Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.19
01:31:42 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-07-18 Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal – Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk,
Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE:
Conduct of pretense litigation in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) – alleged real estate
fraud by the Court.

Executive Summary 1
Los Angles, July 18 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert
(NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against John Segal – Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak – former
President of the Los Angles County Bar Association, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights relative to their conduct in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).
The complaint named as co-conspirators all attorneys who appeared in the case, including, but not limited to Plaintiff’s
Counsel Richard Green and Defendant’s Counsel Rhonda Walker.
The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation, to employ the Court’s fraudulent
case management system – Sustain - in generating fraudulent court records, and to take Defendant’s property – a 6-unit
rental property in Santa Monica - under the color of law.
The complaint further alleged that the case of Galdjie v Darwish, in and of itself, held sufficient evidence for prosecution
of judges, clerks, attorneys, and the Los Angeles Superior Court itself for racketeering – conduct of an enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity.
The case proceeded from 1998 to 2006, by a group of judges, who presided with no Assignment Orders and with no
authority at all, juggling the case back and forth among them. Judgments were falsely represented as entered, and a
Receiver - David Pasternak - was falsely represented as appointed by the court.
The minutes as registered in Sustain showed routine back-dating - at times by half a year or more, and also the
“waiving” of notice and service and failure to have the minutes authenticated by the clerks. Therefore, all such records
were alleged as void, not voidable.
The Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Sustain showed the listing of numerous dates for jury trial, repeatedly
continued. However, Defendant declared that her counsel had informed her at the onset of the litigation that the case
would be heard by an ”Equity Court”. Therefore, she had been told that she would not be eligible for a jury trial at all. The
Register of Actions also provided evidence of routine false registrations of numerous actions in the case.
On May 13, 2002 the Register of Actions again listed jury trial in the case. However, Defendant declared that upon
arriving at the Santa Monica Courthouse of the Superior Court of California, she was instructed to proceed to the Culver
City Municipal Court.
The Register of Actions noted that on the same afternoon a “Court Trial” was conducted by a judge who remained
anonymous, listed in the Register only a “Muni-Judge”. However, Defendant declared that it was Judge John Segal, who
acted with no authority at all.
Attorney David Pasternak later acted as “Receiver” in the case. However, the hearing of a motion and the order for his
appointment of receiver, were falsely registered. The Register of Actions also showed that no writ of execution was ever
issued in the case.
Regardless, David Pasternak took Defendant’s property, under the color of law, and conveyed it into possession of
Plaintiff. However, no conveyance of title was ever found in searching the records of the Los Angeles County Registrar/
Recorder.
The Register of Actions further showed that all court fees in the case, without exception, were listed as “Journal Entry”,
whereas in other cases of the Court they were listed in the Registers as “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”,

1
For ease of access to the hyperlinks provided in instant complaint, an online copy was also posted online at:
http://inproperinla.com/10-07-19-complaint-re-public-corruption-in-galdjie-v-darwish-s.pdf
z Page 2/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

etc. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke refused to disclose the ultimate designation
of the funds collected in the case. It should be noted that accountancy textbooks consider misuse of “Journal Entry”
registration as a cardinal sign of high-level financial management fraud.
Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court also denied access to the paper court file in the case and to
various Sustain records – alleged in the complaint as violation of First Amendment Rights and an ongoing effort to cover-
up alleged criminality by the Court.
The Clerk of the Court John Clarke also refused to certify the case as litigation conducted by the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.
The case was claimed as holding unique public policy significance: It provided detailed evidence of the conduct of
pretense litigations at the Los Angeles Superior Court and of real estate fraud by the Los Angeles Superior Court,
which was alleged as central to propelling Los Angeles County to its distinction by the FBI as “the epicenter of the
epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud”.
Moreover, the case provided detailed evidence of efforts by the Court to establish the law as permitting “oral
modifications of real estate contracts”- which would no doubt increase the incidents of real estate fraud in Los
Angeles County even further.
The complaint further alleged that the case presented unique evidence of the tight linkage between corruption of the
courts and corruption of the legal profession in Los Angeles County, California.
In addition, the case provided detailed evidence of the central role of the Court’s case management system – Sustain
- in conducting of pretense litigations, through fraudulent registrations of actions and minutes. Sustain was installed at
the Los Angeles Superior Court circa 1985, at a time that today’s California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald
George served in leadership positions at the Court.
The case also provided detailed evidence of the refusal so far of the US and the California government to address
alleged racketeering by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Complaints regarding fraud committed by the
Superior Court in the case of Galdjie v Darwish and other similar cases, were previously filed with California Attorney
General and gubernatorial aspirant Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown, who was recently quoted by media a “appalled by
corruption”, refused to initiate any corrective actions. FBI, likewise, has so far refused to investigate such allegations.
Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system were described already in 2001 by
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated
with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in
2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human
Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice
to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents.
The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by
the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations
are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the
justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special
emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of
integrity of the justice system in the United States.
_______________

Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.

