulness in compliance with the law ( e.g. Code of Civil
Procedure), as well as certain guarantees regarding safeguard to prevent potential abusive and to secure the
integrity of the code over the years.
Existing systems may be much more difficult to verify and bring into compliance, but efforts must be made in
that direction by requiring such verification anytime such systems are upgraded in a significant way, either in
software or hardware.
The significance of public oversight of changes in CMS’s, reflecting today’s Rules of Court, for the safeguard
of the integrity of the courts, must not be ignored any longer.
00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sham-litigations-&-human-rights
09-08-07 Attachment C: Involvement of Countrywide, now Bank of America Corporation, in
alleged criminality at the LA Superior Court.
Countrywide was and is the driving force behind the alleged criminality in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400). While Judge Connor denied any involvement in the case by Countrywide in
open court, she found the need to add an false notes on page 1 of the Register of Actions.
Identifying Countrywide Home Loans as Real Parties in Interest.
If initially the case was conceived by Samaan, or more likely by her fiancé at that time,
eventually the true Party in Interest was Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, as noted by Judge
Jacqueline Connor in page 1 of the Register of Actions in Sustain. Countrywide had no
interest in the property, but had and still has substantial interest in covering up criminality
against Dr Zernik, and beyond that – far greater criminality in the management of a sub-
prime lending institution, what later came to be known as the sub-prime crisis.
The records in Samaan v Zernik provided complete evidence of such alleged criminality by
Countrywide. To wit – already by January 2007 Dr Zernik filed complaints with the FBI Los
Angeles of fraud by Countrywide against the U.S. Government, and in a March 2007
Addendum, he projected rather adequately the liabilities to the U.S. government would end
up totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. The FBI has refused to investigate such allegations
ever since.
The detailed description of involvement of Countrywide and its top management in
criminality at the LA Superior Court, and later – Bank of America and its top management –
were detailed in papers filed with Bankruptcy Court in Houston, Texas, case of Borrower
William Parsley, case # 05-90374, well over 1000 pages of records were filed there. The
need to file I Texas arose, since the LA Superior Court and like it also the U.S. District
Court, LA, showed disregard for Due Process and their duties as courts to maintain court
records.
Countrywide’s role in the case was not pertinent to the main subject of the presentation, and
therefore, it was not mentioned in most places.
Notable exceptions:
1. The record of page 1 of the Register of Actions mentions Countrywide, since it was
pertinent for evidence of the criminal nature of Sustain – the case management
system of the court. Exhibit 4-b.
2. Recent financial report, June 22, 2009, Exhibit 4-q, by Att David Pasternak, still
notes Countrywide in relationship to Samaan v Zernik – as “Non-Party”.
Countrywide appeared for 2 years in the case, filed motions, but compulsory counter
claims were not allowed to be filed against it, all under the designation of “Non
Party”.
The following page provides a list of six records that the Audit Committee of Bank of
America Corporation was asked to authenticate or repudiate, but refuses to do either.
09-04-17. Six Key Records that BAC/CFC Audit Committee was and is
requested to either authenticate or repudiate.
Below is the list as copied verbatim from letters and complaints sent to the Audit Committee
of BAC:
“Listed below are key records of the alleged fraud by CFC/BOA against JOSEPH ZERNIK in litigation of Samaan
v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court:
1) Underwriting Letter misrepresented as a fax transmission of mid-October 2004, from
Countrywide, San Rafael to VICTOR PARKS, State of Washington. [1]
INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. MOST RECENTLY FOR A MOTION NOTICED FOR
NOVEMBER 2008. ALLEGED KEY FRAUD RECORD.
2) Real Property Purchase Contract misrepresented as a fax transmission of October 25,
2004, 5:03pm from VICTOR PARKS, State of Washington, to Countrywide, San Rafael.
[2]
INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. MOST RECENTLY FOR A MOTION NOTICED FOR
NOVEMBER 2008. ALLEGED KEY FRAUD RECORD.
3) Set of a letter and declarations by CFC/ MARIA MCLAURIN, Branch Manager, San
Rafael, California. [3]
INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. KEY FRAUD RECORD.
