1 Joseph H Zernik

PO Box 526, LV CA 91750

2 Tel: (323) 515-4583;
Fax: (801) 998-0917
3
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
4 Pro Se Interested Party

5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10
HAROLD STURGEON, ) Case No: BC351286
11 Plaintiff/Petitioner ) Honorable James A Richman, Justice of
) California Court of Appeals, 1st District
12 v )
) PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL ) PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ON
)
Defendants/Respondents ) THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO ALLOW
14 ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS IN
)
and ) STURGEON V LA COUNTY PURSUANT TO
15 NIXON V WARNER COMMUNICATIONS,
)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) INC (1978); FOR DECLARATORY ORDER
16
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ) THAT THE ONLINE “CASE SUMMARY” IS
17 LOS ANGELES, ) NOT THE REGISTER OF ACTIONS, AND
Intervenor ) FOR LEAVE TO FILE PAPERS IN SAME
18 ) CASE AS AN INTERESTED PARTY &
____________________________________ ) [PROPOSED] ORDERS
19
DATE: TO BE NOTICED
20 TIME: TO BE NOTICED
DEPARTMENT: TO BE NOTICED
21
22 TO THE COURT, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD Please take notice:

23 Following directions by the court of Justice James A Richman, Pro Se Filer Joseph H Zernik

24 (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”) files hereby an ex parte application for leave to file papers in Sturgeon

25 v LA County as Interested Party. Further notice regarding date and time of hearing would be

26 provided pursuant to further directions by the Court.

27 The ex parte application is based upon the attached Request for Leave to File Papers

28 as Interested Party, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Joseph Zernik,

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
1/44
 1 Proposed Order and Exhibits and Attachments filed and served herewith, upon the pleadings
2 and documents on record in this case, all matters of which the Court may or must take
3 judicial notice, and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the
4 hearing.
5 Instant application is also based on the attached Notice of Motions and Motions for
6 Reconsideration of Court Actions; Alternatively – to Set Aside Court Actions, and for Orders
7 to Initiate Corrective Actions and Exhibits and Attachments filed and served herewith.
8 DATED: August 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
9 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
10
Digitally signed by Joseph H
Zernik
11 DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o,
ou, email=jz12345@earthlink.
12 net, c=US
Location: La Verne, California
Date: 2009.08.06 04:57:21
13 -07'00'

14 By: _________________________________
Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Filer
15 1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
16
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
17
18
19
20 I.
21 TABLE OF CONTENTS
22 I. Table of Contents 2
23 II. Table of Authorities 3
24 III. List of Exhibits and Attachments 3
25 IV. Request for Orders ........................ 3
26 V. Memo of Points and Authorities ........................ 7
27 VII. Declaration of Joseph Zernik ........................ 13
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
2/44
 1 VIII. Proposed Orders ........................ 17
2 IX. Exhibits and Attachments ........................ 19
3
4 II.
5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
6 1) Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)
7 2) California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500 et seq, Chapter 2. Public Access to Electronic
8 Trial Court Records
9 3) California Rule Making Enabling Act, CCP §575.1
10
11 III.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
12
13 1) July 27, 2009 email from Susan Scanlon O’Rourke
14 2) July 28-9 Correspondence with the Clerk in re: request and denial of access to litigation
15 records of Sturgeon v LA County.

16 3) Copy of an old pre-1985 Register of Actions from the Hill Street underground archives.
17
18 IV.
REQUEST FOR: 1) AN ORDER ON THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO ALLOW
19 ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS IN STURGEON V LA COUNTY PURSUANT TO
20 NIXON V WARNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC (1978); FOR DECLARATORY
ORDER THAT THE ONLINE “CASE SUMMARY” IS NOT THE REGISTER OF
21 ACTIONS, AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE PAPERS IN SAME CASE AS AN
22 INTERESTED PARTY

23 On or about July 27, 2009 Pro Se Filer Joseph H Zernik (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”), called
24 the San Francisco Court of Justice James A Richman, to explore the possibility of filing papers
25 in the then pending Motions for Summary Judgments in Sturgeon v LA County. The reason for
26 such unusual request was in evidence that became available only in recent few weeks regarding
27 the conduct of Defendant in instant case - County of Los Angeles (“LA County”) jointly with
28 Intervenor in instant case - Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (“LA

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
3/44
 1 Superior Court”). In response, Dr Zernik was referred by the San Francisco Court to Mr
2 Gregory Drapac, Senior Administrator in the LA Superior Court’s Clerk’s office, as the
3 coordinator for instant case (Exhibit 1).
4
5 1) Dr Zernik was instructed by Mr Drapac regarding steps to follow in filing instant
papers.
6 Mr Drapac instructed Dr Zernik to serve and file his application in court (Room 102)
7 and provide a copy for Mr Drapac (Room 109). Mr Drapac informed Dr Zernik that he would
8 forward the application to the Justice James A Richman, and that Dr Zernik would be further
9 instructed following decision of Justice Richman in the matter.
10 Dr Zernik considered the evidence he would contribute an important addition to
11 evidence already before the court in reviewing the Motions for Summary Judgments, since his
12 reading of the case was that arguments so far hinged almost exclusively upon consideration of
13 the legality of payments at bar by LA County to LA Superior Court judges.
14 Dr Zernik’s evidence provided a new dimension for consideration in instant case –
15 public policy interests, the nature of the relationship between LA County and LA Superior
16 Court, and the effect of cementing the relationship even further through such payments.
17 The evidence showed alleged collusion in wrongdoing between Defendant’s agencies
18 and Intervenor– from false imprisonments to real estate frauds. In fact, the evidence suggests
19 that the largest Superior Court in the U.S. is engaged in severe abuse of Civil Rights and
20 Human rights of the 10 million residents of LA County.
21
22 2) Developments on July 27-28, 2009 made Dr Zernik realize that his filing carries
23 additional significance.
On the very same day, July 27, 2009, and following day, two developments took place
24
that changed somewhat the nature of papers Dr Zernik intended to file, albeit, convinced him
25
that his filing was worthwhile from public policy perspective, and that the court should have the
26
additional evidence before it:
27
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
4/44
 1 a) On or about July 28, 2009 Dr Zernik filed a request with Mr Drapac to access
2 litigation records in instant case, so that he would be readily familiar with the
3 litigation, and on that day and the following day as well, he received responses, not
4 from the Clerk’s office, as expected, but from the office of the Counsel for the Court,
5 denying access to pertinent litigation records (Exhibit 2)..
6 b) As he learned only a few days later, on July 27, 2009 Justice James A Richman also
7 issued his first decision regarding the Motions for Summary Judgments then pending.
8
9 3) The denial of access to Sturgeon v LA County records was both surprising and
offensive.
10 The second Counsel Bennett July 28, 2009 Denial Letter was seen by Dr Zernik
11 particularly offensive, since it included a false and deliberately misleading statement, which
12 upon review, the court may deem fraud by the Counsel for the LA Superior Court, and by the
13 Clerk of the Court, on whose behalf such statement was made.
14 The statement in the July 29, 2009 Counsel Bennett letter said:
15 Finally, as a convenience, you can also access the Register of Actions for this case
on line at the Court's web site, LASuperior Court.org, which also presents a
16 summary of all of the pleadings, orders and hearings in the case, and by registering
17 and paying the fee permitted by the California Rules of Court, you may download
and print copies of the pleadings and orders.
18
Another statement in the same letter may also be deemed misleading:
19
These Rules of Court generally require that all electronic records be made
20 "reasonably available to the public in some form, whether in electronic or in paper
form, except those that are sealed or made confidential by law." Rule 2.503(a). The
21 Rules of Court do not require electronic records to be made available In all forms.
22 In fact, the Rules mandate that many electronic records be made available only at
the courthouse and not over the Internet. Rule 2.503(c).
23 Generally, registers of actions, calendars, and indexes are required to be made
available over the
24 Internet "to the extent it is feasible to do so." Rille 2..503(b). "Feasible" is defined to
mean that a court is required to provide such access "to the extent that it determines
25 it has the resources and technical capacity to do so."
This Court has done that and these matters are available to the extent the court has
26 determined it has the resources and technical capacity to do so on the Court's web
site: LASliperiorCourt.org.
27
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
5/44
 1 These longwinded paragraphs generate the misleading impression that Dr Zernik
2 insisted or expected Internet access to the Register of Actions.
3 Such was never the case. On the contrary, Dr Zernik always expected that such
4 access would be provided only on location, since no provisions were made for internet
5 access to Sustain as of this date.
6 These longwinded paragraphs may also generate the misleading impression that Dr
7 Zernik was provided the opportunity to access the records on location and rejected that
8 opportunity.
9 Such was never the case either. Counsel Bennett was in fact denying any form of
10 access to litigation records, with no legal foundation at all.
11 These longwinded paragraphs may also generate the misleading impression that the
12 law allows the court under any circumstances to deny access to litigation records to party and
13 counsel, under the claim of limits per " the extent it is feasible to do so.”.
14 That is not the case at all. The law prohibits denial of access to litigation records to
15 parties and counsel in litigation. Such denial of access ,must be deemed severe violation of
16 Civil Rights and Due Process, and should be deemed sufficient grounds for mistrial. Dr
17 Zernik finds himself in repeated disbelief that he is compelled for the third year in a row to
18 fight for his right to inspect court records, with little success if any.
19 The fact that the Counsel for the Court issues such letter on behalf of the Clerk of the
20 Court is an affront to both justice and decency.
21
22 4) It was the offensive denial letters by Counsel Bennett that hinted to Dr Zernik that
he should look more closely at the Sturgeon records, and led him to find evidence of
23 alleged fraud there.
24
To start out, Dr Zernik asked to review the Register of Actions since it is the simplest,
25
more specifically the only way he knows of figuring out the litigation course at the LA
26
Superior Court. There is no comparable instrument, except for reading the whole court file
27
side to side, and then again, you may not be able to get it clearly without the Register of
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
6/44
 1 Actions. It is also clear to Dr Zernik why the Court denies him access to particular cases,
2 both electronic and on paper – since such cases involve alleged frauds by the court.
3 However, Dr Zernik assumed, wrongly, that based on Judicial Watch participation,
4 Sturgeon v LA County would be characterized by perfect observance of the law. It was the
5 offensive denial of access by Counsel Bennett that suggested to Dr Zernik that he better
6 inspect the records more closely, and led to findings that convinced him that like other cases
7 he identified in the past, instant case was largely compromised, as described in attached
8 motions.
9 DATED: August 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
10 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
11
12
13
14
By: _________________________________
15 Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Filer
16 1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
17 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
18
19 V.

