1

Joseph Zernik
2 PO Box 526
La Verne, California 91750
3 Tel: 323 515 4583
Fax: 801-998-0917
4 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 This page was deliberately left blank.

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

-1-
IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1

2
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK
3
IN RE: December 29, 2009 visit to US District Court Los Angeles.
4
I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows:
5
This declaration was written as a memorandum of my December 29, 2009 visit to the US District
6
Court, Los Angeles. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which I know to be
7
true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and
8 as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well. If called as a witness, I could
9 and would competently testify with respect thereto.
10 1. My visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles was part of my ongoing efforts for at least two
11 and a half years, to exercise in various courts my rights pursuant to the First Amendment to the
12 US Constitution and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) – to access court records – to
13 inspect and to copy.
14
2. My previous visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles, for such purpose was on September 18,
15
2009. During that visit I presented the Deputy Clerk of duty with a written request to access
16
court records – to inspect and to copy - in my case – Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and
17
in the case of Richard Fine Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). In both cases I had also previously
18
filed complaints regarding alleged adulteration of records filed in court on paper by pro se filers.
19
3. During the September 18, 2009 visit, I was denied access to all records, which I requested access
20
to. Access to paper records was denied on September 18, 2009, under the claim that the paper
21
records had already been shredded. However, when I requested access to the court records,
22
documenting the claimed shredding, such access was denied.
23

24 4. Both before and after the September 18, 2009 visit, I corresponded with the office of the Clerk of

25 the Court, Terry Nafisi. In most instances, I emailed to Ms Nafisi, and the response was by

26 email and/or by letters from Ms Dawn Bullock, Records Supervisor. In such communications I

27 was repeatedly promised that I would be permitted access to records – specifically – the Notices

28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

-2-
IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1
of Electronic Filings (“NEFs”) in my case. However, when I asked in correspondence for the
2
exact fee, and offered to pay, no response was ever received. I therefore decided to appear in
3
person again. I also sent in advance notice to Clerk Nafisi, and asked to confirm that access
4
would be permitted this time around, if I appeared in person. No response was received.
5
5. In preparation for the December 29, 2009, I prepared a written request, as was the case during
6
the September 18, 2009 visit. Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of the request I filed with the
7
Clerk of the Court on December 29, 2009, and it was inscribed by Record Supervisor Dawn
8
Bullock “Received” – on my copy, with her hand signature and date.
9

10 6. The requests on December 29, 2009 pertained to records from four different court cases. In

11 chronological order, they were:

12
a) US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) - the case that represented the US government
13 response to the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) - the largest case of corruption of the
14 justice system in the history of the US. The case purportedly yielded the Consent
Decree, which purportedly was the legal foundation for the operation of the Consent
15
Decree Bureau from 2001 to 2009, and with it - the Office of Overseer for Civil Rights in
16
LA. I had good reasons to suspect that papers in this case were not valid and effectual
17 court orders – instead – they were void, not voidable court papers. In particular – the
18 Consent Decree – was a paper of the highest public policy significance.

19 b) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - where I sued some 10 judges of the LA Superior

20 Court, Attorney David Pasternak, Countrywide's Chief Legal Officer - Sandor Samuels
21 and CEO Angelo Mozilo for what was claimed to amount to racketeering. I believed that
the US Court subjected me to a sham court action in the case, and that none of the orders
22
and also the judgment were honest, valid, and effectual court papers. Instead they were
23
void, not voidable.
24
c) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine. I believed
25
that the US Court subjected Richard Fine to a sham court action in the case, and that none
26 of the orders and also the judgment were honest, valid, and effectual court papers. Instead
27 – they were void, not voidable.

28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

-3-
IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1
d) In re: Fine (2:09-mc-00129) - disciplinary proceedings pertaining to disbarment of
2 Richard Fine. I believed that the US Court subjected Richard Fine to a sham court action
3 in the case, and that none of the orders and also the judgment were honest, valid, and
effectual court papers. Instead – they were void, not voidable.
4

5 7. I alleged that all four cases pertained to various types of review by the US Court of alleged

6 widespread corruption of judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In

7 all four cases, I believed that the US Court colluded with alleged corruption of the State Courts,

8 by conducting sham court actions and did not issue honest valid, and effectual orders and

9 judgments in the matters raised in the complaints.

10 8. I arrived at the US District Court, Records Department of the Clerk’s Office on December 31,
11 2009 between 3:00-3:15pm, and I presented my request to a Deputy-Clerk of duty, who gave me
12 his name as John. He read the requests, and then told me that I would have to wait for Ms Dawn
13 Bullock to come and handle my requests in person. Ms Bullock, Records Supervisor was said to
14 be in a meeting, and she arrived towards 4:00pm. Once she arrived, she appeared to try her best

15 to address my questions.

