Beyond electronic voting machines - fraud in case management systems of
the courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court
Large-scale fraud on the People in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles – Sustain - enables the deprivation of liberty and
property with no due process of law.
View PDF with pics of records:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110484212/ Sustain, the electronic record system of the LASC, is believed to be one
of the earliest in the nation, implemented around 1985. According to the
web site of Sustain Corporation, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Daily Journal Corporation (NASDAQ: DJCO), and the system are by now
implemented in 11 states and 3 nations. Who in fact controls Sustain
Corporation remains unknown.
Previous reports documented the invalidity of Sustain: The LASC publishes
its legal public records online, subject to a "disclaimer", stating that
such records are not valid and authoritative court records. (Fig 1) In
parallel, the LASC denies public access to records, e.g. the Register of
Actions (California civil docket), which the LASC considers the valid
court records, by concealing them in the case management system of
Sustain.
[pic]
Figure 1. Disclaimer in Sustain online public records "…this site… does
not consitute the official record of the court…" []
In parallel, the LASC has ceased almost universally service and
authentication/notice of entry of minutes, orders, and judgments by the
Clerk of the Court.
At the systems level, it is also be noted that the public records of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (LASC), are maintained
on servers, whose identity is uncertified. [[ii]] In response to
inquiries, the LASC claimed that the servers are under custody of the
County of Los Angeles, not the LASC.
A. The case of Barbara Darwish (1998-2006)In [i]Galdjie v Darwish
(SC052737) in the LASC, a group of judges and the clerks colluded to take
the 6-unit Santa Monica rental property of Defendant Darwish. The hallmark
of the simulated litigation in the LASC took place on May 13, 2002:
Defendant Darwish appeared that morning at the LASC for the scheduled Jury
Trial, but was deceived by the LASC and attorneys to proceed to the
Municipal Court of Culver City, where an anonymous “Muni Judge” conducted
on the same afternoon a simulated “Court Trial”. (Fig 2) Darwish later
identified the "Muni Judge" - John Segal.
Superior Court records showed that neither a judgment, nor an appealable
order was ever entered in the manner required by California law to make it
“effectual for any purpose”. However, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd
District (Los Angeles) took three (3) simulated appeals in the case – two
of them were denied, and the third was voluntarily dismissed. (Table 1)
One of the simulated appeals produced a "published decision", which
permits "oral modifications" of real estate contracts, overturning
hundreds of years of common law, distilled into the Statute of Frauds
(1677).
The case of Barbara Darwish commenced in 1998, a full decade prior to the
onset of the "sub-prime crisis". The case shows that the routines of real
estate fraud under simulated litigation in the LASC were already well
estabslihed, involving large number of attorneys and judges.
The LASC continues to deny access to the paper court file in this case.
Regardless, due to its extensive documentation, the case was key part of
the evidence, repeatedly submitted since 2008 to the US Attorney General
and FBI Director with requests for Equal Protection of the 10 million
residents of Los Angeles County, California, against racketeering by
judges of the LASC.
[pic]
Figure 2. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Register of Actions [California
docket – jz] in Sustain - the electronic record system of the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In this civil real property
matter, Ms Darwish appeared on the morning May 3, 2002 for a scheduled
jury trial. Instead, she was deceived by attorneys and the Court to appear
on the same afternoon for a "Court Trial" in the Culver City Municipal
Court before "Muni Judge" , who remained anonymous. Declaration of Ms
Darwsih clarified that it the "Muni Judge", who decided to take her 6-unit
Santa Monica rental property was Judge John Segal. [[iii]]
[table]
Table 1: Summary of Appeals in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as they are
recorded in the online public access system of the California Court of
Appeal, 2nd District. None of the appeals was lawfully taken from a valid,
entered judgment or appealable order of the trial court. [[iv]]
* The public access system of the California Court of Appeal does not list
any Dates of Entry of Judgments.