221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
By certified mail.
By fax: 213-894-6269

TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s

Complaint by Joseph Zernik, PhD and Human Rights Alert (NGO) against John Segal – Judge, John A Clarke
– Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak – former President of the Los Angles County Bar Association, and others
of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and deprivation of rights,
relative to conduct in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) and the related caption of Derwish v Darwish
(SC060217).
z Page 3/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

COMPLAINT

1. What did the experts say about the justice system in Los Angeles County, California?
• "Innocent people remain in prison"
• "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice
system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to
the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) i
• "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did
not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) ii
• "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states...
and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) iii

2. Complainants
Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, resident of Los Angeles County, California
Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: 323-515-4583
Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697
Email: (preferred) jz12345@earthlink.net

3. Accused
a) JOHN SEGAL – Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
b) JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, Los Angeles Superior Court
c) CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
d) Other judges, commissioners, and deputy clerks, whose names appear in the Register of Actions of the case
subject of the complaint.
e) Other judges, commissioners, and deputy clerks, whose names would be found upon investigation and
discovery in the Audit Data of Register of Actions in the case, but are concealed from public view.
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Phone: (213) 974-5600
Fax: (213) 617-7176
E-mail: jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org

f) DAVID PASTERNAK – Attorney

Pasternak, Pasternak, & Patton
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067

g) RICHARD GREEN – Attorney

GREEN & MARKER
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1880
Los Angeles, California 90067

h) RHOND WALKER – Attorney

696 E Colorado Blvd
Pasadena, CA 91101
z Page 4/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

i) Other attorneys named in the Registers of Actions of the cases.

4. General claims
Conduct of the accused in the caption, referenced above, is alleged as including, but not limited to:
a) Public Corruption;
b) Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law;
c) Honest Services Fraud;
d) Fraud;
e) Mail Fraud;
f) Adulteration of Court Records;
g) Conspiracy;
h) Denial of access to court records, and
i) Denial of due process of law.

It should be emphasized that conduct, which is detailed in instant complaint, is not unique at all. Other
pretense litigations at the Los Angeles Superior Court were identified as well. Separate complaint is filed
relative to the cases at hand, referenced above, due to their overriding public policy significance.

5. Complainants are not attorneys, neither are they represented by counsel in matters, which are
subject of instant complaint.
Therefore, in most case, no sections of the code were cited. Instead, the US Attorney is requested to
apply the correct sections of the code. In case errors were made, where sections of the code were cited,
the US Attorney is requested to disregard such references to the code, and instead - review the facts
themselves and apply the correct section of the code.

6. Additional evidence and records are provided in records linked below, in respective court files,
and in complaints previously filed with the office of US Attorney, Los Angeles.
For the sake of brevity, only a small part of the evidence was described and linked below. Please do not
hesitate to contact Dr Zernik for additional evidence in this matter.

Since the Court denies access to the paper court files in the cases, the complaint was based on the
following records (linked below):
a) Register of Actions (California civil docket);
b) The online Case Summaries (not formal court records);
c) Declarations by Defendant Barbara Darwish;
d) Search for records in the Office of the Registrar/Recorder, and
e) Search for records in the microfilm Judgment Archive of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Additional evidence pertaining to instant complaint, which is likely to further support the allegations is
held in:
a) Records in the paper court files under captions of Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) and Derwish v
Darwish (SC060217) at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
b) Records in the electronic court files under the same captions.
c) Complaints, which were separately filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of
California, pertaining to conduct the courts in Los Angeles County in other cases, all alleged as
pretense litigations of the Court:
i. Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Clerk John A Clarke, and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public
corruption and deprivation of rights. iv
ii. Complaint against David Pasternak and others –for public corruption and deprivation of rights. v
z Page 5/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

iii. Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering. vi

iv. Complaint against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, and Clerk John A
Clarke – for public corruption and deprivation or rights. vii

7. Related court actions

Two judgments, neither of them entered as required by California Code were listed in the case, and three
appeals (2 of them denied, the third dismissed). The conduct of such appeals, taken from unentered
judgments and in disregard of California law relative to time frames for Notice of Appeal would be detailed in
a separate complaint.

Therefore, the case is also unique in documenting collusion of the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, in
conduct of pretense appeals from pretense litigations at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.

8. The evidence shows that a group of judges and commissioners presided in such litigation with no
authority at all – their conduct was central to the enactment of pretense litigation.
Court records show the following judges and commissioners presiding in the cases.
a) ALAN B HABER
b) ROBERT M LETTEAU
c) DAVIDE B FINKEL
d) CANDANCE D. COOPER
e) JOHN H RICE
f) PATRICIA L. COLLINS
g) JULIUS TITLE
h) PAUL G. FLYNN

None of them held an Assignment Order or Appointment Order to the case, as required by California Code.

The judges in these cases juggled the cases back and forth among them, with no foundation in the law.

9. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) was purported as real estate litigation for equity rights or damages.
The online Case Summaries viii , ix (not formal court records) list a litigation where Plaintiff Galdjie filed on
05/27/1998 complaint for “Specific Performance or Damages” originating from a real estate dispute based on
Plaintiff’s earlier failed attempt to purchase the property. The complaint was based on claims of “oral
modifications of real estate contract”. With that, the alleged fraud in the litigation was typical of medieval
times, and one that was to be prevented through “Statutes of Frauds” in the English speaking courts.