16
9. Regarding my specific requests, as outlined in Exhibit 1, Ms Bullock informed me as follows:
17
a. My requests to access records from four different paper court files (listed in ¶6, above),
18
even my own case, were denied. Deputy Clerk John initially claimed that the paper
19
filings were destroyed immediately upon scanning. When I suggested that it could not
20
possibly be the case, he tracked back. Nevertheless - I was denied access to any paper
21
court file records.
22

23 b. My requests to access electronic court file records in CM/ECF - specifically - the Notices

24 of Electronic Filings (NEFs) of the same four court files, were likewise denied - even in

25 my own case - with no explanation at all.

26 c. My requests to access records, which documented the shredding of the claimed-to-be-

27 shredded paper court files, were likewise denied - with no explanation at all.
28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

-4-
IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1
d. My requests to access (to obtain copies) paper printouts of electronic court file – the
2
NEFs in the same four cases, were likewise denied, with the exception of printouts of the
3
NEFs in my own case, Zernik v Connor et al, which I was provided by Ms Bullock, and
4
for which I thanked her.
5
10. Ms Bullock and I had a long technical discussion in re: the legal foundation for the operation of
6
CM/ECF at the US Court for the Central District of California, for the specific function of the
7
NEFs in that system, and for public access to the NEFs, or denial thereof:
8

9 a. Ms Bullock stated that she had had to research the questions raised in our past

10 correspondence, and more so would have to research the questions raised on December

11 29, 2009, since nobody had asked her those questions before.

12 b. Ms Bullock stated that the foundation for the operation of CM/ECF at the California
13 Central District was in the General Order 08-02.
14
c. From memory, I told her that such order was unusual among the General Orders - since it
15
had no name of a judge who authored it, let alone a signature, and likewise, had no
16
attestation by a clerk. Ms Bullock checked it up, apparently found my recollection to be
17
correct, and then told me that she would get back to me on the issue.
18
d. Ms Bullock likewise stated that the denial of access to NEFs, except in one's own case,
19
was founded in General Order 08-02. I challenged her from memory on that issue as
20
well. I stated from memory that NEFs were mentioned only in one or two paragraphs of
21
the order, but no reference was made to access, only to the NEFs function as certifying
22
court records, and also as authenticating service and entry of parties' papers, and of court
23
orders and judgments. Again - Ms Bullock said that she would research the matter.
24

25 e. Ms Bullock stated that the denial of access to NEFs resulted from the fact that personal

26 information was included in them. I challenged that answer, since the same information

27 was also provided in the Parties and Attorneys page – which was publicly accessible. Ms

28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

-5-
IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1
Bullock agreed with me on that point.
2
f. I also raised the question regarding the display of general orders of the Court online. It
3
was always the same exact 50 general orders that were available on display for public
4
viewing and access, for at least two years. However, it was obvious that in fact, the total
5
number of general orders of the court was much larger. Ms Bullock was not clear on that
6
issue. However, in response to my request she promised to provide me a printout of the
7
index of standing orders covering the period from 2001-2009. She stated that such
8
period would cover all general orders pertaining to electronic filing at the California
9
Central District.
10

11 g. I also asked about the rules pertaining to issuing or not issuing of a valid NEF for a given

12 record filed at court. The response was that an NEF was automatically issued any time a

13 clerk scanned or posted a record into the PACER docket. I challenged that notion. It

14 would have to be researched as well.

15 11. Given that Terry Nafisi - Clerk of the Court, was on vacation till the beginning of the year 2010,
16 I was told that I would likely get a written response on my questions within a couple of weeks
17 after that date.
18
12. Although productivity of my visit could be seem by others as miserably low - if measured as the
19
fraction of records which I successfully accessed vs those I requested access to, I considered the
20
December 29, 2009 visit to the court a milestone. It was the first time I got access to my own
21
NEFs - albeit – only as paper printouts, access to inspect the original electronic records was still
22
denied - since March 2008.
23
13. In conclusion: Based on my first hand experience at the US Court, Central District of California,
24
and also based on my experience at other US Courts, and even more so - at the California
25
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, I believe that judges, clerks, and courts adopted in the
26
recent decade new interpretation of the law, which severely restricted the rights of the public to
27

28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

-6-
IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1
access court records – to inspect and to copy. In particular – concerted efforts were experienced
2
in various US Courts to exclude various pertinent electronic records from public access.
3
14. Attached to this declaration are:
4

5 Exhibit 1: December 29, 2009 Request by Joseph Zernik to access court records, inscribed

6 “Received” by Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock, a total of 3 pages.

7 Exhibit 2: Any and all papers, which I was provided by Ms Dawn Bullock on December 29,

8 2009, in response to my requests, in the order that they were presented, a total of 25 pages.

9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that

10 the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31st day in December, 2009, in Los Angeles county,

11 California.

12 Joseph H Zernik
13

14
By_________________
15 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
16 Tel: (323) 515-4583
Fax:(801) 998-0917
17
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

-7-
IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
EXHIBIT 1
27

28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 EXHIBIT 2
28

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

IN RE: DEC 29, 2009 VISIT TO US DIST CRT LA
.