4) Subpoena Production of Countrywide in Samaan v Zernik. [4]
About 400 pages, produced by the Legal Department a total of 5 times from
August 2006 to April 2007. Deemed fraud in its entirety - since it included loan
files that were recreated after the fact, and records that are the product of
wire/fax fraud and bear false and deliberately misleading fax header imprints,
when in fact there is nothing in this production that allows to determine where
and when such records appeared from. It was part of a concerted effort by
SAMAAN,
MCLAURIN AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF CFC TO FABRICATE FALSE HISTORY FOR
SAMAAN'S LOAN APPLICATIONS IN 2004,
5) Records showing CFC and even more recently CFC/BOA appearing in court for almost
two years under the party designation of "NON-PARTY", while the court
interchangeably designates it "DEFENDANT", "PLAINTIFF", "INTERVENOR", "ROSS-
DEFENDANT", "REAL PARTY IN INTEREST", etc. [5]
Such appearances are deemed false and deliberately misleading and have no
basis in the law of the U.S. or California, Therefore they place the entire
litigation in a real that is outside the law.
6) July 23, 2007 Protective/Gag Order by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR [6].
Such purported order led to two judgment of quasi-criminal nature being entered
by Judge Terry Friedman against me, both at the request of CFC, The second one
- in February 2009, at the requests of CFC/BOA. I have no valid court record of
that nature, and the court and CFC/ BOA so far have failed to produce this record
either.”
The numbers in square brackets in the text of the letters and the complaints to the Audit Committee referred
to records, which were posted online at the URLs listed below. Such lists were provided in the letters and
[1]
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-countrywide-fraudulent-underwriting-letter-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-underwriting-letter.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-opinion-letter-countrywide-underwriting-letter-oct-26-s.pdf
[2]
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-25-doc-45-countrywide-fraud-contract-record.pdf
[3]
http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-1-countrywide-mclaurin-false-declarations.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-2-countrywide-mclaurin-false-declarations.pdf
[4]
http://inproperinla.com/07-02-08-countrywide-fraudulent-subpoena-production-c-s.pdf
[5]
http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-cw-motion-sanctions-osc-contempt-S.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-moldawsky-notice-of-motion-sanctions-contempt.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-document-1.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-17-document-1.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-17-document-2.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-17-document-3.pdf
[6]
I have no such record. I expect CFC/BAC to produce the record.
Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org
Mr Drapac:
The San Francisco Court of Justice Richman informed me that you are the local coordinator for
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). As such, I request that you coordinate direct access to
electronic litigation records of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) pursuant to Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the Common Law and
First Amendment rights of public access to judicial records to inspect and to copy.
Please let me know as soon as possible of the time and place where I will be provided such
access. Request is for access to inspect and to copy electronic records of Sturgeon v LA County
(BC351286) in Sustain, which are:
1) Register of Actions/Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
2) Minute Orders of the case – as they appear in Sustain;
3) Book of Judgments – if any exists in LA County, and in its absence – entry of judgment
registration in the Register of Actions/ Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
4) Index of All Cases – in Sustain;
5) Calendars of All Courts – in Sustain.
Furthermore, in order to allow reasonable reading of such records in Sustain, additional request
is for access to inspect and to copy the following LA Superior Court records:
1) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, which explicitly provide the Local
Rules of LA County Superior Court, today in force and effect in LA Superior Court, for
Entry of Judgment and for Notice of Entry of Judgment;
2) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide lists of words, or “Dictionary” for Sustain, i.e. which values are
valid entries for the various variables (E.g. Motion, Order, etc). In other words – which are
the valid menu options, recognized as valid entries by Sustain for the various field which are
variable for data entry.
3) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide explanation for the meaning of Date of Entry of Minutes such as
“00/00/00” or “33/33/33”.
4) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which the LA Superior Court is allowed to modify or
alter the Case History/Register of Actions in Sustain, and notice to parties, if any, of such
nunc pro tunc alterations.
5) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which some cases at the LA Superior Court will lists
monies paid by parties as: “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”, etc, while in
other cases, all such moneys are listed as “Journal Entry”. It is further requested that Rules
of Court be provided as to the final disposition of funds that were originally designated
“Journal Entry”.
6) Rules of Court, published in Compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which some cases at LA Superior Court will list each
action with its corresponding termination, while other cases at the LA Superior Court will
allow all actions to remain unterminated.
Joseph Zernik
____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
CC:
MM
4Liis~i""""
/;:'''''I-*'''~~'.lii.N{l~,'~ FReoeRICK R. BeNN8T
I~''';~ ,'1;",<., COUIlTCOUN5el Superior Court of California
~~~ ~," ~\~ i'ii'NO:::R::IH':":H':::ll':"'lS::m::e::ET~.S~UIT::e-=54':":6~-------~----::::-"":""':"'_-~:----fo"":"-::---
"',I.~ I /.i!5 lOSANGclc5,CA90012.3014 Oounty of Los A~eles
"<>... ,,;W 12131 693-1224 Fex: (2131 625·3964
'<~~:.~~~Y
Re: Request for electronic access to pleadings in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC351286..