20 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

21 1. In Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) the U.S. Supreme Court re-
affirmed Common Law, First, Fifth (here Fourteenth), and Sixth Amendments
22 rights to access court records to inspect and to copy, to publish such records, and
that the right for public trial and for due process are in part hinged on such rights
23
24 The background to the Supreme Court’s decision was in impeachment trial of the
25 President of the United States, and criminal litigations involving some of his staff. In the
26 course of such events the infamous tapes (voice recordings) were filed in court. Warner
27 Communications, Inc, was interested in gaining access to such evidence in order to make use of
28 such materials of interest to wide audiences in its business. In its decision the U.S. Supreme

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
7/44
 1 Court re-affirmed the Common Law right for access to court records to inspect and to copy- a
2 right that is much older than the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments with roots in Common
3 Law. The same right was found as required for the exercise of other rights in the Amendments
4 – the right to publish court records, the right for public trial and the right for due process.
5 Of particular interest is the fact that the decision was related to court records in
6 electronic form – magnetic tapes. Nowhere in the discussion did the U.S. Supreme Court
7 distinguish between paper records and electronic records.
8
9 2. After the introduction of computerized case management systems at the LA
Superior Court (~1985) the Court developed the flawed theory that the public was
10 not allowed access to such litigation records, and that Sustain was eligible for a
11 “Privileged” status.
12 In visits to the LA Superior Courts Underground Archives on Hill street, Dr Zernik was
13 able to inspect and to copy with no problem at all the Registers of Actions, Judgments,
14 Calendars of the Courts, of the LA Superior Court prior to approximately 1985. Exhibit 2 is a
15 copy of a random page of Register of Action that was open on the counter when at that time.
16 Only after introduction of Sustain, the court’s case management system, did the LA
17 Superior Court develop the theory that such records were off limits to the public. In an ex parte
18 appearance on or about early September, 2007, before the Supervising Judge of the West
19 District, Judge Gerald Rosenberg denied my request to access my own litigation records in
20 Sustain with the claim:
21 “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only.”
22 On or about October 16, 2007, I called the office of the then Presiding Judge, Stephen
23 Czuleger, and the office staff member, Cynthia, answered my questions regarding access to
24 Sustain with the very same words:
25 “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only.”
26 On another occasion, Wendy, the secretary in the office of John A Clarke, Executive
27 Officer/Clerk of the Court explained to me that I would not gain access to Sustain records of
28 my own case, because they are “internal records of the court”,

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
8/44
 1 3. The flawed theory invented by the LA Superior Court is groundless. In fact, the
law is diametrically the opposite.
2
3 California Law and Rules of Courts prescribe that the courts provide public access to
4 judicial records that are trial court litigation records, including, but not limited to electronic
5 records and digital signatures.
6 California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500 et seq say:
7 Chapter 2. Public Access to Electronic Trial Court Records
Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose
8 Rule 2.501. Application and scope
Rule 2.502. Definitions
9 Rule 2.503. Public access
Rule 2.504. Limitations and conditions
10 Rule 2.505. Contracts with vendors
Rule 2.506. Fees for electronic access
11 Rule 2.507. Electronic access to court calendars, indexes, and registers of
actions
12 Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose
(a) Intent
13
The rules in this chapter are intended to provide the public with reasonable
14 access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form, while
protecting privacy interests.
15 (b) Benefits of electronic access
Improved technologies provide courts with many alternatives to the historical
16 paper-based record receipt and retention process, including the creation and
use of court records maintained in electronic form. Providing public access to
17 trial court records that are maintained in electronic form may save the courts
and the public time, money, and effort and encourage courts to be more
18 efficient in their operations. Improved access to trial court records may also
foster in the public a more comprehensive understanding of the trial court
19 system.
(c) No creation of rights
20 The rules in this chapter are not intended to give the public a right of access
21 to any record that they are not otherwise entitled to access. The rules do not
create any right of access to records that are sealed by court order or
22 confidential as a matter of law.
(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
23 Rule 2.500 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as
rule 2070 effective July 1, 2002.
24 Advisory Committee Comment
The rules in this chapter acknowledge the benefits that electronic court
25 records provide but attempt to limit the potential for unjustified intrusions into
the privacy of individuals involved in litigation that can occur as a result of
26 remote access to electronic court records. The proposed rules take into
account the limited resources currently available in the trial courts. It is
27 contemplated that the rules may be modified to provide greater electronic
28 access as the courts’ technical capabilities improve and with the knowledge

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
9/44
 1 gained from the experience of the courts in providing electronic access under
these rules.
2 Rule 2.501. Application and scope
(a) Application
3 The rules in this chapter apply only to trial court records.
(Subd (a) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as
4 subd (b) effective July 1, 2002.)
(b) Access by parties and attorneys
5 The rules in this chapter apply only to access to court records by the public.
They do not limit access to court records by a party to an action or
6
proceeding, by the attorney of a party, or by other persons or entities that are
7 entitled to access by statute or rule.
(Subd (b) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as
8 subd (c) effective July 1, 2002.)
Rule 2.501 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as
9 rule 2017 effective July 1, 2002.

10
4. The reasoning provided to Dr Zernik for the denial of access “Sustain is privileged-
11 for the court only” is alleged to be on its face in violation of the law – as an
12 Unpublished Rule of Court.