Some of the highlights of the online Case Summaries (not a formal court records) are:
05/27/1998 Complaint Filed
02/08/2000 Notice (OF RELATED ACTION)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
03/20/2000 Order (- of Consolidation)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
06/28/2000 Demurrer
Filed by Attorney for Defendant
10/15/2001 Motion for an Order (TO RECUSED CROSS-DEFS' COUNSEL )
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
05/03/2002 Jury Instructions
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant
05/20/2002 Order (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER AFTER COURT TRIAL; )
Filed by Court
11/10/2004 Order (APPOINTING RECEIVER )
Filed by Receiver
z Page 6/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

10. The minutes, as printed from Sustain - the Court’s case management system, provide unique
example of the fraud in conduct of the litigation and the fraud inherent in implementation and
operation of Sustain.
Minutes in the Galdjie v Darwish document litigation that was administered with no semblance of compliance
with the law.
• Judges and clerks with no authority at all entered false records in the case management system.
• The case was juggled back and forth among a group of judges with no authority at all.
• Notice and service were routinely “waived”.
• Minutes were routinely back dates, at times by 6 months or more.
• There is no evidence of authentication of the minutes by clerks. Therefore, such minutes must be deemed
as void not voidable.
• No Initial Case Conference was ever held.
• No Trial Setting Conference was ever held.
• No judgment was ever entered.
• No order appointing receiver was ever entered.

The court denied repeated requests to access to the Sustain log of notices mailed to parties in the case, in
alleged violation of First Amendment rights.

Table 1. Minutes in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), as printed from Sustain x

# Date JUDGE Nature of Proceedings Date Comments
Entered
1. 1/26/99 HABER “Status Conference:” 2/24/99 • No Initial Case Conference held.
• No litigation time frames stated.
2. 2/24/99 LETTEAU None 9/29/99 • Inexplicable minutes, back-dated by 7
months.
3. 2/29/99 FINKEL “Pre-trial Conference:” “Continued” 10/12/99 • Minutes backdated by 8 months.
4. 10/06/99 REID “Settlement Conference:” 10/06/99 •
“Notice waived”
5. 10/12/99 COOPER “Pre-trial Conference:” 10/26/99 • No details provided.
“Notice waived”
6. 10/26/99 HABER “Jury Trial:” 12/06/99 • Minutes back-dated by 2 months.
“Placed off calendar”

7. 12/07/99 HABER “Trial:” 00/00/00 • Minutes “disposed” from the record, with
“Off Calendar” no notice to the parties. Retroactive
disposal of minutes should not have been
permitted in the case management
system absent order or notation.
8. 00/00/00 - - 01/27/00 • The case management system should
not have allowed entry of Minutes with no
content, no name of judge or clerk.
9. 01/27/00 HABER “Trial:” 03/07/00 • Inexplicable minutes.
“Trial Date Vacated”
10. 03/07/00 HABER “Trial Setting Conference:” 03/09/00 •
“Continued”
11. 03/09/00 COLLINS “Motion to Consolidate” 03/21/00 •
12. 03/21/00 HABER “Trial Setting Conference:” 03/21/00 •
“Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.”
13. 00/00/00 - - 00/00/00 • Minutes were probably eliminated from
the record.
14. 00/00/00 - - 05/24/00 • The case management system should
not have allowed entry of Minutes with no
content, no name of judge or clerk.
15. 05/24/00 TITLE “Trial Setting Conference:” 06/21/00 • No details provided.
z Page 7/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

“Notice is waived.” • No trial date set.

16. 06/21/00 TITLE “Status Conference.” 07/31/00 •
“Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.”
17. 07/31/00 COLLINS “Demurrer” 09/20/00 • Minutes back-dated by 2 months.
18. 09/20/00 HABER “Status Conference:” 09/20/00 •
“Trial set for June 6, 2001”
“Notice is waived.”
19. 05/22/01 FLYNN “Motion to Compel Production of records.” 05/25/01 •
20. 05/25/01 FLYNN “Final Status Conference:” 06/06/01 • No further details.
21. 06/06/01 FLYNN “Jury Trial:” 11/15/01 • No further details.
• Minutes back-dated by 5 months
22. 11/15/01 FLYNN Defendants “Motion to Recuse Cross Defendants’ 11/30/01 • No new trial date specified.
Counsel”,
“Motion to Continue Trial Date.”
23. 11/30/01 FLYNN “Final Status Conference:” 05/03/02 • No further details provided.
24. 05/03/02 FLYNN “Final Status Conference:” 05/03/02 • No details provided.
“Notice waived.”
25. 05/13/02 FLYNN “Jury Trial:” 05/13/02 • False on its face self contradictory
“Consolidated case is settled. statement.
All counsel waive jury by trial.
Estimated trial time: 1-1.5 days.
This court is not available.
Case is transferred to Culver City 1:30 pm, May 13, 2002.
Notice is waived.”
26. 05/13/02 SEGAL “Court Trial” 05/15/02 •
27. 05/15/02 SEGAL “Court Trial” 05/20/05 •
28. 05/20/02 SEGAL “Ruling on Submitted Matter” 11/15/02 • Critical purported minute was back-dated
“The court enters judgments in favor of Plaintiff.” by 6 months.
“The Clerk is directed to mail statement of decision to • No mention of Judgment.
counsel.”
29. 11/15/02 SEGAL “Defendants gave notice of intent to move for a new trial” 11/22/02 • No semblance of compliance with time
frames stipulated by law.
30. 11/22/02 SEGAL “Defendants Notice of Intent to move for new trial.” 11/22/02 • Proceeding is defined as a “Notice”, not
“Motion denied.” as a motion.
“Notice is waived”.
31. 03/20/03 FLYNN “Motion for Order Fixing Undertaking for Appeal” 04/24/04 • No appealable order or judgment were
issued or entered to take an appeal from.
• No semblance of compliance with time
frames provided by law for notice of
appeal.
32. 04/24/03 SEGAL “Motion for Order Fixing Undertaking for Appeal” 02/20/04 • Minutes back-dated by 10 months.
33. 02/20/04 SEGAL “HEARING RE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OR 03/12/04 • Critical Minutes back-dated by 1 month.
OTHER COURT
• Judge with no authority.
OFFICEE TO EFFECTUATE THE IMMEDIATE
TRANSFER OF REAL • No adjudication listed.
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THIS • No judgment was ever entered.
COURT;” • No section of the code listed as the
foundation for appointment of receiver.
34. 03/12/04 SEGAL “HEARING RE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OR 05/07/04 • Critical Minutes back-dated by 2 month.
OTHER COURT
• Judge with no authority.
OFFICER TO EFFECTUATE THE IMMEDIATE
TRANSFER OF REAL • No adjudication listed.
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THIS • No judgment was ever entered.
COURT;” • No section of the code listed as the
“Continue” foundation for appointment of receiver.
“Notice is waived.”
35. 05/07/04 SEGAL HEARING RE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OR 10/01/04 • Minutes back-dated by 5 months.
OTHER COURT
• Judge with no authority.
z Page 8/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