Yourfacsimile and email to Los Angeles Superior Court Clerk Gregory Drapac was referred
to me for response.
Motions in pending cases must be filed in writing in accordance withthe California Rules of
Court. California Rule of Court 2.118 provides that the clerkof the courtmustnot accept for filing
or file any papers that do not comply with the California Rules of Court, Rules 2,I00 to 2.119.
California Rule of Court 2.118(a). California Rules of Court may be accessed at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/
Similarly, requests for court documents should be made in person 01' by letter. I do not
respond to email requests from other than court personnel. Such requests should also be submitted
in writing.
With regard to yourrequest for electronic access to pleadings in the Sturgeon litigation,
access to the court's electronic records aregoverned by California Rules of Court, Rule 2.500, and
following. Under those Rules the court may, but is not required to permit access to scanned
pleadings. When access to scanned pleadings is provided, Rule 2.506 permits the Court to impose
fees for such access,
In implementing these Rules, the Los Angeles Superior Court permits free access without
fee to paper files and available scanned pleadings at the courthouse where they are on file without
fee. Printed copies of either thepaperfiles or electronic copies are provided for a fee of fifty cents
a page. Alternatively, and as a convenience, you may view the court's registers of actions and
summaries of cases without fee on line at the court's web page, and may review, download and print
pleadings in most Central District Civil cases, including the Sturgeon case, by registering and
paying the fee therefor: httll://www.1asuperiorcourt,org!
rederick R. Bennett
Court Counsel
c: Gregory Drapac
Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org
Tel: 213 974 5201
Fax: 213 625 8536
(by fax and by email)
Mr Drapac:
This is the second request to access the electronic Register of Actions of Sturgeon v County
(BC351286) in Sustain the Court’s case management system. You informed me today that Mr
Bennett , Counsel for the Court, responded on your behalf to my request earlier today.
Mr Bennett wrote extensively regarding scanned pleadings, etc, but nowhere in his letter did he
address the issue of access to Register of Actions in Sustain, the official litigation record of the
LA Superior Court in Sturgeon v LA County.
I again request that you inform me when and where I would be able to access litigation records
in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which are the Register of Actions, Book of Judgments (If
any exists), Calendars of the Courts, and Minute Orders in Sustain, the electronic case
management system of the LA Superior Court.
Joseph Zernik
____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
CC:
MM
---------_ .. _--_._..
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Court Counsel
III North Hill Street, Suite 546
LosAngeles, California 90012
Telephone (213) 893-1224
Facsimile (213) 625-3964
FREDERICK R. BENNETT
COUIlT COUNSEL Superior Court oj California
111 NORTH HILL smm. SUITE 546
lOSANGELES. CA90012·3014
County oj'Los AngeZr-
es -
(2131893·1224 FOX: (2131 625·3964
July29, 2009
Re: July28,2009, Request for access to litigation records in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC351286, and other cases.
Your attached facsimile to Los Angeles Superior Court Clerk Gregory Drapac was referred to me for
response.
In this communication, yourequest thatyoube provided direct access to electronic litigation records in
Sturgeon v, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior COUlt casenumber BC3S1286, andothercases
under claimed Common Law andconstitutional rights of access to court records. You seekto inspect andcopy
thecourt's entire Sustain electronic databaserelated to the Register of Actions/Case history, Minute Orders,
Book of Judgements, Index and Calendars of all courts. Finally, you ask forpublished copies of'theRules of
Court, or in their absence, a copy of the Sustain Manual to assist you in understanding the Sustain electronic
databaseyou have requested.
These requests for court records arenot matters thatcan be resolved by the clerk forthejudicial officer
handling a specific case. Rather, public records requests such as yours should be directed to the custodian of
therecords, which is the Executive Officer/Clerk of theCourt, who hasrequested that I respond to your
requests on hisbehalf.
In responding to this inquiry, I have become aware thatyouhave made a number of othersimilar
requests relating to other cases overthe pasttwo years, many of which have been responded to by my
colleague, D. Brett Bianco. I also notethat youhave many pending cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
the Court of Appeal for the State of California, Second Appellate District, and at least one case pending in the
U.S. District Court against a number of Los Angeles Superior Court judges, personnel andothers, thatmay
relate in various ways to many of yourrequests. Reviewing the U.S. District Court docket forJoseph Zernik v.
Judge Jacqueline Connor, et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California casenumber, CY08-I550, it appears
thatthe U.S. Magistrate recommended dismissing thataction on March 31, 2009, thatthe recommendation was
accepted by the District Court Judge on April 24,2009, andthatJudgement was entered on thatsame date
dismissing yourfederal claims withprejudice, andyourstateclaims without prejudice.