13 The rule that was made up and communicated to Dr Zernik by Supervising Judge Gerald
14 Rosenberg is alleged as severe violation of the Rule Making Enabling Act. It is first – a Local
15 Rule of Court that is unpublished, and second – a rule of court of tremendous significance,
16 which was never posted for public comment and challenge as required by California law.
17 The California Rule Making Enabling Act, CCP §575.1 says:
18 575.1. (a) The presiding judge of each superior court may prepare,
with the assistance of appropriate committees of the court, proposed
19 local rules designed to expedite and facilitate the business of the
court. The rules need not be limited to those actions on the civil
20 active list, but may provide for the supervision and judicial
management of actions from the date they are filed. Rules prepared
21
pursuant to this section shall be submitted for consideration to the
22 judges of the court and, upon approval by a majority of the judges,
the judges shall have the proposed rules published and submitted to
23 the local bar and others, as specified by the Judicial Council, for
consideration and recommendations.
24 (b) After a majority of the judges have officially adopted the
rules, they shall be filed with the Judicial Council as required by
25 Section 68071 of the Government Code and as specified in rules
adopted by the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council shall
26 prescribe rules to ensure that a complete current set of local rules
and amendments, for each county in the state, is made available for
27 public examination in each county. The local rules shall also be
published for general distribution in accordance with rules adopted
28
by the Judicial Council. Each court shall make its local rules

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
10/44
 1 available for inspection and copying in every location of the court
that generally accepts filing of papers. The court may impose a
2 reasonable charge for copying the rules and may impose a reasonable
page limit on copying. The rules shall be accompanied by a notice
3 indicating where a full set of the rules may be purchased.
(c) If a judge of a court adopts a rule that applies solely to
4 cases in that judge's courtroom, or a particular branch or district
of a court adopts a rule that applies solely to cases in that
5 particular branch or district of a court, the court shall publish
these rules as part of the general publication of rules required by
6
the California Rules of Court. The court shall organize the rules so
7 that rules on a common subject, whether individual, branch,
district, or courtwide appear sequentially. Individual judges' rules
8 and branch and district rules are local rules of court for purposes
of this section and for purposes of the adoption, publication,
9 comment, and filing requirements set forth in the Judicial Council
rules applicable to local court rules.
10
11 5. One of the main alleged violations of the law in the mode of operation of Sustain as
12 “privileged” is that the system in fact is an assembly of unpublished Rules of Court.

13 One of the most severe alleged violations of the law involved in the operation of Sustain at
14 the LA Superior Court in the past quarter century is that the system, by definition, as a
15 computer program, is an assembly of rules. And since in this instance the program is a case
16 management program, the system is in fact an assembly of Local Rules of Court, albeit - an
17 assembly of unpublished Rules of Court.
18 As described in the attached motions, in the past quarter century, the LA Superior Court
19 never bothered to update its published Local Rules of Court on some central issues, including,
20 but not limited to the Entry of Judgment. The outcome is that the Published Rules of Court are
21 irrelevant at best, but in fact are false and deliberately misleading They would convince any
22 naïve reader and even a legally competent reader that particular Rules of Court govern the
23 Entry of Judgment at the LA Superior Court in compliance with the California Law, and that
24 public records are provided for inspection of entered Judgments. That is not the case at all.
25 On the other hand, the court developed Unpublished Rules of Court, albeit, such rules may
26 be applied at will and in a very flexible manner. For example – while Dr Zernik believes that
27 he knows at least the outline of the current unpublished secretive Rule of Court in re: Entry of
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
11/44
 1 Judgment, it is clear to him that even senior Clerks that he discussed the issue with are entirely
2 confused and cannot figure out which judgments are entered and when.
3 In short – as discussed in more detail in the attached motions, the LA Superior Court
4 managed to ambiguate one of the most critical records of any court – its judgments, which are
5 meant to become the Law of the Land, to the point that judges can find in them whatever suits
6 their need, whenever it fits their needs. It is such conditions that enabled the alleged real estate
7 frauds in Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish, as detailed in the attached motions.
8
6. Dr Zernik was surprised that the LA Superior Court would deny access to
9 litigation records in a high visibility case such as Sturgeon v LA County, especially
10 when Judicial Watch, which has a special program on open records, is counsel for
Plaintiff.
11
12 From past research, Dr Zernik was aware of the fact that Judicial Watch nationwide, has a

13 special project on “open records”, since transparency is known as the most effective safeguard

14 against corruption. Therefore, Dr Zernik expected that in Sturgeon v LA County there would

15 be no denial of access to public records. Dr Zernik was surprised to realize that Judicial Watch

16 in most likelihood never say the true litigation records of Sturgeon v LA County to this date.

17
18 7. Dr Zernik included the request for an order to allow access to records in the ex
parte application, since it is a pre-requisite for substantiating his claims in the
19 attached motions with complete detailed evidence.
Following careful review of accessible records, Dr Zernik is convinced that the LA Superior
20
21 Court engaged in alleged fraud in litigation records of Sturgeon v LA County. However, Dr
Zernik was only able to estimate the outline of such frauds. For example, it is very likely that
22
the Register of Actions would provide evidence for alleged fraud in re: the nature of Justice
23
24 James A Richman involvement in instant case.
In order to make his position in the attached motions reasonable, Dr Zernik considered
25
himself compelled to gain access to the Register of Action prior to the hearing of such motions.
26
27 Shortly after gaining such access Dr Zernik would notify the court if he believes that he would

28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
12/44
 1 need to file an update and ask the court for adjustment of any schedule that the court may set
2 for such review.
3
4 8. For all the reasons listed above, Dr Zernik urges the Court to grant his ex parte
application for: An order on the Clerk of the Court to allow access to court records
5 in Sturgeon v LA County pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc
6 (1978); A declaratory order that the online “Case Summary” is not the Register of
Actions, and - Leave to file the attached papers in same case as an Interested Party.
7
8 Granting such requests will further the cause of justice, and would likely form the first

9 step in much needed reform in the LA Superior Court compliance with the law. In case that the

10 court denies such elementary requests, Dr Zernik requests that the Court provide reasonable

11 explanation for such denials. Dr Zernik believes that rulings that are on their face contrary to

12 the law, and come with no explanation at all maybe deemed upon review as willful misconduct.

13 DATED: August 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

14 JOSEPH H ZERNIK

15
16
17
18
By: _________________________________
19 Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Filer
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750
20
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
21 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
22
23
VI.
24
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH H ZERNIK
25
I , Joseph H Zernik, declare as follows:
26
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein which I know to be true and
27
correct and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
13/44
 1 thereto. This declaration is submitted in connection with my Ex Parte Application for
2 Leave to File Papers as Interested Party in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) at the LA
3 Superior Court.
4 2. On or about July 27, 2009 I called the San Francisco Court of Justice James A Richman,
5 to explore the possibility of filing papers in the then pending Motions for Summary
6 Judgments in Sturgeon v LA County.
7 3. Assistant in the San Francisco court, Ms Susan Scanlon O’Rourke referred me to Mr
8 Gregory Drapac, Senior Administrator in the LA Superior Court’s Clerk’s office as the
9 coordinator for instant case.
10 4. Later that day I also received an email from Ms Scanlon O’Rourke to the same effect.
11 Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of such email note.
12 5. On or about July 27, 2009 I also called Mr Drapac, as instructed. Mr Drapac informed
13 me that he discussed the issue with the San Francisco Court, and that accordingly, I was
14 to serve and file my application at the LA Superior Court (Room 102) and provide a copy
15 for Mr Drapac (Room 109). Mr Drapac informed me that he would forward the
16 application to the Justice James A Richman, and that I would be further instructed
17 following decision of Justice Richman in the matter.
18 6. I am informed and believe that the evidence I have is important in the consideration of
19 Sturgeon v LA County, and that agencies of LA County, such as the Sheriff’s Department
20 and the Office of Registrar/Recorder collude with the LA Superior Court in wrongdoing.
21 7. I have amassed in the last couple of years a large volume of evidence regarding such
22 alleged wrongdoing. Only small fraction of it is presented in the attached motions.
23 8. I am informed that the LA Superior Court is the largest Superior Court in the U.S.,
24 serving the most populous county in the U.S. with over 10 million residents.
25 9. I believe that the evidence, upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, is likely to
26 lead to rulings that the LA Superior Court is involved in large-scale, long-term violations
27 of Civil Rights pursuant to the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Human Rights
28 pursuant to International Law, and that such wrongdoing is largely facilitated and enabled