OFFICER TO EFFECTUATE THE IMMEDIATE • No judgment was ever entered.

TRANSFER OF REAL
• No section of the code listed as the
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THIS
COURT, foundation for appointment of receiver.
Plaintiff's hearing re appointment of a receiver is • Order Appointing Receiver was never
unopposed and granted.
entered as required by California Code.
This Court appoints DAVID PASTERNAK.
Order signed and filed.
36. 10/01/04 SEGAL DEFENDANTS DAVID DARWISH AND BARBARA 10/01/04 • ?
KRAMAR DARWISH
MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT and
DISMISSING
ACTION;
Defendants motion for order vacating judgment and
dismissing action is denied.
Notice is waived.
37. 11/10/04 SEGAL DEFENDANTS DAVID DARWISH AND BARBARA 07/26/05 • Critical minutes back-dated by 8 months.
KRAMAR DARWISH
• No order appointing receiver was ever
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER APPOINTING
RECEIVER; entered.
Defendants motion for entry of order appointing
receiver is granted. Order modified, signed and
filed.
Notice is waived.
38. 07 /26/05 SEGAL HEARING RE RECEIVER'S REPORT RE 03/07/06 • Minutes back-dated by 6 months.
CONSEQUENTIAL
• Only minutes in the litigation that were
DAMAGES;
The Receiver's report is approved. served and noticed, albeit, there is no
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ way to determine from the minutes if they
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER~
were indeed signed by clerk and mailed.

39. 03 / 07 / SEGAL DEFENDANTS DAVID DARWISH AND BARBARA 04/14/06 • Minutes back-dated by 1 months.
KRAMAR DARWISH
06
MCTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING
PERFORMANCE DEADLINE AND
RELATK:J ORDERS;
Defendants motion for order is unopposed and
granted.
Counsel for defendants to give notice.
40. 04/14/06 SEGAL DEFENDANTS DAVID DARWISH AND BARBARA 04/26/06 •
KRAMAR DARWISH
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS
IMPLEMENTING MARCH 7,
2006 ORDER AND DECLARATION RE NOTICE;
41. 04/26/06 SEGAL PLAINTIFF MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE EX PARTE 04/26/06 • 05/09/06
APPLICATION TO
EXTEND TIME TO CLOSE ESCROW;
After argument by counsel, the Plaintiff's ex parte
application to extend time to close escrow is
granted.
42. 05/09/06 DEFENDANTS DAVID DARWISH AND BARBARA 05/09/06 •
KRAMAR DARWISH
MOTION FOR ORDERS IMPLEMENTING MARCH 7,
2006 ORDER;
Defendants motion. for orders implementing March 7,
2006 order is denied.
Notice is waived.
43. 07/ 19 / RECEIVER DAVID J. PASTERNAK MOTION FOR • A judge with no authority “credits”
ISSUANCE OF
06 07/ 19 / 06 declaration of a receiver with no authority
ORDER .A.PPROVING AND SETTING RECEIVER I
S FINAL REPORT as “being right and proper and in the best
Al\D ACCOUNT; interest of parties”.
…
• It should be noted that no writ of
A.PPROVING AND RATIFYING ALL ACTIONS OF
RECEIVER AS execution was ever issued, and no
BEING RIGHT AND PROPER AND IN BEST conveyance of title was ever executed by
INTERESTS OF the Receiver.
PARTIES;
… • It is proposed that upon investigation and
The Court credits the receiver's declaration. discovery it would be found that escrow
The Order is signed and filed. conduct in this case was of criminal
nature as well.
z Page 9/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

Table 2. Minutes in Derwish v Darwish (SC060217), as printed from Sustain xi

# Date JUDGE Nature of Proceedings Date Comments

Entered
1. 02 /28 COLLINS DEFENDANT THE 1319 YALE STREET 03/09/00 • Back-dated minutes
/00 TRUST'S MOTION TO
EXPUNDGE LIS PENDENS, OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUIRE
PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN
UNDERTAKING;
“…continued…”
“Notice is waived”.
2. 03/09/00 COLLINS “Defendant 1319 Yale Street Trust's 05/04/00 • Back-dated minutes
motion to expunge Lis Pendens is denied.”
3. 05/04/00 COLLIN8 DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO FIR8T 00/00/00 • Fraudulent minutes were
AMENDED COMPLAINT;” secretly “disposed” with no
“Notice waived.” notice at all.
4. 00/00/00 - - 00/00/00 • Minutes were likely eliminated
from the record. Such
transaction must not be
allowed in a valid case
management system,

11. The Register of Actions (California civil docket) provided additional evidence of the alleged fraud
by the Court.

Table 3. Highlights from the Register of Actions in Galdjie v Darwish

PAGE REGISTRATION COMMENTS
P1 No registration of contact information for Defendant’s Counsel It is alleged that upon investigation is likely to be
discovered that no notice was ever mailed out to
Defendant’s counsel.