I have reviewed these matters to see if I could distill down more specifically whatyou were seeking
from the court so that I might be able to determine a feasible way to getyou what you are seeking.
Sturgeon documents: All of the pleadings, minute orders, andotherorders in the Sturgeon litigation
are public documents available for inspection andcopying by the public. A review of the matter does not
indicate thatanypleadings or orders have been sealed. Thepaper file for this case should be available for
inspection andcopying at the courthouse when the fileis not in useby thejudge, his clerk, or other members of
the public. In addition, those court records have also been scanned into electronic format and areviewable over
thepubllc electronic access terminals at thecourthouse, and copies of the pleadings maybe ordered. Finally, as
a convenience, you can also access the Register of Actions forthiscaseon line at the Court's web site,
LASuperiorCourt.org, which also presents a summary of all of thepleadings, orders and hearings in the case,
Joseph July 28,2009, Request for access to litigation records in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC35 1286, andother cases.
July 29, 2009
Page: 2
andby registering andpaying the fee permitted by the California Rules of Court, youmay download andprint
copies ofthe pleadings andorders.
Inreviewing some of your pastcommunications to the court, it appears thatthere may be some
confusion as to the nature ofthe scanned electronic copies of thepleadings thatthe court makes available at the
public Sustain terminals andoverthe Internet, These documents were not electronically filed as permitted by
California Rules of Court Rules 2.250, and following. Thedocuments were filed as paper documents, andthen,
as is the practice formost civil cases in the Central District of the Court, butnot for other Districts, the paper
documents were scanned into electronic fermat, Asa result, andcontrary to a contention youhave made in
prior communications, these documents andcourt records are not governed by the provisions of California Rule
of'Court 2.254, or other provisions of Chapter 2 or Division 2 of the California Rules of Court. With certain
case specific exceptions permitted in certain complex litigation, which does not include the Sturgeon case, the
only pleadings thatare filed electronically in the Los Angeles Superior Court arecertain small claims actions.
Electronic court records generally aregoverned by Chapter 2 of Division 4 of the California Rules of
Court, Rules 2.500 andfollowing. Unlike Rille 2.254, which deals with pleadings electronically filed by the
parties in lieu of paper pleadings, these rules deal with themore general subject of electronic records,
regardless of themanner in which It has been computerized. See Rule 2.502(2).
These Rules of Court generally require thatall electronic records be made "reasonably available to the
public in some form, whether in electronic or in paper form, except those thatare sealed or made confidential
by law." Rule 2.503(a). TheRules of Court do notrequire electronic records to be made available In all forms.
In fact, the Rules mandate thatmany electronic records be made available only at the courthouse andnot over
the Internet. Rule 2.503(c).
Generally, registers of actions, calendars, and indexes arerequired to be made available overthe
Internet "to the extent it is feasible to do so." Rille 2..503(b). "Feasible" is defined to mean thata court is
required to provide such access "to the extent thatit determines it has theresources and technical capacity to do
so." This Court has done thatandthese matters areavailable to the extent the court has determined it has the
resources and technical capacity to do so on the Court's web site: LASliperiorCourt.org.
Bulkaccess to electronic records: With regard to bulk access to electronic court records such as you
have requested, the Rules of Court provide thata court "may" but is not required to provide such access. Rule
2.503(g). In this regard, this court generally follows the holding of Westbrook v. County ofLos Angeles (1994)
27 Cal.AppAth 157. As thatcaseholds, there is a qualitative difference between obtaining information
from a hand search of court files, and obtaining information from electronic data. It is the aggregate
and easily collated and manipulated nature of electronic data that warrants its difference in treatment
from access to court files.
None of the cases or authorities thatyou have provided require the court to provide youelectronic
access to therecords youhave described. Nordo such authorities give youdirect access to the court's Sustain
system or bulk distribution of all or a significant subset of the court's electronic records. Accordingly, your
request in this regard is denied.
Joseph July28,2009, Request fur access to litigation records in Sturgeon v, County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC351286, andother cases.
July29,2009
Page: 3
Rules of Court: California Rules of Court may be accessed at: htto://wWW.coul1info.ca.govlrules/ The
Local Rules of the Court are available at: http://lasuperiorcourt.org/
Motions in Sturgeon or other cases: Motions, including ex parte motions, andmotions to intervene
in pending cases must be filed in accordance with the California Rules of Court andthe statutory fees must be
paid. California Rule of Court 2.118 provides thatthe clerk of the court must not accept for filing or file any
papers thatdo notcomply with the California Rules of Court, Rules 2.100 to 2.119. California Rule of Court
2.118(a).