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
14/44
 1 through the alleged fraudulent use of case management system combined with denial of
2 access to court records.
3 10. On or about July 27, 2009 I filed a request with Mr Drapac to access litigation records in
4 instant case, so that I would be readily familiar with the litigation, and on that day and the
5 following day as well, I received responses, not from the Clerk’s office, as expected, but
6 from the office of the Counsel for the Court, denying access to pertinent litigation
7 records.
8 11. After I received such adamant denials, I explored available records more closely, and
9 indeed found credible evidence of wrongdoing, as detailed in attached motions.
10 12. I learned only a few days later, that on July 27, 2009 Justice James A Richman also
11 issued his first decision regarding the Motions for Summary Judgments then pending.
12 13. In visits to the LA Superior Courts Underground Archives on Hill street, I was able to
13 inspect and to copy with no problem at all the Registers of Actions, Judgments, Calendars
14 of the Courts, of the LA Superior Court prior to approximately 1985. Exhibit 2 is a true
15 and correct copy of a random page of Register of Action that was open on the counter
16 during one of my visits.
17 14. In an ex parte appearance on or about early September, 2007, before the Supervising
18 Judge of the West District, Judge Gerald Rosenberg, denied access to my own litigation
19 records in Sustain with the claim:
20 “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only.”\
21 15. On or about October 16, 2007, I called the office of the then Presiding Judge, Stephen
22 Czuleger, and the office staff member, Cynthia, answered my questions regarding access
23 to Sustain with the very same words:
24 “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only.”
25 16. On another occasion, Wendy, the secretary in the office of John A Clarke, Executive
26 Officer/Clerk of the Court explained to me that I would not gain access to Sustain records
27 of my own case, because they are “internal records of the court”,
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
15/44
 1 17. My conclusions regarding alleged frauds in the litigation records of Sturgeon v LA
2 County are based on very limited access. I need full access, as guaranteed by law, in
3 order to make my arguments in the attached motions fully substantiated.
4 I make this declaration under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of
5 California and the United States.
6 Signed here in La Verne on the 6th of August, 2009.
7
8
9 _______________________________________
10 Joseph H Zernik
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 VII
19 PROPOSED ORDERS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
16/44
 1
2 Joseph H Zernik
Pro Se Interested Party
3 PO Box 526, LV CA 91750
Tel: (323) 515-4583;
4
Fax: (801) 998-0917
5 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
HAROLD STURGEON, )
10 Plaintiff/Petitioner ) Case No: BC351286
)
11 v )
) [PROPOSED] ORDERS:
12 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ) 1. ORDER ON THE CLERK OF THE
) COURT TO ALLOW ACCESS TO
13 Defendant/Respondent ) COURT RECORDS IN STURGEON V
)
14 and ) LA COUNTY PURSUANT TO NIXON
) V WARNER COMMUNICATIONS,
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) INC (1978);
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS )
16 ANGELES, ) 2. DECLARATORY ORDER THAT THE
) ONLINE “CASE SUMMARY” IS NOT
Intervenor .
17 ) THE REGISTER OF ACTIONS, AND
_____________________________________ )
3. LEAVE TO FILE PAPERS IN SAME
18
CASE AS AN INTERESTED PARTY
19
20 PRO SE FILER JOSEPH ZERNIK’s ex parte application for Court orders to in
21 Sturgeon v LA County, came for review before the Court on _______ , 2009.
22
23 1. Order on the Clerk of the Court to allow access to court records in Sturgeon v LA County
24 pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) is GRANTED: The Clerk of
25 the LA Superior Court is herein ordered to allow Dr Zernik forthwith access to litigation
26 records of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) which are the Register of Actions and
27 Minute Orders in Sustain, the case management system of the LA Superior Court.
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
17/44
 1 2. Declaratory order that the online “Case Summary” is not the Register of Actions is
2 GRANTED: The Register of Actions of the LA Superior Court is a document that is
3 titled at times “Case History” and other times “Register of Actions”. The Register of
4 Actions is the definitive litigation record at the Superior Courts. It is not provided by the
5 LA Superior Court online. The record that is provided online is titled “Case History”,
6 and it comes with a disclaimer that states that it is NOT and official court record.
7 Therefore, the two records must not be confused.
8 3. Leave to file papers in same case as an Interested Party is GRANTED: Motions were
9 already served on the parties. The Clerk of the Court shall notice parties that opposing
10 papers by parties, if any, are due by ________, 2009, and reply by Interested Party
11 Joseph Zernik, if any, is due by ________, 2009. Hearing is scheduled for ______, at
12 ____, in Department _____, _________.
13 Within 48 hours from gaining access to records as noted above, Interested Party shall file
14 with the serve and file update, if any, and the court will accordingly review the hearing
15
schedule noted above.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:________________________
18
19
_____________________________________
20
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS

Case No. BC351286
18/44
 1 VIII.
2 EXHIBITS
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1
PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS
Case No. BC351286
19/44 EXHIBIT 1
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

09-07-27 Email Correspondence with San Francisco Court of Justice James A Richman

A. JULY 27, 2009 RESPONSE FROM MS O’ROURKE SCANLON TO

PHONE INQUIRY OF SAME DATE
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
From: "ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" <Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov>
To: "jz12345@earthlink.net" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:39:00 -0700
Subject: Sturgeon v. Los Angeles, BC351286
Thread-Topic: Sturgeon v. Los Angeles, BC351286
Thread-Index: AcoO4SBjXTf/G9ZZRgyagcAwvo7yzw==
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-ELNK-Received-Info: spv=0;
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Joseph,
Greg Drapac is the clerk at LA Superior Court who is working on the case.

Thank you,

Suzanne ORourke Scanlon

Judicial Assistant to th Hon. James A. Richman
(415) 865-7232

20/44 EXHIBIT 1
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2
PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS
Case No. BC351286
21/44 EXHIBIT-2
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

00-00-00-us-la-sup-ct-sturgeion-v-county-09-07-28-drapac-access –to –records

09-07-28- In re: Sturgeon v County (BC351286), request to access judicial records to inspect and to
copy pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)

Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org

Mr Drapac:

The San Francisco Court of Justice Richman informed me that you are the local coordinator for
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). As such, I request that you coordinate direct access to
electronic litigation records of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) pursuant to Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the Common Law and
First Amendment rights of public access to judicial records to inspect and to copy.

Please let me know as soon as possible of the time and place where I will be provided such
access. Request is for access to inspect and to copy electronic records of Sturgeon v LA County
(BC351286) in Sustain, which are:
1) Register of Actions/Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
2) Minute Orders of the case – as they appear in Sustain;
3) Book of Judgments – if any exists in LA County, and in its absence – entry of judgment
registration in the Register of Actions/ Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
4) Index of All Cases – in Sustain;
5) Calendars of All Courts – in Sustain.

Furthermore, in order to allow reasonable reading of such records in Sustain, additional request
is for access to inspect and to copy the following LA Superior Court records:
1) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, which explicitly provide the Local
Rules of LA County Superior Court, today in force and effect in LA Superior Court, for
Entry of Judgment and for Notice of Entry of Judgment;
2) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide lists of words, or “Dictionary” for Sustain, i.e. which values are
valid entries for the various variables (E.g. Motion, Order, etc). In other words – which are
the valid menu options, recognized as valid entries by Sustain for the various field which are
variable for data entry.
3) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide explanation for the meaning of Date of Entry of Minutes such as
“00/00/00” or “33/33/33”.
4) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which the LA Superior Court is allowed to modify or
alter the Case History/Register of Actions in Sustain, and notice to parties, if any, of such
nunc pro tunc alterations.
5) Rules of Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which some cases at the LA Superior Court will lists
monies paid by parties as: “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”, etc, while in
other cases, all such moneys are listed as “Journal Entry”. It is further requested that Rules

22/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 2/3 July 28, 2009

of Court be provided as to the final disposition of funds that were originally designated
“Journal Entry”.
6) Rules of Court, published in Compliance with the law, or in their absence – Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which some cases at LA Superior Court will list each
action with its corresponding termination, while other cases at the LA Superior Court will
allow all actions to remain unterminated.