P1 Disposed: O5/20/02 Judgment, by “Muni-Judge” John Segal was with no

Disp Type: Judgment by Court authority at all, and was never entered, as required by
California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”.

P2 O5/27/98 Journal Entry All payments are listed as “Journal Entry” starting with
Received - Civil Filing Fee the Filing Fee. It is therefore alleged that upon
$192.00 investigation it would be discovered that the case was
Other Pmnt designated as pretense litigation through collusion of
judges and Plaintiff’s Counsel even prior to the filing of
the complaint.
Inappropriate use of “Journal Entry” is considered in
accountancy textbooks as a cardinal sign of high level
financial management fraud. The Presiding Judge and
Clerk of the Court refuse to disclose the ultimate
designation of funds collected in this case.

P2 No Initial Case Conference was registered, as such, No time frames were defined for the case either. The
failure to register litigation landmarks is considered
one of the hallmarks of pretense litigations.
P4-22 Various judges are listed as alternating in the case. The case was juggled back and forth among a group
of judges, none of them with an Assignment Order, as
required by law.
A valid case management system should have limited
access and authorities only to authorized personnel.
P2-22 Jury Trial was repeatedly scheduled and placed “off calendar”, or Such registrations are alleged as fraudulent in nature,
z Page 10/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

“Event Complete”. and should not have been allowed in a valid case
management system.
P34-35 05/13/02 Event All registrations related to trial on 05/13/02 to 05/13/20
Jury Trial are alleged as fraud, and should not have been
Paul G. Flynn permitted in a valid case management system.
10:00 am
JURY TRIAL;
.
Cause is called for hearing.
Court and counsel confer in chambers.
Consolidated case, Darwish vs. Galdjie has
settled.
All counsel waive trial by jury.
New time estimate for trial is 1 to 1 1/2 days.
This court being unavailable, case is transferred
to Division I in Culver City for trial on May 13,
2002 at 1:30 p.m ..
Counsel for plaintiff to transport the court file.
Notice is waived.
DIV I, CULVER CITY
05/13/02 Event Complete
Jury Trial
Transferred to Diff. Department
DIV I, CULVER CITY
05/13/02 Event
Court Trial - Short Cause
Muni Judge
1:30 pm
COURT TRIAL;.
05/15/02 Event
Court Trial - Short Cause
Muni Judge
10:40 am
COURT TRIAL;.
05/15/02 Event Complete
Court Trial - Short Cause
Submitted
P49-50 03/12/04 Event Appointment of Receiver is alleged violation of the
Hearing-Other law, and all related registrations are alleged as
John L. Segal fraud in Sustain:
8:30 am o No judgment was ever entered,
HEARING RE APPOINTMENT OF A o No legal foundation was ever
RECEIVER OR OTHER COURT provided for the authority of the
OFFICER TO EFFECTUATE THE receiver,
IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF REAL o The hearing on motion for
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE ORDER appointment of receiver was
OF THIS COURT; never registered as such
o The Order Appointing Receiver
03/12/04: Event Complete
was never entered as required
Hearing-Other
by California Law.
Continued
FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OR…
05/07/04 Event
Hearing-Other
John L. Segal
9:JO am
HEARING RE APPOINTMENT OF A
RECEIVER OR OTHER COURT
OFFICER TO EFFECTUATE THE IMMEDIATE
TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT
TO THE ORDER OF THIS COURT;
The matter is called and argued as reflected in
the verbatim notes of the court reporter. After
argument the Court's makes the following ruling:
Plaintiff's hearing re appointment of a receiver is
unopposed and granted.
z Page 11/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

This Court appoints DAVID PASTERNAK.

Order signed and filed.
Counsel for plaintiff to give notice.
05/07/04 Event Complete
Hearing-Other
Motion Granted

Table 4. Highlights from the Register of Actions in Derwish v Darwish

PAGE REGISTRATION COMMENTS
P1 No contact information is listed for Defendant’s counsel It is alleged that upon investigation is likely to be
discovered that no notice was ever mailed out to
Defendant’s counsel.
P1 Disposed: 03/09/00 The case is listed as disposed on March 9,
Disp Type: Consolidated with Lead Case 2000, through consolidation into another lead
case. However, as shown below, actions were
registered after the consolidation, which are
alleged as fraud.
A valid case management system should not
have permitted such false registrations.
P1 01/21/00 Journal Entry All payments are listed as “Journal Entry”
Received - Civil Filing Fee starting with the Filing Fee. It is therefore
$192.00 alleged that upon investigation it would be
discovered that the case was designated as
pretense litigation through collusion of judges
and Plaintiff’s Counsel even prior to the filing of
the complaint.
Inappropriate use of “Journal Entry” is
considered in accountancy textbooks as a
cardinal sign of high-level financial management
fraud. The Presiding Judge and Clerk of the
Court refuse to disclose the ultimate designation
of funds collected in this case.