~:::~
Court Counsel
c: John A. Clarke
Gregory Drapac
D. Brett Bianco
GregoryDrapac
Superior Court ofCalifomill
AdministmtorII
gdrapac@1l1/Juperiorco\ut.org
Mr Drapac:
TheSanFrancisco Court ofJustice Richman informed methatyou arethe local coordinator for
Sturgeon v LAConnty (BC35 1286). As such, I request thatyou coordinate direct access to
electronic litigation records ofSturgeon v LACounty (BC35 1286) pursuant to Nixon v Warner
Communications. Inc(1978), where the U.S. Supreme COUlt re-affirmed the Common Law and
FirstAmendment rights of public access tojudicialrecords to inspect andto copy.
Please let meknow as soon as possible of thetime and place where I willbe provided such
access. Request is for access to inspect and to copy electronic records ofSturgeon v LACounly
(BC351286) in Sustain, which are:
1) Register of Actions/Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
2) Minute Orders of the ease - as they appear in Sustain;
3) Bookof Judgments - if anyexists in LA County, andin its absence - entry ofjudgment
registration in theRegister of Aotionsl Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
4) Index of AllCases - in Sustain;
5) Calendars of All Courts - in Sustain.
Furthennore, in order to allow reasonable reading ofsuch records in Sustain, additional request
is for access to inspect and to copy thefollowing LA Superior COUlt records:
I) Rules of Court, published in compliance withthe law, which explicitly provide tile Local
Rules ofLACounty Superior Court, today inforce and effect in LA Superior Court, for
Entry of Judgment and for Notice of Entry of Judgment;
2) Rules ofCour!, published in compliance with thelaw, or in tlleU' absence - Sustain Manual,
which explleitly provide lists ofwords, or"Dictionary" for Sustain, i.e. which values are
valid entries forthevarious variables (E.g. Motion, Order, etc). In other words - which are
thevalidmenu options, recognized asvalid entries by Snstain for thevarious field which are
variable fordata entry.
3) Rules ofCour!, published in compliance with thelaw, or in their absence - Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide explanation for themeaning ofDateof Entry of Minutes such as
"00/00/00" or "33133/33".
4) Rules of Court, published in compliance withthelaw. or in their absence - Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which the LASuperior Court is allowed to modify or
altertheCase HistorylRegister of Aotions in Sustain, and notice to parties, if any, ofsuch
nunc pl'O tunc alterations.
5) Rules of'Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence - Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which some cases at theLA Superior Court will lists
monies paid byparties as: ''FilingFees", "Motion Fees", "Stipulation Fees", etc, while in
other cases, all such moneys are listed as "Journal Entry". It is further requested tlmt Rules
JosephZemik
:"', IJtD11DllJ ~lllncd by
~ , JlIlitllhH :t::Rmlk
VCN~O\.'Il$~phHUIT\\1i.
o,t1u,
.." J1 151nliJI11j15G'11flh1l1l
) . ~L. toe-US
,_" 'd~i\I'~trle.
CalifornIa ,.,,;
C1al~2009.o7.2.8
05:29:110-oroo'
By;Joseph Zemik
Pro SC PlUiy inInterest
Tel: 3235144583
Fa.'\:; 801 9980917
Email: jz l2345@eartblinknet
cc:
Com"! ofJusticeRichman;
MM
ATTACHMENTS
PAOI m I RCW AT 7121120016:":26 AM ['de: D8YI1gtIt Tlme) I & EHSIBITS
8VR:I...A-'~D11O" DMI:U62D" 35):oa:a
CBlD: DURATIOr4 (mm...
Il
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org
Tel: 213 974 5201
Fax: 213 625 8536
(by fax and by email)
Mr Drapac:
This is the third request to access the electronic Register of Actions of Sturgeon v LA County
(BC351286) in Sustain the Court’s case management system. I received today by fax yet another
lengthy letter from Mr Bennett , Counsel for the Court, who responded on your behalf to my 2nd
request to access court records in Sturgeon v LA County.
Mr Bennett’s 1st response, dated July 28, 2009, just skirted the issue, and never addressed the
request to access the Register of Actions, the official litigation record of Sturgeon v LA County.
Mr Bennett’s 2nd response, dated July 29, 2009, again engaged in the same pattern, for example,
discussing at length the issue of access over the Internet, when in fact, I never requested Internet
access to records, I explicitly asked when and where I would be able to access the records,
willing to appear at any location of the court for that purpose.
