Good Day Readers:
The case being discussed in the video dates back to July 2009 when a motion filed by Judicial Watch (privately funded oranization promoting transparency, accountability and integrity in government) challenged pay raises for Los Angeles Superior Court Judges authorized by the State Legislature in what amounted to Superior Court versus Superior Court.
Since then the California Court of Appeals (4th District) has handed down a decision upholding the lower court decision (Surprise!) which sided with the judges. As recently as January this year Human Rights Alert (a Non-Government Organization committed to investigating violations by California justice systems) has also jumped into the fray being critical of both the higher court's ruling and, in some instances, Judicial Watch's approach. Sounds like a case headed to the United States Supreme Court.
Below is a summary of where the case stands as of January this year written by Human Rights Alert founder Joseph Zernik.
Upon viewing the video we couldn't help but reflect about the Douglas-King-Chapman Sexcapade for which the Law Society of Manitoba and subsequently the Manitoba Court of Appeal received significant criticism in the media for it's handling of the case.
Here's what we would like to know:
(1) What's taking the Canadian Judicial Council so long to render a decision which for most laypersons would be cut-and-dried?
(2) While Queen's Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal has only said publicly in-limbo Associate Chief Justice (Family Division) Lorie Douglas has been assigned administrative duties, precisely what is she doing to earn her $254,600 taxpayer financed salary?
(3) Do taxpayers have any input in the selection of judges, determination of their salaries and benefits, as well as, changes thereof?
(4) It has been said, "The CJC is a judges' best friend." Maybe so but why do we not have independent, third-person, privately funded organizations such as Judicial Watch and Human Rights Alert to challenge the judiciary for inappropriate decisions/behaviour?
(5) Why does The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted financed by donations through its charitable Foundation appear to be the only independent, third-party organization in Canada serving this function?
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
info@cjc.ccm.gc.ca
__________________________________________________
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sturgeon v LA County (D056266) in the California Court of Appeals, 4th District - Opined as elaborate Fraud on the Courts
Charles McCoy Presiding Judge (left) and Clerk of the Court John A. Clarke
Surgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court - Opined as Fraud on the Court
Los Angeles, January 3 - a recent decision in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County et al (D056266) by the California Court of Appeals, 4th District, [1] affirming a judgment in the case in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, has been opined by Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) as part of elaborate Fraud on the Courts.
Surgeon v Los Angeles County et al (BC351286) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles originated as a request for injunction against the County of Los Angeles' payments to the Los Angeles County Judges. The secret payments of about $45,000 per judge per year, have been going on for over a decade. The judges never listed the payments in their outside income disclosures, and never informed parties in cases where Los Angeles County was a party of the payments. Neither did the judges recuse. In parallel, it was shown that it became practically impossible to win a case against Los Angeles County in the Los Angeles County courts. The payments (labeled by media "bribes"), necessitated the passage of a law by California legislature, which was signed by then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the behest of the California Judicial Council, according the judges "retroactive immunities" (labeled by media "pardons"). Retroactive laws are prohibited by the California Constitution. The California Attorney General Jerry Brown (today California Governor) refused to intervene in the matter.
Therefore, the case is of the highest public policy significance. It reflects the conduct in concert of the California Government of all branches in a manner that undermines the prospect of honest court services in Los Angeles County, California, for years to come. Some of the reasons listed by Dr Zernik for the opinion of Fraud on the Court in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County are: [2] 1) The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles acts in the case as the Court, the Clerk, the Judge, and a Party (Intervenor).
2) Justice James A Richman (California Court of Appeals, 1st District) appeared in the case for a couple of years as a Presiding Judge with no Assignment Order. In court papers, Judge Richman routinely referred to himself as "Sitting as Judge by Assignment". In contrast, the Los Angeles Superior Court routinely referred to him as sitting "by Reference, not by Assignment", and Judicial Watch referred to him as sitting by "Designation".
No record was found among the court records in the case of an Assignment/Referral/Designation Order.Requests, which were filed with the chambers of James A Richman, with Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk John A Clarke of the Superior Court, and with Judicial Watch, to explain the legal basis for the language they employed in referring to Justice James A Richman's appearances in the case remain unanswered.
3) All Minutes issued in the case were void - including an invalid legal signature box, with no name appearing below the signature line (where the name and authority of a Deputy Clerk should have been typed) and only an illegible scribble above the signature line.
4) The Superior Court of California continues to deny access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.