P2 No Initial Case Conference is listed in the case. No time frames were defined for the case either.
The failure to register litigation landmarks is
considered one of the hallmarks of pretense
litigations.
P6 03/09/00 Status Effective The case is registered as disposed through
Consolidated-Other (not lead case) consolidation

P8-9 05/04/00 Event Registration of Demurrer in a disposed case, is

Hearing on Demurrer alleged as fraud by the court.
Patricia L. Collins
1::50 pm
DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT;
Matter is called for hearing and argued.
05/04/00 Event Complete
Hearing on Demurrer
Demurrer sustained with leave
S. Hughes / Reporter #7320

Therefore, it is alleged that the litigation as a whole, from its onset, was product of conspiracy of judges and
attorneys against Defendant Darwish. Moreover, it is alleged that Sustain, an invalid case management
system, was central in enabling such conduct by the Court.

12. Defendant Barbara Darwish’s declaration provides additional evidence of fraud by the Court. xii
z Page 12/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

Defendant Barbara Darwish, who had minimal understanding of the law at best, provided a declaration
regarding the facts as she knew them.

In May 2002 the Register of Actions listed again jury trial in the case. However, Defendant declared that
upon arriving at the Santa Monica Courthouse of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
she was instructed to proceed to the Culver City Municipal Court.

There simply is no explanation for the conduct of the judges an attorneys, in transferring an unlimited civil
case from the Superior Court of California to the Municipal Court of Culver City, which was never authorized
to hear such a case.

The Register of Actions noted that on that afternoon a bench trial was conducted by a judge who remained
anonymous, listed only a “Muni-Judge”. However, Defendant declared that it was Judge John Segal.

It is alleged that Judge John Segal acted in this case with no authority at all, and that the court and Judge Segal
attempted to conceal his part in the alleged fraud and racketeering.

It should be further noted that another complaint, previously filed with the US Attorney Office, regarding the
case of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), included conduct of Judge Segal, which was an almost exact copy of
his conduct in the case at hand.

13. Search of records in the microfilm judgments archive of the court failed to reveal entered
judgment/order appointing receiver in the case. xiii
In letter by Court Counsel Frederic Bennett it was claimed, albeit, with no authority at all, that the microfilm
judgments archive of the court today served as the Judgment Book equivalent. However, search of the
records in the microfilm judgments archive failed to reveal either a judgment in the case, or the order
appointing David Pasternak Receiver, an appealable order, which should have been entered in the manner that
judgments are required to be entered in order to make them “effectual for any purpose”.

14. It is alleged the conduct of Judge John Segal and Attorney David Pasternak in the case amounted to
public corruption, and deprivation of rights.
Judge John Segal acted with no authority at all, to deprive Defendant Darwish of rights under the color of law.

In other complaints, linked below, previously filed with the Office of US Attorney, similar conduct by Judge
John Segal and Attorney David Pasternak was recorded.

15. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court denied access to the paper court file in the
case – alleged in the complaint as violation of First Amendment Rights, and attempt to cover-up
alleged criminality. xiv
By age, the paper court files in the cases, referenced above, were supposed to be kept in the Superior Court of
California, County Los Angeles Archive. However, according to Deputy Clerk at the Archive, they were
instead held at the basement of the Santa Monica Courthouse.

As detailed in letters to the accused Charles McCoy and John Clarke, Dr Zernik repeatedly requested to access
paper court records in the case, to inspect and to copy. Such access was denied.

Additionally, access was repeatedly requested to electronic court filed data in Sustain. The Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, consistently denies access to the Audit Data in the Registers of Actions,
which include the true dates of the various entries in the Registers, as well as user IDs of those who
constructed the Registers, alleged as products of fraud and corruption. The Court also denied requests to
inspect and to copy the log of notices mailed by the Court in the case.

It is alleged that denial of access to court records in the cases was intended to cover-up racketeering by the
Court.
z Page 13/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

Additionally, Dr Zernik repeatedly noticed the Presiding Judge and Clerk of alleged criminality in conduct of
the Court. No corrective actions were ever initiated by the accused.

16. Clerk of the Court John Clarke also refused to certify the case as litigation conducted by the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Repeated requests were filed with Clerk of the Court John A Clarke to certify the case as a case of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to certify Judge John Segal as a judge assigned to the
case, and to certify the judgments in the case. Such requests remained unanswered.

17. The records as a whole would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the litigation was never
deemed by the accused as a valid litigation of the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, only pretense litigation.
Given that all judges and the “Receiver” in the cases acted with no authority, that none of his judgments were
entered as judgment that were effectual for any purpose, the Court denies access to the paper court files, and
none of the fees were listed as court fees, a reasonable person would conclude that the litigation under the
captions, referenced above were pretense litigations, nothing more.

18. Conduct of the accused amounted to conspiracy to deprive the 10 million residents of Los Angeles
of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings.
As documented in other complaints filed with the office of the US Attorney, conduct of pretense litigations at
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the cases referenced above was not an isolated
case at all. Therefore, it is alleged that conduct of the Court, through denial of access to true records, and the
production of false records, amounted to conspiracy to deprive the 10 million residents of Los Angeles of
honest courts.