Mr Bennett in his 2nd response went further than that, and included false and misleading
statements:
Finally, as a convenience, you can also access the Register of Actions
for this case on line at the Court's web site, LASuperiorCourt.org,
which also presents a summary of all of the pleadings, orders and
hearings in the case, and by registering and paying the fee permitted
by the California Rules of Court, you may download and print copies
of the pleadings and orders.
As you are fully aware, the Register of Actions of Sturgeon v LA County, or any other case
of the LA Superior Court, is NOT available online at LASuperiorCourt.org. The
information that is provided there, under the title “Case Summary”, is prefaced by a
Disclaimer by the Court, explicitly stating that the records presented online are NOT official
court records. Moreover, the information provided in such records online is vastly different
from the information in the Register of Actions in Sustain.
The Clerk of LA Superior Court attempted such misleading misuse of records in the past in
two other instances:
Given such history, it is likely that Mr Bennett’s most recent response, and his statement
about the Register of Actions of Sturgeon v LA County being available online at
LASuperiorCourt.org, upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, be deemed false
and deliberately misleading.
I again request that you inform me when and where I would be able to access litigation records
in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which are the Register of Actions, Book of Judgments (If
any exists), Calendars of the Courts, and Minute Orders in Sustain, the electronic case
management system of the LA Superior Court, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to Nixon v
Warner Communication, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the Common
Law and First Amendment right to access judicial records to inspect and to copy.
Joseph Zernik
____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
P.S.
Court Counsel Bennett 2nd Response can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-07-29-court-counsel-bennett-response-
no2--req-access-to-records.pdf
CC:
John A Clarke,
Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
Phone: 213 974 5050
Fax: 213 621 7952
jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org
MM
00-00-00-us-la-sup-ct-sturgeion-v-county-09-07-30-drapac-req-#3-addendum
09-07-30- In re: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Addendum to Request #3 to access judicial
records to inspect and to copy pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)
Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org
Mr Drapac:
Please accept the following as addition to my request #3: Mr Bennett, Court Counsel, made
some false and misleading statements in re: Litigation records. It also appears that Plaintiff,
which is Judicial Watch, Inc, is yet to gain access to the true litigation records in Sturgeon v LA
County (BC351286). Therefore, let me provide some clarification in re: Litigation records at
the LA Superior Court.
In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), purported to be matter heard at the LA Superior Court, the
following records are available for viewing online:
1) The record that Counsel Bennett falsely and misleadingly referred to as the “Register of
Actions” at lasuperiorcourt.org, or “Case Summary”, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-case-summary-courtnet-08-11-30-s.pdf
The disclaimers that come with that record can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-case-summary-online-disclaimers-s.pdf
2) The record that is the true Register of Actions in Sustain, is shown at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-register-of-actions-case-history-s-v-z-sustain-08-11-14-
certified-s.pdf
3) The differences between records 1) and 2) are summarized in a table form, as filed at the
California Court of Appeals, 2nd District (B203063 ), can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-false&deliberately-misleading-court-records-
s.pdf
Additional discussion of the Register of Actions, and false records in it, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-register-of-action.pdf
4) The Minute Orders, as seen in paper court file, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-s-v-z-paper-court-file-s.pdf
5) The Minute Orders, as seen in Sustain, or electronic court file, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-electronic-case-file-08-11-14-full-certif-s.pdf
6) The differences between the records in 4) and 5) are summarized in a table form in the
following record, which can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-table-summary-s-v-z-s.pdf
7) Short discussion of false and deliberately misleading litigation records at the LA Superior
Court, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-abstract-&-figures.pdf
Joseph Zernik
____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
CC:
MM, KW
Disclaimer:
The Los Angeles Superior Court and the County of Los Angeles declare that information
provided by and obtained from this site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis, does not
constitute the official record of the Court and cannot be used as evidence in Court.
Any user of the information and data is hereby advised that they are being provided "as-is"
without warranty of any kind, and that they may be subject to errors or omissions. To the
extent permitted by applicable law, the Los Angeles Superior Court disclaims all warranties,
including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability, accuracy and fitness for
a particular purpose, and non-infringement. The user acknowledges and agrees that neither the
Los Angeles Superior Court nor the County of Los Angeles is liable in any way whatsoever for
the accuracy or validity of the information provided.
Specific copyright and other proprietary rights may apply to information in a case file obtained
from this site, absent an express grant of additional rights by the holder of the copyright or
other proprietary right, use of such information is permissible only to the extent permitted by
law or court order, and any use inconsistent with proprietary rights is prohibited.