Joseph Zernik

____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

CC:

Court of Justice Richman:

Suzanne ORourke Scanlon

Judicial Assistant to th Hon. James A. Richman
(415) 865-7232
"ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" <Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov>

Parties and Counsel in Sturgeon v County (BC351286):

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
501 School Street, SW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Sterling E. Norris, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive
Suite 201
San Marino, CA 91108
Tel.: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 3/3 July 28, 2009

Elwood Lui, Esq.

Brian Hershman, Esq.
DAY JONES
555 South Flower Street
50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
bhershman@jonesday.com
Attorneys for Defendants

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.

Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Attorney for Intervenor

MM

24/44 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-28 1258 PM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 1/2

Superior Court of California.

County of Los Angeles
Court Counsel
111 North Hill Street, Suite 546
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone (213) 893-1224
Facsimile (213) 625-3964

FAX COVER SHEET

DATE: 7/28/09 TOTAL PAGES (including coversheet): d:l--

TO: JOSEPH ZERNICK FAX NO.: (801) 998-0917

FROM: FREDERICK R. BENNETT

Court Counsel

RE: Electronic Access - Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles

Please see attached.

IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US

IMMEDIATELY AT THE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE.
confidontlatlty Notlce~ This m~ssaga, Includlna anyetmchmeme, 15 lbr till:sole mil: of lhCl Intended Nclphmt(s) and mayCORwin confidcntiEl.1 lind
privilcJI,od information. Anyunauthorized review, usa,disclosure or di!ltributlon Isprohibited. Iryou are not tha intended reclplcnt, please
c:ontnet thesenderanddestroy nilcopies altho original message,
25/44 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-28 1258 PM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 2/2

