{"article":{"id":256515,"heading":"Beyond electronic voting machines - fraud in case management systems of the courts","author":"Joseph Zernik, PhD","created":"2012-10-20 01:40:56","modified":"2013-11-11 01:11:22","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:11:22","article":"\n

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\/<\/a>

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<\/a>

[ii] Web page of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, at:

http:\/\/www.lasuperiorcourt.org\/<\/a>

[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\/<\/a>

[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\/<\/a>

[v] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Lomas v Bank of

America (KC0559379) Minutes, accessible at:

http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/51157264\/<\/a>

[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\/<\/a>

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\/<\/a>

[2] Zernik, J., \"The Los Angeles Superior Court - Widespread Corruption,

Patronized by the US Government\" (2012)

http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/46460640\/<\/a>

[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\/<\/a>

[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\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","contact":" josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org","link":"http:\/\/es.scribd.com\/Human_Rights_Alert","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"The Los Angeles Superior Court implemented in 1985 a fraudulent electronic record system - SUSTAIN - and with it, the Court was transformed into a State Crime Organization.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2012\/10\/256515.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}