Click on the corresponding checkbox to select a document to download. You may select up to
10 documents for each download.
Nu
mb
er
Select Date Filed Document Cost
f
1. Table, columns #1-4 were copied from the Court’s web site – List of Available Images.
2. Google Chrome issued security warnings regarding the server – bearing false
verification certificate. Request for explanation forwarded to IT Executive Mr Klunder
and Clerk Clarke.
4. Column #6 was added for comparison to data in the Case Summary record. Such
comparison immediately identifies the bias in Case Summary: Elimination of any
possible mention of Justice Richman and his actions in this case.
5. Given the large discrepancy and contradictions among litigation records that are open to
the public, one can only guess how far off the overt reality of the litigation, the covert
litigation records diverged.
Notes:
1. Image #73 (Document #2 in Exhibit 1a) January 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary
Judgment Motion- by Justice Richman.
2. Image #72, (Document #4 in Exhibit 1a) January 9, 2007 Minute Order in re: Court
Order Granting MSJ, issued by Clerk in dept 1- Martin Godderz for Justice
Richman. Concern was raised with Mr Drapac regarding the conduct of Mr Godderz,
since all minute orders that he issued for Judge Richman, failed to bear his name under
the signature line in certificate of mailing an notice of entry, making it of dubious validity.
Moreover, it requires further investigation, since it is likely to indicate operation of Sustain
relative to the issuance of Minute Orders for Justice Richman that was dishonest, and
may not be deemed valid by the court.
3. Image #71, (Document #1 in Exhibit 1a) January 16, 2007 Notice of Lodging
Proposed Judgment - appears as a false and misleading record. Similar to the
manipulation involving Att Keshavarzi in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), the record
seems to confuse the Judgment and Order Granting Summary Judgment Motion. The
end-result is defective notice and entry of both the judgment and the order. It appears
highly unlikely that such was a naïve error.
4. Image #70, (Document #6 in Exhibit 1a) February 7, 2007 Minute Order in re:
Judgment, issued by Clerk in Dept 1 – Martin Godderz for Justice Richman. Same
concern as noted above, of a Minute Order of dubious validity, which may entirely
undermine the validity of the Judgment itself.
6. Image #67, (Document #7 in Exhibit 1a) February 7, 2007 Notice of Entry of Order,
Justice Richman. Concern, as noted above, is regarding the appearance of confusion
between the Judgment and Order Granting MSJ. Here the Notice of Entry of Judgment
was referring to the Order, and likewise the Proof of Service for the Notice, making them
invalid.
7. Image #2, (Document #9 in Exhibit 1a) July 27, 2009, Order Granting Summary
Judgment, by Justice Richman. Concern, as noted above, is that the Case Summary
explicitly refutes that Justice Richman is assigned to the case.
8. Image #1, (Document #10 in Exhibit 1a) July 30, 2009, Minute Order in re: Order
Granting Summary Judgment, by Justice Richman. Concern, as noted above, is that
all minute orders issued by clerk Martin Godderz for Justice Richman may be deemed
defective.
In general, the concerns seen here were regarding repeat of the same
manipulations that were employed in Marina v LA County, in Galdjie v Darwish, and
in Samaan v Zernik. In all such cases the court generates judgments that were not
adequately entered. The advantage of such judgments is that while the court can
pretend to execute them, it deems them unappeasable, and so does the California
Court of Appeals, 2nd District. Regardless, under such circumstances, the California
Court of Appeal would pretend to hear an appeal or petition, but deny it. Examples
include the habeas Corpus petition of Att Richard Fine, 7 petitions filed by Dr Zernik,
and 2 appeals by Ms Barbara Darwish.
Case BC351286
Number:
Case Title: HAROLD P STURGEON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET
AL
Case Type: Injunct Relief-not Dom/Harrassmt (General
Jurisdiction)
Filing Date: 4/24/2006
1 2 3 4 5 6
_______________________
07/30/2009 at 10:00 am in
Department 1, ELIHU M. BERLE,
Presiding
Ruling on Submitted Matter - Denied
ATTORNEYS FEES
61. 5/23/2007 NOTICE TO PARTIES RE FEE FOR CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL 2 $7.50
74. 11/20/200
MINUTE ORDER 1 $7.50
6
83. 10/20/200
MINUTE ORDER 1 $7.50
6
84. 10/20/200
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 $7.50
6
85. 10/18/200
DEFENDANTS APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY 9 $7.50
6
88. 10/13/200
MINUTE ORDER 1 $7.50
6
Only case documents that have been imaged are available for download from this web site.