4Liis~i""""
/;:'''''I-*'''~~'.lii.N{l~,'~ FReoeRICK R. BeNN8T
I~''';~ ,'1;",<., COUIlTCOUN5el Superior Court of California
~~~ ~," ~\~ i'ii'NO:::R::IH':":H':::ll':"'lS::m::e::ET~.S~UIT::e-=54':":6~-------~----::::-"":""':"'_-~:----fo"":"-::---
"',I.~ I /.i!5 lOSANGclc5,CA90012.3014 Oounty of Los A~eles
"<>... ,,;W 12131 693-1224 Fex: (2131 625·3964
'<~~:.~~~Y

July 28, 2009

Joseph Zernik Via Facsimile to (801) 998-0917

Re: Request for electronic access to pleadings in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC351286..

Dear Mr. Zernik:

Yourfacsimile and email to Los Angeles Superior Court Clerk Gregory Drapac was referred
to me for response.

Motions in pending cases must be filed in writing in accordance withthe California Rules of
Court. California Rule of Court 2.118 provides that the clerkof the courtmustnot accept for filing
or file any papers that do not comply with the California Rules of Court, Rules 2,I00 to 2.119.
California Rule of Court 2.118(a). California Rules of Court may be accessed at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/

Similarly, requests for court documents should be made in person 01' by letter. I do not
respond to email requests from other than court personnel. Such requests should also be submitted
in writing.

With regard to yourrequest for electronic access to pleadings in the Sturgeon litigation,
access to the court's electronic records aregoverned by California Rules of Court, Rule 2.500, and
following. Under those Rules the court may, but is not required to permit access to scanned
pleadings. When access to scanned pleadings is provided, Rule 2.506 permits the Court to impose
fees for such access,

In implementing these Rules, the Los Angeles Superior Court permits free access without
fee to paper files and available scanned pleadings at the courthouse where they are on file without
fee. Printed copies of either thepaperfiles or electronic copies are provided for a fee of fifty cents
a page. Alternatively, and as a convenience, you may view the court's registers of actions and
summaries of cases without fee on line at the court's web page, and may review, download and print
pleadings in most Central District Civil cases, including the Sturgeon case, by registering and
paying the fee therefor: httll://www.1asuperiorcourt,org!

rederick R. Bennett
Court Counsel

c: Gregory Drapac

26/44 EXHIBIT-2
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

00-00-00-us-la-sup-ct-sturgeion-v-county-09-07-28-drapac-access –to –records

09-07-28- In re: Sturgeon v County (BC351286), 2nd request to access judicial records to inspect
and to copy pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)

Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org
Tel: 213 974 5201
Fax: 213 625 8536
(by fax and by email)

Mr Drapac:

This is the second request to access the electronic Register of Actions of Sturgeon v County
(BC351286) in Sustain the Court’s case management system. You informed me today that Mr
Bennett , Counsel for the Court, responded on your behalf to my request earlier today.

That is not the case.

Mr Bennett wrote extensively regarding scanned pleadings, etc, but nowhere in his letter did he
address the issue of access to Register of Actions in Sustain, the official litigation record of the
LA Superior Court in Sturgeon v LA County.

I again request that you inform me when and where I would be able to access litigation records
in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which are the Register of Actions, Book of Judgments (If
any exists), Calendars of the Courts, and Minute Orders in Sustain, the electronic case
management system of the LA Superior Court.

Joseph Zernik

____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

CC:

27/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 2/3 July 28, 2009

Court of Justice Richman:

Suzanne ORourke Scanlon

Judicial Assistant to th Hon. James A. Richman
(415) 865-7232
"ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" <Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov>

Parties and Counsel in Sturgeon v County (BC351286):

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
501 School Street, SW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Sterling E. Norris, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive
Suite 201
San Marino, CA 91108
Tel.: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Elwood Lui, Esq.

Brian Hershman, Esq.
DAY JONES
555 South Flower Street
50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
bhershman@jonesday.com
Attorneys for Defendants

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.

Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Attorney for Intervenor

MM

28/44 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-29 1007 AM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 1/7

---------_ .. _--_._..
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Court Counsel
III North Hill Street, Suite 546
LosAngeles, California 90012
Telephone (213) 893-1224
Facsimile (213) 625-3964

FAX COVER SHEET

DATE: 7/29/09 TOTAL PAGES (including coversheet): -r

TO: JOSEPH ZERNICK FAX NO.: (801) 998-0917

FROM: FREDERICK R. BENNETT

Court Counsel

RE: Request forAccess to Records - Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles

Please see attached.

IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US

IMMEDIATELY AT THE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE.
Canndenthillty Notice; This massagQ,lncludlng any enacbmeus, Isfur tho solousaof till' Intended reclplent(s) and may contain confldentlaland
privileged inforrnation. Anyunauthorized review, USQ, disclosure ordistribution Isprohibited. If youare nottheintended recipient, please
contact the .ender 'nd de.troy .lIeopie. orthe origin.1 m....go.
29/44 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-29 1007 AM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 2/7

FREDERICK R. BENNETT
COUIlT COUNSEL Superior Court oj California
111 NORTH HILL smm. SUITE 546
lOSANGELES. CA90012·3014
County oj'Los AngeZr-
es -
(2131893·1224 FOX: (2131 625·3964

July29, 2009

Joseph Zernik Via Facsimile to (801) 998-0917

Re: July28,2009, Request for access to litigation records in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC351286, and other cases.

Dear Mr. Zemik:

Your attached facsimile to Los Angeles Superior Court Clerk Gregory Drapac was referred to me for
response.

In this communication, yourequest thatyoube provided direct access to electronic litigation records in
Sturgeon v, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior COUlt casenumber BC3S1286, andothercases
under claimed Common Law andconstitutional rights of access to court records. You seekto inspect andcopy
thecourt's entire Sustain electronic databaserelated to the Register of Actions/Case history, Minute Orders,
Book of Judgements, Index and Calendars of all courts. Finally, you ask forpublished copies of'theRules of
Court, or in their absence, a copy of the Sustain Manual to assist you in understanding the Sustain electronic
databaseyou have requested.

These requests for court records arenot matters thatcan be resolved by the clerk forthejudicial officer
handling a specific case. Rather, public records requests such as yours should be directed to the custodian of
therecords, which is the Executive Officer/Clerk of theCourt, who hasrequested that I respond to your
requests on hisbehalf.

In responding to this inquiry, I have become aware thatyouhave made a number of othersimilar
requests relating to other cases overthe pasttwo years, many of which have been responded to by my
colleague, D. Brett Bianco. I also notethat youhave many pending cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
the Court of Appeal for the State of California, Second Appellate District, and at least one case pending in the
U.S. District Court against a number of Los Angeles Superior Court judges, personnel andothers, thatmay
relate in various ways to many of yourrequests. Reviewing the U.S. District Court docket forJoseph Zernik v.
Judge Jacqueline Connor, et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California casenumber, CY08-I550, it appears
thatthe U.S. Magistrate recommended dismissing thataction on March 31, 2009, thatthe recommendation was
accepted by the District Court Judge on April 24,2009, andthatJudgement was entered on thatsame date
dismissing yourfederal claims withprejudice, andyourstateclaims without prejudice.

I have reviewed these matters to see if I could distill down more specifically whatyou were seeking
from the court so that I might be able to determine a feasible way to getyou what you are seeking.

Sturgeon documents: All of the pleadings, minute orders, andotherorders in the Sturgeon litigation
are public documents available for inspection andcopying by the public. A review of the matter does not
indicate thatanypleadings or orders have been sealed. Thepaper file for this case should be available for
inspection andcopying at the courthouse when the fileis not in useby thejudge, his clerk, or other members of
the public. In addition, those court records have also been scanned into electronic format and areviewable over
thepubllc electronic access terminals at thecourthouse, and copies of the pleadings maybe ordered. Finally, as
a convenience, you can also access the Register of Actions forthiscaseon line at the Court's web site,
LASuperiorCourt.org, which also presents a summary of all of thepleadings, orders and hearings in the case,

30/44 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-29 1007 AM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 3/7

Joseph July 28,2009, Request for access to litigation records in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC35 1286, andother cases.
July 29, 2009
Page: 2

andby registering andpaying the fee permitted by the California Rules of Court, youmay download andprint
copies ofthe pleadings andorders.

Inreviewing some of your pastcommunications to the court, it appears thatthere may be some
confusion as to the nature ofthe scanned electronic copies of thepleadings thatthe court makes available at the
public Sustain terminals andoverthe Internet, These documents were not electronically filed as permitted by
California Rules of Court Rules 2.250, and following. Thedocuments were filed as paper documents, andthen,
as is the practice formost civil cases in the Central District of the Court, butnot for other Districts, the paper
documents were scanned into electronic fermat, Asa result, andcontrary to a contention youhave made in
prior communications, these documents andcourt records are not governed by the provisions of California Rule
of'Court 2.254, or other provisions of Chapter 2 or Division 2 of the California Rules of Court. With certain