B. The case of Susan Lomas (2011-2012)In Lomas v Bank of America
Corporation (KC0559379) in the LASC, Susan Lomas attempted to protect her
property against fraud by Bank of America. Judge Peter Meeka conducted on
Lomas proceedings, which, as was later discovered, were secretly noted in
the simulated minutes in Sustain, "off of the record". (Fig 3) The minutes
were not served on Lomas, neither were they authenticated by the Clerk of
the Court. Lomas's access to the Register of Actions (California civil
docket), was and continues to be denied by the LASC.
[pic]
Figure 3. Lomas v Bank of America (KC0559379) – Minutes of August 12, 2010
"Ex Parte Motion to Stay Enforcement of Write for Possession…". The
Minutes state "The ex parte application is read and considered in chambers
and off of the record…" The Minutes were never duly served or noticed by
the Clerk of the Court, and are missing the integral authentication record
"Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk. [[v]] Access to the
Register of Actions (Califronia civil docket) in this case and most others
in LASC is denied, even to parties in their own litigation.
The case of Susan Lomas commenced over 10 years later than the case of
Barbara Darwish. The methods of conducting simulated litigation in real
estate matters remained the same. However, in the case of Lomas, a bank
was the primary beneficiary. The case is also of interest, since it
commenced after FBI issued testimonies to the US Congress of no
criminality by sub-prime lenders underlying the current crisis, while Bank
of America Corporation was recipient of hundreds of billions of USD in US
taxpayer bailouts, under representations of no fraud in its operation, and
while large-scale fraud by lenders and the courts on the People were
"settled" by the US government and the attorney generals of the several
states.
C. The case of Richard Fine (2007-2011)In litigation of Marina Strand
Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420), former US prosecutor
Richard I. Fine, Attorney for Plaintiff, exposed and rebuked the taking by
Los Angeles judges of "not permitted payments", which were labeled by
media "bribes".
Consequently, the State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007, and
starting March 4, 2009 Fine was held by Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles
County in solitary "coercive confinement", which was then said to be
indefinite. Eventually, Fine was released on September 17, 2010. No valid
warrant, valid conviction, valid sentencing, valid booking records, or
valid order for his release were discovered, only simulated legal public
records. (Fig 4, Appendix 9)
[pic]
Figure 4. Online Inmate Information Center, Sheriff of Los Angeles County
– fraud in booking records of Richard Fine. Richard Fine was placed under
indefinite coercive solitary confinement, which ended up lasting 18
months, purportedly arrested and booked on location and by authority of
the "Municipal Court of San Pedro", which did not and does not exist. The
image is an excerpt from formal response by Sheriff Lee Baca to Michael
Antonovitch, Supervisor of Los Angeles County. [[vi]]
Repeated requests were forwarded to Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and to
the LASC during the period of Fine's imprisonment, to correct the
simulated legal public records and release Fine. The requests were
ignored. Public access to the Register of Actions (California civil
docket) continues to be denied by the LASC.
The case of Richard Fine was also part of the evidence, forwarded to the
US Attorney General and FBI with requests for Equal Protection of the
People of Los Angeles against racketeering by the LASC.
References
[i] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – online public
records disclaimer, accessible at:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp [ii] Web page of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, at:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/ [iii] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [i]Galdjie v
Darwish (SC052737) Register of Actions (California Civil Docket),
accessible at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34498017/ [iv] Zernik, J., "Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Complaint for Public
Corruption against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of
Appeal, 2nd District, RE: Conduct of three pretense appeals alleged real
estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts." (2011)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/ [v] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Lomas v Bank of
America (KC0559379) Minutes, accessible at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51157264/ [vi] Antonovich, M, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "January 8, 2010
response from Sheriff Lee Baca in re: Arrest and booking records of Inmate
Richard Fine (1824367)", including attachments, accessible at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/ Appendices
[1] Human Right Alert (NGO), Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human
Rights in the United States – Los Angeles County, Califronia, as
incorporated into the 2010 Human Rights Council Report with a note
referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession…" (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/ [2] Zernik, J., "The Los Angeles Superior Court - Widespread Corruption,
Patronized by the US Government" (2012)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46460640/ [3] Zernik, J., " Beyond voting machines - case management systems of the
courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court" (2008)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110477747/ [4] Zernik, J., " Computers & the courts: Sustain - case management
system of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Registers of Action"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110475097/