5) The purported Judgments in the case were posted online with invalid authentication: The Proof of Service attached to the records was from different record, dated prior to the dates of the Judgments.
6) The purported Judgments in the case were never entered in the Judgments Archive of the Superior Court, which the court claims is today the "equivalent" of Judgment Book, which the Court must maintain pursuant to the California Government Code �69844.7. Entry of Judgments in the Judgment Book is required by the California Code of Civil Procedure � 664.5 to make a Judgment "effectual for any purpose".
7) The California Court of Appeal has jurisdiction only in reviewing entered judgments, and therefore the conduct of the California Court of Appeal was with no authority as well.
Human Rights Alert also questioned the conduct of Judicial Watch in the matter:1) Requests were filed with Attorney Sterling Norris of Southern California Judicial Watch and the Judicial Watch Washington DC counsel, Mr Orfanedes, who appeared in the case, for explanation for their conduct in the case. No answer has been received.
2) Judicial Watch of Southern California runs like no bone fide public interest, non-profit organization: It is practically a one man operation of Sterling Norris, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor. It should be recalled that the Rampart Scandal report listed the DA office together with the LA court as two entities that "must" be investigated "regarding integrity of the system". [3] Human Rights Alert's April 2010 submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council was incorporated in official staff report, as part of the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California.
___________________________________________________
LINKS:
[1] 10-12-28 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County et al (D056266) in the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, decision affirming judgment in Surgeon v Los Angeeles County et al (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court http://www.zimbio.com/go/WC7U9r07RcV/http://www.scribd.com/doc/46227783/
[2] For the records, and detailed explanation regarding the Fraud opined in Surgeon v LA County (BC351286) see:
1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/28049418/10-03-08-Sturgeon-v-LA-County-BC351286-and-alleged-fraud-in-the-online-servers-of-the-LA-Superior-Court
2) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34403872/09-07-28-to-30-Sturgeon-v-LA-County-BC351286-Correspondence-Re-Denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records-s
3) http://www.scribd.com/doc/26576447/10-02-08-Sturgeon-v-LA-County-BC351286-and-Prospects-of-Future-Honest-Court-Services-in-Los-Angeles-County-California-s
4) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34402043/09-10-16-Sturgeon-v-Los-Angeles-County-BC351286-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Request-for-Presiding-Judge-McCoy-to-Access-Court-Records-to-inspect-a
5) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34389177/10-07-15-Sturgeon-v-LA-County-BC351286-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Online-Case-Summary-Not-a-Formal-Court-Record-s
6) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34405754/09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-6-Dr-Zernik-s-Motions-Vol-II-Part3-p199-243
7) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34406023/09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-7-Dr-Zernik-s-Motions-Vol-II-Part4-p295-306
8) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34407292/09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-12-Dr-Zernik-s-Motions-Vol-II-Part6b-p442-491
9) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34406493/09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-9-Dr-Zernik-s-Motions-Vol-II-Part4-p319-343
10) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30929197/09-07-28-to-09-07-30-Sturgeon-v-LA-County-BC351286-Correspondence-w-Deputy-Clerk-Drapac-Counsel-Bennett-re-denial-of-access-to-court-records-s
11) http://www.scribd.com/doc/31467632/10-05-16-Marina-v-La-County-BS109420-and-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Non-cases-Of-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-s
12) http://www.scribd.com/doc/31305372/10-04-16-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Marina-v-La-County-BS109420-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Los-Angeles-Superi
13) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34408770/10-07-15-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Central-District-of-California-against-Justice-James-A-Richman-Presiding-Judge-Charles-McCoy-Clerk
14) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30018079/09-07-28-to-09-07-30-Correspondence-w-Bennett-Court-Counsel-Denial-of-Access
15) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30115846/10-04-16-Zernik-s-Visit-to-Archive-of-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Failure-to-find-entered-March-4-2009-Jugment-for-Contempt-RE-Richard-Fine-s
16) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30119483/09-10-16-Letters-to-reliably-inform-Presiding-Judge-McCoy-of-Alleged-Criminality-in-Court-operations-request-Rules-of-Court-re-Entry-of-Judgments-s
17) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendix-IX-b-Zernik-s-Declaration-in-re-April-16-2010-search-for-records-in-the-Courts-microfilm-judgm
[3] 06-07-15 Rampart Reconsidered: LAPD's Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006):http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[4] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report:http://www.zimbio.com/go/wtDrRkAX8uw/http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
(ex).jpg)