case specific exceptions permitted in certain complex litigation, which does not include the Sturgeon case, the
only pleadings thatare filed electronically in the Los Angeles Superior Court arecertain small claims actions.

Electronic court records generally aregoverned by Chapter 2 of Division 4 of the California Rules of
Court, Rules 2.500 andfollowing. Unlike Rille 2.254, which deals with pleadings electronically filed by the
parties in lieu of paper pleadings, these rules deal with themore general subject of electronic records,
regardless of themanner in which It has been computerized. See Rule 2.502(2).

These Rules of Court generally require thatall electronic records be made "reasonably available to the
public in some form, whether in electronic or in paper form, except those thatare sealed or made confidential
by law." Rule 2.503(a). TheRules of Court do notrequire electronic records to be made available In all forms.
In fact, the Rules mandate thatmany electronic records be made available only at the courthouse andnot over
the Internet. Rule 2.503(c).

Generally, registers of actions, calendars, and indexes arerequired to be made available overthe
Internet "to the extent it is feasible to do so." Rille 2..503(b). "Feasible" is defined to mean thata court is
required to provide such access "to the extent thatit determines it has theresources and technical capacity to do
so." This Court has done thatandthese matters areavailable to the extent the court has determined it has the
resources and technical capacity to do so on the Court's web site: LASliperiorCourt.org.

Bulkaccess to electronic records: With regard to bulk access to electronic court records such as you
have requested, the Rules of Court provide thata court "may" but is not required to provide such access. Rule
2.503(g). In this regard, this court generally follows the holding of Westbrook v. County ofLos Angeles (1994)
27 Cal.AppAth 157. As thatcaseholds, there is a qualitative difference between obtaining information
from a hand search of court files, and obtaining information from electronic data. It is the aggregate
and easily collated and manipulated nature of electronic data that warrants its difference in treatment
from access to court files.

None of the cases or authorities thatyou have provided require the court to provide youelectronic
access to therecords youhave described. Nordo such authorities give youdirect access to the court's Sustain
system or bulk distribution of all or a significant subset of the court's electronic records. Accordingly, your
request in this regard is denied.

31/44 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-29 1007 AM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 4/7

Joseph July28,2009, Request fur access to litigation records in Sturgeon v, County of Los Angeles,
LASC Case number BC351286, andother cases.
July29,2009
Page: 3

Rules of Court: California Rules of Court may be accessed at: htto://wWW.coul1info.ca.govlrules/ The
Local Rules of the Court are available at: http://lasuperiorcourt.org/

Motions in Sturgeon or other cases: Motions, including ex parte motions, andmotions to intervene
in pending cases must be filed in accordance with the California Rules of Court andthe statutory fees must be
paid. California Rule of Court 2.118 provides thatthe clerk of the court must not accept for filing or file any
papers thatdo notcomply with the California Rules of Court, Rules 2.100 to 2.119. California Rule of Court
2.118(a).

Very truly yours,

~:::~
Court Counsel

c: John A. Clarke
Gregory Drapac
D. Brett Bianco

32/44 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-29 1007 AM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 5/7

To: Pas.SofS 2000.07-2" 12:41:20 (GMT) Prom: Joeeph zernlk

Joseph Zemik DMDPhD

Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jl12346@earthlink.net; ~O Box 626, La verne. CA91760

OO.OO·OO-us-la••up.ct-sIu'll.lon-v-<:ounty-09-01-28-d",pa.,.access -to - reCOI'II.

09-07-28- In re: StIU'geon V COlUlty (BC351286), request to access judicialrecords to Inspect and to
copy pursuant to Nixon v Wamer Communications, Inc (1978)

GregoryDrapac
Superior Court ofCalifomill
AdministmtorII
gdrapac@1l1/Juperiorco\ut.org

Mr Drapac:

TheSanFrancisco Court ofJustice Richman informed methatyou arethe local coordinator for
Sturgeon v LAConnty (BC35 1286). As such, I request thatyou coordinate direct access to
electronic litigation records ofSturgeon v LACounty (BC35 1286) pursuant to Nixon v Warner
Communications. Inc(1978), where the U.S. Supreme COUlt re-affirmed the Common Law and
FirstAmendment rights of public access tojudicialrecords to inspect andto copy.

Please let meknow as soon as possible of thetime and place where I willbe provided such
access. Request is for access to inspect and to copy electronic records ofSturgeon v LACounly
(BC351286) in Sustain, which are:
1) Register of Actions/Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
2) Minute Orders of the ease - as they appear in Sustain;
3) Bookof Judgments - if anyexists in LA County, andin its absence - entry ofjudgment
registration in theRegister of Aotionsl Case History in Sustain, including Audit Data;
4) Index of AllCases - in Sustain;
5) Calendars of All Courts - in Sustain.

Furthennore, in order to allow reasonable reading ofsuch records in Sustain, additional request
is for access to inspect and to copy thefollowing LA Superior COUlt records:
I) Rules of Court, published in compliance withthe law, which explicitly provide tile Local
Rules ofLACounty Superior Court, today inforce and effect in LA Superior Court, for
Entry of Judgment and for Notice of Entry of Judgment;
2) Rules ofCour!, published in compliance with thelaw, or in tlleU' absence - Sustain Manual,
which explleitly provide lists ofwords, or"Dictionary" for Sustain, i.e. which values are
valid entries forthevarious variables (E.g. Motion, Order, etc). In other words - which are
thevalidmenu options, recognized asvalid entries by Snstain for thevarious field which are
variable fordata entry.
3) Rules ofCour!, published in compliance with thelaw, or in their absence - Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide explanation for themeaning ofDateof Entry of Minutes such as
"00/00/00" or "33133/33".
4) Rules of Court, published in compliance withthelaw. or in their absence - Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which the LASuperior Court is allowed to modify or
altertheCase HistorylRegister of Aotions in Sustain, and notice to parties, if any, ofsuch
nunc pl'O tunc alterations.
5) Rules of'Court, published in compliance with the law, or in their absence - Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which some cases at theLA Superior Court will lists
monies paid byparties as: ''FilingFees", "Motion Fees", "Stipulation Fees", etc, while in
other cases, all such moneys are listed as "Journal Entry". It is further requested tlmt Rules

33/44
PAQ!3f5 R Rcve AT71.2812DOII 5:44:25 AM [pIC Ina Daylight Time] R SVR:1..A..!AX011O * ONIS:6520 * CSIO: * DURATION (mmoss):02.1l4 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-29 1007 AM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 6/7

']"0: ~age 4 or5 From: Joseph Z.rnrk

• Page213 July 28, 2008

of Court be provided as to the final disposition offundsthetwere originally designated

"Journal Entry",
6) Rules of Court, published in Compliance with the law, or in their absence - Sustain Manual,
which explicitly provide rules under which some cases at LA Superior Court will list each
action with its corresponding termination, while other cases at the LA Superior Court will
allow all actions to remain unterminated.

JosephZemik
:"', IJtD11DllJ ~lllncd by
~ , JlIlitllhH :t::Rmlk
VCN~O\.'Il$~phHUIT\\1i.
o,t1u,
.." J1 151nliJI11j15G'11flh1l1l
) . ~L. toe-US
,_" 'd~i\I'~trle.
CalifornIa ,.,,;
C1al~2009.o7.2.8
05:29:110-oroo'

By;Joseph Zemik
Pro SC PlUiy inInterest
Tel: 3235144583
Fa.'\:; 801 9980917
Email: jz l2345@eartblinknet

cc:
Com"! ofJusticeRichman;

Suzanne ORourke Scanlon

JudioialAssistanttothHon. James A, Richman
(415) 865.7232
"ORourkeSoanlon, Suzanne" <Suzanne.ORourkeSoanlOl@iudoa.gov>

Partiesand Counsel in Sturgeon v County (BC351286):

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
501 School Street, SW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20024
Tcl: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Attorneys/or Plaintiff
Sterling E. Norris, Esq.
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive
Suite 201
San Marino, CA91108
Tel.: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
Attorneysfor Plaintiff

34/44
PAGI!!! 4/5 R FlCVD AT 712812D08 5:44:25 AM [paCIfiC DayllgntTIm.]" SVR:LAJAXD1/0R DNIS:1I520 R CSID: R DURATION (mm-II):D2-64 EXHIBIT-2
2009-Ju1-29 1007 AM LOS ANGELES SUPERlOR COURT 2136253964 7/7

2OOll-07-2812:41::l; (GMT) From: JCMpl'l ZlImlk

• Pag93/3 July 28, 2009

Elwood Lui, Esq.

Brian Hershman, Esq.
DAY JONES
555 South Flower Street
SOthFloor
Los Angeles, CA90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
bhsnhman®jonss4ay.com
Attorneysfor Defendants

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.,Esq.

Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq,
GillSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA90071-3197
Tel: (213)229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Attormyfor ~

MM

PAOI m I RCW AT 7121120016:":26 AM ['de: D8YI1gtIt Tlme) I 8VR:I...A-'~D11O" 35/44

DMI:U62D" CBlD: Il DURATIOr4 (mm...):oa:a EXHIBIT-2
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

00-00-00-us-la-sup-ct-sturgeion-v-county-09-07-28-drapac-access –to –records

09-07-29- In re: Sturgeon v County (BC351286), 3rd request to access judicial records to inspect
and to copy pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)

Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org
Tel: 213 974 5201
Fax: 213 625 8536
(by fax and by email)

Mr Drapac:

This is the third request to access the electronic Register of Actions of Sturgeon v LA County
(BC351286) in Sustain the Court’s case management system. I received today by fax yet another
lengthy letter from Mr Bennett , Counsel for the Court, who responded on your behalf to my 2nd
request to access court records in Sturgeon v LA County.

Mr Bennett’s 1st response, dated July 28, 2009, just skirted the issue, and never addressed the
request to access the Register of Actions, the official litigation record of Sturgeon v LA County.

Mr Bennett’s 2nd response, dated July 29, 2009, again engaged in the same pattern, for example,
discussing at length the issue of access over the Internet, when in fact, I never requested Internet
access to records, I explicitly asked when and where I would be able to access the records,
willing to appear at any location of the court for that purpose.

Mr Bennett in his 2nd response went further than that, and included false and misleading