00-00-00-
09-08-06 Case Summary – Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Case Summary
Future Hearings
None
Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
02/28/2007
06/23/2009 Stipulation and Order (CONTINUING MSJ'S SET FOR 7/2/09 TO 7/13/09 )
Filed by Clerk
06/15/2009 Reply to Motion (REPLY IN SUPPORT OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Interveor
06/15/2009 Reply to Motion (REPLY TO DEFTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/05/2009 Response (TO DEFTS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS; PLNTFS STATEMENT OF
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/05/2009 Declaration (OF PAUL J. ORFANEDES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS AND INTERVENOR'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/05/2009 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO PLNTFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/05/2009 Response (TO PLNTFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Interveor
06/05/2009 Request for Judicial Notice (SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION OF
PLNTFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Interveor
04/21/2009 Req for Special Notice (IN SUPPORT OF PLNTF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2009 Points and Authorities (IN SUPPORT OF PLNTFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/21/2009 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/21/2009 Points and Authorities (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGT )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/21/2009 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGT )
Filed by Attorney for Intervenor
04/21/2009 Declaration (OF STERLING E. NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLNTF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/06/2009 Motion to Strike ( PLTF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR'S
DEMAND FOR ATTY'S FEES )
Filed by Atty for Deft and Cross-Complnt
04/01/2009 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND ORDER FILED JOINTLY BY BOTH PARTIES)
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
03/13/2009 Order (GRANTING LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE )
Filed by Attorney for Intervenor
03/03/2009 Reply to Motion (REPLY IN SUPPORT OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO INTERVENE )
Filed by Attorney for Intervenor
02/03/2009 Declaration (OF PAUL J. ORFANEDES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/03/2009 Declaration (OF PAUL J. ORFANEDES ACCOMPANYING CORRECTED SUBMISSIONS FOR PLTFF'S
MOTIONF OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/03/2009 Points and Authorities (MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLTFF'S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/02/2009 Notice of Motion (AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; MEMO OF P & As IN SUPPORT
THEREOF )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/02/2009 Declaration (OF KAHN A. SCOLNICK IN SUPPORT OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/15/2009 Memo of Costs on Appeal ($2,290.48 OK PER ART ACEVEDO 3/5/09 COPY OF MEMO TO
SCANNING 3/5/09 (Done) )
Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP 02/28/2007
11/13/2006 Response (response to pltf's separate statem ent of facts in opp to msj )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
11/13/2006 Objection Document (obj. to evidence submitted by pltf iso opp to defendant's msj )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
10/20/2006 Order (ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
DEPOSITION OF SUPERVISOR DON KNABE )
Filed by Judge
04/27/2006 Proof-Service/Summons
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/24/2006 Complaint
Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP 02/28/2007
09-08-04 Minute Orders, Orders, Judgments from Justice James A Richman in Sturgeon v
County of Los Angeles
In this collection are minute orders, written orders, and judgments mailed by Justice
Richman to parties.
1. NOTICE of LODGING PROPOSED JUDGMENT --------------------------------- 2
a. Stamped FILED January 16, 2007,
b. by JONES DAY
2. ORDER GRANTING MSJ --------------------------------- 4
a. by Justice Richman's.
b. Above order executed by Justice Richman January 8, 2007 ---------- 31
3. POS of NOTICE OF LODGING OF PROPOSED JUDGMENT
a. By JONES DAY ------------- 32
4. Jan 9, 2007 MINUTE ORDER IN RE: COURT ORDER GRANTING MSJ
a. Order was issued this date.
b. Minute Order was presumably prepared by Martin Godderz,. Dept 1 (Judge
Berle), missing clerk’s name under the signature line ------------ 33
5. Feb 7, 2007 JUDGMENT. ------------------------------- 35
a. Above judgment verified by Justice Richman Feb 7, 2007 _______ 36
b. Jan 16, 2007 POS PROPOSED JUDGMENT ------------- 37
6. Feb 7, 2007 MINUTE ORDER RE: JUDGMENT
7. Feb 7, 2007 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT---------------------------- 45
8. Feb 7, 2007 POS of NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER --------------------- 46
a. JONES DAY
9. July 27, 2009 ORDER -------------- 47
a. Above order was verified by Justice Richman July 27, 2009 -------------- 63
10. July 30, 2009 MINUTE ORDER in re: RULING ON MSJ. ------------------------- 64
a. With defective certificate by clerk.
11. Divider page: Comparable Minute Orders from another case
12. Sept 20 MINUTE ORDER Samaan v Zernik ------------ 68
13. Oct 10-2007 MINUTE ORDER Samaan v Zernik ------------ 71