Therefore, conduct of the accused is alleged as public corruption and deprivation of rights of all 10 million
residents of Los Angeles County, California, under the color of law. It is alleged that upon review of the facts
as a whole, any reasonable person would conclude that conduct of the accused amounted to public corruption
and deprivation of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all residents of Los Angeles County,
California, pursuant to US and ratified international law.

The conduct of a group of judges, acting under the color of law, in collusion with a group of attorneys, in
conducting pretense litigations is alleged as conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity.

19. The case holds unique public policy significance, since it provides unique evidence of the role of the
Court in real estate fraud in Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles County was distinguished by FBI already in the early 2000s as “the epicenter of the epidemic of
real estate and mortgage fraud.” It is alleged that such distinction is largely the working of the Court itself.

Moreover, the case at hand shows efforts by the court to establish “oral modifications of real estate contracts”
as permitted by law. There is no doubt that such conduct by the Court would further increase the incidence of
real estate fraud in Los Angeles County.

20. The case holds unique public policy significance, since it provides unique evidence of the role of
Sustain – alleged as fraudulent case management system in the conduct of pretense litigations.
Sustain enables conduct by the Court as documented in instant complaint – running of pretense litigations,
which the Court itself never deemed as valid litigations of the Superior Court of Californian, County of Los
Angeles.
z Page 14/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

The system was installed circa 1985, at a time that today’s California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald
George served in leadership positions at the Los Angeles Superior Court. Harm caused by his conduct at that
time was alleged to continue to this date.

Chief Justice Ronald George refused to respond on repeated requests to clarify his role in installation of
Sustain at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

21. The case holds unique public policy significance, since it provides unique evidence of the role of
alleged fraud in Local Rules of Court in enabling conduct of pretense litigations.
The accused continue to cover up the conduct, detailed in instant litigation, by refusing to publish honest,
valid Local Rules of Court pertaining to entry of judgment in Los Angeles County. Instead, for several
decades the Court continues to publish false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court.
The Superior Court of California continue for decades to publish false and deliberately misleading Local
Rules of Court pertaining to the entry of judgment, stating that Judgment Books are maintained in the Public
Department of the Office of the Clerk in each district of the court. In fact, Deputy Clerks denied that such
Judgment Books have existed for decades.
The Presiding Judge and the Clerk refused to disclose the honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court
pertaining to entry of judgment even after repeated requests.

22. The case holds unique public policy significance, since it provides unique evidence of the alleged
corruption of judges, clerks, and attorneys in Los Angeles County, California.
The complaint named as co-conspirators all attorneys who appeared in the case, including, but not limited to
plaintiff’s counsel Richard Green and defendant’s counsel Rhonda Walker.

There is simply no reasonable explanation why the two attorneys agreed to the transfer of the case from the
Superior Court of California to the Municipal Court of Culver City.

Conduct of Rhonda Walker, in telling Plaintiff Darwish that she was not entitled to a jury trial, and that the
case was heard by an Equity Court is alleged as further evidence of the conspiracy since the start of the
litigation.
It is further alleged that upon investigation of the paper court files, it would be discovered that none of the
minutes, orders, and judgments in the case were ever authenticated, as was the case in other pretense
litigations of the Superior Court.

In short, there is plenty of evidence that counsel conspired with the judges in the conduct of the pretense
litigation.

The conduct that is documented in the cases, referenced above, showed tight collusion by a large group of
judges and a large group of attorneys. It is impossible to tell, based on the evidence currently available,
whether attorneys were intimidated, or willingly colluded in such alleged fraud. Regardless, conduct
documented in the cases shows the tight linkage between corrupt attorneys and corrupt judges – to deprive
rights under the color of law.

23. The case holds unique public policy significance, since it provides unique evidence of financial
management fraud by the Court.
All court fees in the cases were listed in the Registers of Actions as “Journal Entry”, whereas in other cases of
the Superior Court they were listed as “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”, etc.

Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke refused to disclose the ultimate
designation of the funds collected in the case, whereas accountancy textbooks consider misuse of Journal
Entry registrations as a cardinal sign of high-level financial management fraud.

It is alleged that the failure to list the fees as “Court Fees” , provided additional evidence that the cases were
never deemed by the Court as valid litigations of the Superior Court of California.
z Page 15/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

24. The case holds unique public policy significance, since it provides unique evidence of refusal of FBI
and California Attorney General and gubernatorial aspirant Jerry Brown to provide equal
protection. xv
Complaints regarding conduct of the Superior Court in the case of Darwish and others were previously filed
with California Attorney General and Gubernatorial Aspirant Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown, was recently quoted
by media a “appalled by corruption”. However, Jerry Brown refused to provide equal protection for the 10
million residents of Los Angeles County against alleged racketeering by the Court.

FBI, likewise, has refused to investigate complaints in this matter.

It was therefore claimed in the Human Rights Alert April 2010 report to the United Nations, that
implementation of fraudulent case management systems and online public access system were the enabling
tool for the precipitous deterioration of the justice system in the United States.

The report further claimed that all such systems must be subjected to legally and publicly accountable
validation (certified, functional logic verification).

25. The case holds unique public policy significance, since it provides unique evidence of the role of
general practices of the Court, relative to the publication of online records in alleged large-scale
fraud on the people.
The Los Angeles Superior Court continues for years to deny the public access to valid court records.
a) The Court provides an online Index of All Cases, albeit – with a disclaimer – that such index must
not be relied upon.
b) The Court provides an online Calendars of the Courts, albeit – with a disclaimer – that such
calendar must not be relied upon.
c) The Court provides online Case Summaries, albeit – with a disclaimer – that such calendar must
not be relied upon.
d) No images of court records were provided in the cases, either.
e) The Registers of Actions, which were accessed in the cases, referenced above, included numerous
false registrations, and are alleged as products of fraud and corruption.