statements:
Finally, as a convenience, you can also access the Register of Actions
for this case on line at the Court's web site, LASuperiorCourt.org,
which also presents a summary of all of the pleadings, orders and
hearings in the case, and by registering and paying the fee permitted
by the California Rules of Court, you may download and print copies
of the pleadings and orders.

As you are fully aware, the Register of Actions of Sturgeon v LA County, or any other case
of the LA Superior Court, is NOT available online at LASuperiorCourt.org. The
information that is provided there, under the title “Case Summary”, is prefaced by a
Disclaimer by the Court, explicitly stating that the records presented online are NOT official
court records. Moreover, the information provided in such records online is vastly different
from the information in the Register of Actions in Sustain.

The Clerk of LA Superior Court attempted such misleading misuse of records in the past in
two other instances:

36/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 2/4 July 29, 2009

1) At California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, in case of Zernik v LA Superior Court

(B203063), the LA Superior Court filed the “Case Summary” from
LASuperiorCourt.org in lieu of the Register of Actions in Sustain. I then filed an
objection. The California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, then issued an order on the
Clerk of the LA Superior Court to withdraw that filing, in fact accepting my
objection.
2) At U.S. District Court, LA, in case of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), the
LA Superior Court filed the record called “Case Summary” from
LASuperiorCourt.org in lieu of the Register of Actions in Sustain. I then filed an
objection, and OSC Contempt, for attempted fraud on the U.S. Court by the LA
Superior Court. However, the U.S. District Court refused to rule on the matter, no
matter how much I pressed for a hearing and ruling. That Court claimed that the
issue was not material to the matter at hand…

Given such history, it is likely that Mr Bennett’s most recent response, and his statement
about the Register of Actions of Sturgeon v LA County being available online at
LASuperiorCourt.org, upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, be deemed false
and deliberately misleading.

I again request that you inform me when and where I would be able to access litigation records
in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which are the Register of Actions, Book of Judgments (If
any exists), Calendars of the Courts, and Minute Orders in Sustain, the electronic case
management system of the LA Superior Court, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to Nixon v
Warner Communication, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the Common
Law and First Amendment right to access judicial records to inspect and to copy.

Joseph Zernik

____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

P.S.
Court Counsel Bennett 2nd Response can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-07-29-court-counsel-bennett-response-
no2--req-access-to-records.pdf

37/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 3/4 July 29, 2009

CC:

John A Clarke,
Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
Phone: 213 974 5050
Fax: 213 621 7952
jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org

Court of Justice Richman:

Suzanne ORourke Scanlon

Judicial Assistant to th Hon. James A. Richman
(415) 865-7232
"ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" <Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov>

Parties and Counsel in Sturgeon v County (BC351286):

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
501 School Street, SW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Sterling E. Norris, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive
Suite 201
San Marino, CA 91108
Tel.: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Elwood Lui, Esq.

Brian Hershman, Esq.
DAY JONES
555 South Flower Street
50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
bhershman@jonesday.com
Attorneys for Defendants

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.

Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

38/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 4/4 July 29, 2009

333 South Grand Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Attorney for Intervenor

MM

39/44 EXHIBIT-2
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

00-00-00-us-la-sup-ct-sturgeion-v-county-09-07-30-drapac-req-#3-addendum
09-07-30- In re: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Addendum to Request #3 to access judicial
records to inspect and to copy pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)

Gregory Drapac
Superior Court of California
Administrator II
gdrapac@lasuperiorcourt.org

Mr Drapac:

Please accept the following as addition to my request #3: Mr Bennett, Court Counsel, made
some false and misleading statements in re: Litigation records. It also appears that Plaintiff,
which is Judicial Watch, Inc, is yet to gain access to the true litigation records in Sturgeon v LA
County (BC351286). Therefore, let me provide some clarification in re: Litigation records at
the LA Superior Court.

In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), purported to be matter heard at the LA Superior Court, the
following records are available for viewing online:

1) The record that Counsel Bennett falsely and misleadingly referred to as the “Register of
Actions” at lasuperiorcourt.org, or “Case Summary”, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-case-summary-courtnet-08-11-30-s.pdf
The disclaimers that come with that record can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-case-summary-online-disclaimers-s.pdf
2) The record that is the true Register of Actions in Sustain, is shown at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-register-of-actions-case-history-s-v-z-sustain-08-11-14-
certified-s.pdf
3) The differences between records 1) and 2) are summarized in a table form, as filed at the
California Court of Appeals, 2nd District (B203063 ), can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-false&deliberately-misleading-court-records-
s.pdf
Additional discussion of the Register of Actions, and false records in it, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-register-of-action.pdf
4) The Minute Orders, as seen in paper court file, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-s-v-z-paper-court-file-s.pdf
5) The Minute Orders, as seen in Sustain, or electronic court file, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-electronic-case-file-08-11-14-full-certif-s.pdf
6) The differences between the records in 4) and 5) are summarized in a table form in the
following record, which can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-table-summary-s-v-z-s.pdf
7) Short discussion of false and deliberately misleading litigation records at the LA Superior
Court, can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-abstract-&-figures.pdf

Joseph Zernik

40/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 2/3 July 30, 2009

____________________
By: Joseph Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
Tel: 323 514 4583
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

CC:

Court of Justice Richman:

Suzanne ORourke Scanlon

Judicial Assistant to th Hon. James A. Richman
(415) 865-7232
"ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" <Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov>

Parties and Counsel in Sturgeon v County (BC351286):

Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
501 School Street, SW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Sterling E. Norris, Esq.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive
Suite 201
San Marino, CA 91108
Tel.: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Elwood Lui, Esq.

Brian Hershman, Esq.
DAY JONES
555 South Flower Street
50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939

41/44 EXHIBIT-2
 z Page 3/3 July 30, 2009

Facsimile: (213) 243-2539

bhershman@jonesday.com
Attorneys for Defendants

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.

Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Attorney for Intervenor

MM, KW

42/44 EXHIBIT-2
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PRO SE FILER JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS
Case No. BC351286
43/44 EXHIBIT-3
------lJr
TRAN ~l<~1,{'~~~~QE~&2t7
PA~KA SE(lKGE S
IN 1-)1-0 PLk
r ._ ·1i
o
-

1 U'IZ07
._--~-r 'f'.~

' ',

·--~I'
At\orne y'

,I f'AKKA fKAN(~S H tr7 (/1 it, t ?~):J() (c '4- 5t>e J.('

--.-----. --:1
=o=~_~=
. . _ .~=~==~
.
~_~- , I +\"Nn.~
~-'-~-::=;-~-
I r..~ruIU04 "CI~N - - - - - _.,--~--
~~.Q.h-~!J ~Jti . _______----=0
CODE __
•
loJJOJl. _

--~I"--1'-jJUfU1~L2Lf~J~;2{)f7

.- -:rl~tJl
lli"ORIHI

~:~~t1: ,-"~:,~",:,"",~,, ;,>,P.

-~'-\ -:,~r7-n::,rRtQ FO-RD"T-Sl~T~ J,,'-

:,;"
11v!:'lrlc:'~11i. PLK-'l:"J (U
",",
flllv

":,,;, I
0'

';.[',1 I",ccpr
.

.-C.__.Flu..a----. - -
=~:~~=----. ~1 '~lr~j~o-
------ ------j;--T--r--­
--;:-~ I

n_~ :~i-~F:~t~-{E--k~f~2(Ff/(~Z(Z L-~~'~ d.I~,>~~~fJ-- >~~-_~r(~~f~~Iz!:~

=- i-~ : 7 §~d,:tJc;(sl!:s-!· , LJCstL(r.: '/' t -. ,,,Jeep, n -2 I j[jg¢
~ .<..:lLL~ {{i! ( ! __ -----r
_~ ~ I

-r,
---i:i-;;
llL--­
I :..J1lfC-l \d "I
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGI,IENT
CERTIFICATE 0, MAiliNG rILE:D
__ _
_ __ _ _ _
I

I]:
, i
____ ~_=_~-Cf-F '1 I%-:----_=~---_=----- -jU~~1U~T.:J2I~WT.: i...J0:"-I';._~J7 _=-==-_ --~ '-;-1-­
, • "'- 1-" D£CLARA~'-'" F" '"'~",'ULT
--- --------t-i-,------- ORt:JNcoNrE~TED~DISSOLuTION ----,-­
_._-.-~; "-~~~~~--u--()l4-'-E.t:~i~'{ D (;,'Ii((I-(G~-;·, ~-'-jlJ.1S1L14(~--- ~_~:__
_ _ _. '- 7! (W, 'lOi) . /L.-V-~-f~(...d...."-~~~";I~Ll~L~-i-'-4.~)-J.---- ._. ~~ I

--K;! C-J~!
~=--~~i1-'--4> I;:{ i~!
. ,~/I ~ '1'.;
v-~---'T ;:--/1--;:'--: ---;t.!. -1::t--r-7~~·-·LL,'
_~ j,)' I I

-~- .-~j--- . _'tl_. - - _u_ ·~-!i--I--i-!- ­

--- - j
--r

_-----..':_ ,~lUd_i~Lt~iLec~~·z i: ~-r-

-+~Jrz:fr';¥i,7:~~(~ ~~~"'--=-}:~ZT)=E+-!
--..-1­
- , t+ I ClIln'R 10 AI I t . II
.- '__~~7---...u~NjWllifiL...tL--------
- < : - -... -- ~_~-~! _
~-I··--···Dl3T.ICj.

__-_-----.-­ -1 Ii --+1-­
_____ I OfPL__ r I': :

-~ ~ .. -r-- ~ :=;::~:OH~_- --=-=~~-~-=--.--.

--
10k

r-r
I ----r-
-r---- ---- . . --- -
Affit"t1lll3iJlIlWTUl'!----------· .-.-.----

~---- --- u
-----.- ...- - - - - - - - , ­

--rr---+l-+

II
,
r±t=
I I I
-----~=___ -Ji--.!' i----+-­

I '! SuMMS
ORIGINAl
\~'D
PUBLICATION OF SUM"",0~S
I ktG ...... C-,ll:l;(
:lUAU,l f-Il~:';
IOCf .. :.Jl10N
_COMP II LA'AUlTEN1RYON COMP av
______.....1 ,____ APPl FOR FILED ..4 t I 0.: ByelER'; I CDUIIT F!lEw

• -4-
, ft~5r'~ I II- 44/44
- - - - - - - 1i
"
DIW,~,.l"L I
,I 'I[)(~M~NT <",nCJ<:r'
II NOTlaOf EXHIBIT-3