Surgeon v LA County - Opined as elaborate Fraud on the California Courts

Jan. 3, 2011 - PRLog -- 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.scribd.com/doc/46227783/

[2] For the records, and detailed explanation regarding the Fraud opined in Surgeon v LA County (BC351286) see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46230797/

# # #

Human Rights Alert, a Los Angeles County, California, NGO, is committed to monitoring Human Rights violations by the US government, and reporting such violations, including, but not limited to the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the US by the UN.