26. Alleged widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles is drawing both national and
international awareness.
As part of the first ever review by the United Nations (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, report was
filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Dr Joseph Zernik xvi alleging widespread corruption of the justice
system in Los Angeles County, California. The report further documented the refusal of senior officers of the
US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to ratified international law – in failure to
accord equal protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County.

As part of the UPR process, US, UK, Germany, and France based blogs were created,xvii where over 17,000
readers from some 85 nations were recorded so far.

A Scribd site was created for Human Rights Alert in January 2010, which has recorded over 70,000 reads,
with over 500 reads a day in recent months.xviii

Additional news sites, where Dr Zernik and Human Rights Alert routinely issue press releases, which were
attracted tens of thousands of additional readers. xix
z Page 16/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

Furthermore, an online archive was established, xx documenting the alleged abuses of rights. The archive, not
a user’s friendly site by any stretch of imagination, has attracted thousands of visits per month from nations
worldwide, totaling of close to 90,000 visits in 2010 alone. xxi

27. Remedies are requested by the US Attorney, Central District of California, including, but not
limited to equal protection of all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County.
US Attorney, Central District of California, is herein requested to provide the following remedies:
a) Equal protection of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all 10 millions who reside in Los
Angeles County under US and ratified international law, by putting an end to pretend litigations at the Los
Angeles Superior Court, and by compelling the Court to comply with California, US, and ratified
international law.
b) Enforcement of First Amendment rights and US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978) in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling the Los Angeles Superior
Court to permit public access – to inspect and to copy court records - including, but not limited to the
Register of Actions, Audit Data in the Registers, and paper court files.
c) Enforcement of Fair Hearings and Due Process rights in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling
the Los Angeles Superior Court to publish honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court, including, but
not limited to rules pertaining to entry of judgment and maintenance of Books of Judgments, as required
by California Civil Code.
d) Investigation and, if necessary, prosecution of the accused, in re: allegations of public corruption and
deprivation of rights under the color of law. It should be noted that the request in instant complaint for US
investigation of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, is a repeat of the recommendations
of the official report of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006). xxii

28. Request for due process in acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints at the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California.
As previously noted, the web pages of the US Attorney Office and information received from staff of the
Office, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that at best a vague and ambiguous procedures were
established at the US Attorney’s Office for acceptance, acknowledgment, and review of complaints at the
newly re-established Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit. It is therefore explicitly requested that the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California, accord due process to instant complaint:
a) That the complaint be accepted as such;
b) That the US Attorney Office acknowledge receipt of the complaint and issue a reference number for the
complaint;
c) That the complaint be duly reviewed, and
d) That following review, a response be provided, verified by an authorized person.

Respectfully,
Dated: July 18, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
z Page 17/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

CC:
1) Prof David Burcham – former Dean, Loyola Law School
<david.burcham@lmu.edu>
2) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School
<EChemerinsky@law.uci.edu>
3) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project
<dmcmorris@advanceproj.org>
4) UPR Office of the United Nations
<UPRsubmissions@ohchr.org>
5) UPR Office of the US State Department:
<upr_info@state.gov>
6) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein – Senator from California
7) US Senate and House of Representatives – Judiciary Committees

LINKS

i
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
ii
Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
iii
Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/
iv
Complaint against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public corruption and deprivation of
rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/
v
Complaint against David Pasternak – for public corruption and deprivation of rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/
vi
Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33971099/
vii
Complaint against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, and Clerk John A
Clarke – for public corruption and deprivation or rights.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34408770/
viii
08-07-23-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Case-Summary-not-a-formal-
court-record-as-printed-from-the-online-public
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34495802/
ix
10-07-18-Derwish-v-Darwish-SC060217-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Case-Summary-not-a-formal-
court-record-as-printed-from-the-online-public-a
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34495746/
x
10-07-18-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-Minutes-as-printed-from-Sustain-the-Court-s-case-management-
system-w-introduction-and-table-form-summary-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34494173/
xi
10-07-18-Derwish-v-Darwish-SC060217-Minutes-as-printed-from-Sustain-the-Court-s-case-management-
system-with-table-form-summary-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34495370/
xii
09-02-20-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-Declaration-of-Barabara-Kramar-Darwish-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34503260/
xiii
10-04-16-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Marina-v-La-County-BS109420-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-
Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Microfilm-Judgment-Records-March-4-
2009-s
z Page 18/18 July 19, 2010 TOC

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31305372/
xiv
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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30119483/
xv
10-02-13-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-Racketeering-by-judges-and-attorneys-in-Los-Angeles-California-
Requesting-Jerry-Brown-apos-s-comments-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26837352/
xvi
Human Rights Alert (NGO) report to the UN for the 2010 UPR:
1) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
2) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
3) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
xvii
Blog associated with Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
xviii
Scribd site of Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
xix
News sites where Human Rights Alert posts routine releases:
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
xx
Online archive documenting corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County and beyond:
http://inproperinla.com/
xxi
Intense interest by the Russian Republic in corruption of US courts and banking regulation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33910548/
xxii
Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) – see (i), above.