This writer’s human rights defender colleague who has advocated for recently freed attorney Richard Fine and continues advocating for some 30,000 Falsely Imprisoned Persons (FIP) in the Los Angeles prison system and homeowners robbed by banks, injustices due to court corruption, has released his account of being threatened with violence by unidentified armed federal agents. For peacefully working against banksters and “justice” system fraud, the Los Angeles area doctor narrowly escaped his residence and remains in hiding.

For a look at how the U.S. era of bogus “homeland security” and “war on terror,” supported by the USA PATRIOT Act, is actually covering up high-level terror and other crimes in an undeclared real war on We the People, one need look no further than the life of one man over the past couple of years, that of Dr. Joseph Zernik.

Joseph Zernik, PhD is the rights defender and Bank of America (BofA) shareholder who obtained evidence of BofA President, Brian Moynihan securities fraud and that the SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) litigation was a bogus litigation. He’s the man with integrity who, “These are securities fraud that would bar a person from the financial industry for life.” (See: (Video) Evidence of Bank of America fraud, Dupré, D., Examiner, Feb. 4, 2010)

Sunday,  Dr. Zernik and Human Rights Alert (NGO) released documentation of his filing a report about threat of violence against him with Harvard “Citizen Media Law Project.” He has named U.S. Deputy Marshal, on behalf of the US District Court, Central District of California as the perpetrator. But will anti-terrorist officials really take note and act to protect and defend the innocent? Chances of that do not look good when those tasked with such nobel duties are the same officials terrorizing the innocent.

The threat against Dr Zernik in April 2010 followed his requests filed with the Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi and the Chief Judge, Audrey Collins, US District Judge, Central District of California, that were also published online, to correct the false PACER dockets, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges.

“The requests for correction of the PACER dockets pertained to litigations in Zernik v Connor et al  (2:08-cv-1550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), both of which originated from claims of widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,” reported Dr. Zernik today in a written statement

In the former case, US Judge Virginia Phillips appeared as presiding judge. In the latter, US Judge John Walter was the presiding judge.  In both cases, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle also appeared.  Evidence showed that neither judges, nor magistrate appeared with a valid Assignment/Referral Order.

Without a valid Assignment/Referral Order,  judges and magistrates lack judicial authority in a case.

Dr. Zernik’s investigations revealed that in both cases, judgments were published as “entered” in the online PACER dockets, but judgments were issued with invalid certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk of the Court.

Dr. Zernik has asserted, “Absent valid authentication/attestation by the clerk, a judgment is void.  However, the online PACER dockets would mislead a reasonable person to conclude that the judgments were valid and effectual court records.”

“In both cases, the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify the PACER dockets. In both cases, no corrective actions have been taken to this date regarding the false and deliberately misleading online PACER dockets.”

Harvard Law School’s “Citizen Media Law Project” have reported the threat by US Deputy Marshal Darcy Smith against a blog publisher, who used crude language in protesting the conduct of US Judge A Howard Matz. In both threats, the US Deputy Marshal Darcy Smith was employed to suppress claims of judicial corruption at the US District Court, Southern District of California.

Leading to threats of physical violence

Dr. Zernik provides the following background to his being threatened with violence.

“Litigation under cause of action of Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law – where US Judge Virginia Phillips appeared as presiding judge, and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) – petition for a writ of habeas corpus – where US Judge John Warner appeared as presiding judge,  both in the US District Court, Central District of California, are claimed as Fraud on the Court.

In both cases judges appeared with no Assignment Orders, magistrates appeared with no Referral Orders and false and deliberately misleading minutes, orders, and judgments were published as “entered” in the online PACER dockets by unnamed and unauthorized court personnel, with invalid certificates of authentication/attestation by the clerk (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing).

The claims and the documentary evidence related to Zernik v Connor et al andFine v Sheriff  are now provided in the Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al  (10-56634 and 10-56813) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. [2]

The Motion to Intervene claims that Judge Virginia Phillips engaged in the same conduct also in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al.

In Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al two opposing judgments were published in the online PACER docket:

The first judgment was issued in 2006 by Judge George Schiavello, who appeared with no Assignment Order.  His judgment was listed as “entered” and also listed in the Judgment Index of the court.  The judgment was never reversed. The second judgment was issued In 2010 by Judge Virginia Phillips, who also appeared with no Assignment Order, and her judgment was NOT listed in the Judgment Index of the US District Court.

In Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al the Clerk of the US District Court continues to deny access to the NEFs, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights – to access court records to inspect and to copy.

In all three cases of the US District Court, Central District of California, the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify the PACER dockets and the judgments.

Regardless, the uncertified October 2010 Judge Virginia Phillips judgment and is now the foundation for the two appeals in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

Zernik’s smoking gun

The threats of violence against Dr. Zernik followed his revealing invalid litigation of cases in the US District Court, Central District of California, and publication of void judgments in the PACER dockets. Zernik’s investigation led to his discovering that ongoing fraud was being committed, landing innocent people in prison. As Dr. Zernik discovered and reported, the smoking gun was absence of NEFs, Notice of Electronic Filing, making incarceration decisions and other rulings fraudulent. Zernk would discover and report other high-level Los Angeles court corruption.

The case, Zernik v Connor et al  (2:08-cv-1550) pertained to cause of action of Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law in which US Judge Virginia Phillips appeared as presiding judge. In the case, Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) petition for a writ of habeas corpus, US Judge John Warner appeared as presiding judge. Both of these in the US District Court, Central District of California are claimed as Fraud on the Court.

In both of the above named cases, judges appeared with no Assignment Orders; magistrates appeared with no Referral Orders and false and deliberately misleading minutes; and orders plus judgments were published as “entered” in the online PACER dockets by unnamed and unauthorized court personnel, with invalid certificates of authentication/attestation by the clerk (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing).

The claims and the documentary evidence related to Zernik v Connor et al andFine v Sheriff  are now provided in the Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al  (10-56634 and 10-56813) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. [2]

The Motion to Intervene claims that Judge Virginia Phillips engaged in the same conduct also in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al.

In Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al two opposing judgments were published in the online PACER docket:

The first judgment was issued in 2006 by Judge George Schiavello, who appeared with no Assignment Order.  His judgment was listed as “entered” and also listed in the Judgment Index of the court.  The judgment was never reversed.

The second judgment was issued In 2010 by Judge Virginia Phillips, who also appeared with no Assignment Order, and her judgment was NOT listed in the Judgment Index of the US District Court.

In Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al the Clerk of the US District Court continues to deny access to the NEFs, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights – to access court records to inspect and to copy.

In all three cases of the US District Court, Central District of California, the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify the PACER dockets and the judgments.

Regardless, the uncertified October 2010 Judge Virginia Phillips judgment and is now the foundation for the two appeals in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

Unidentified armed federal agents

In Zernik v Connor et al  (2:08-cv-1550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), access to the NEFs was denied for months.

In late December 2009, following Dr. Zernik’s repeated appearances in the office of the clerk with written requests to access the records, the certificates of authentication/ attestation by the clerk (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing) in the two cases were finally discovered. Upon examination, the NEFs in both cases were found uniformly invalid.

In January 2010, Dr. Zernik filed notices and requests for investigation and correction of the PACER dockets were filed with Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi.

In late February 2010, Dr. Zernik received from Lydia Yurtchuk, US Court Staff Attorney, of a purported investigation.

In response to Staff Attorney Yurtchuk, Dr. Zernik requested clarification since it was addressed to an unknown person, unrelated to the matters, instead of being addressed to Dr Joseph Zernik, and with no mention of Counsel Yurchuk’s authority in issuing the letter.

No clarification has been received from Staff Attorney Yurtchuk to this date according toDr. Zernik’s written statement.

In late March 2010, Dr. Zernik filed request with chamber staffs, attention of Chief Judge Audrey Collins, to reliably inform her of “unprofessional conduct” in the litigation of the two cases, and to request the initiation of investigation and corrective actions, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges.

In early April 2010, Dr. Zernik received a phone call from US Deputy Marshal Darcy Smith asking Dr Zernik to meet her, referring specifically to the notice filed with Chief Judge Audrey Collins as the subject matter of the meeting.

Dr Zernik requested a written request by Deputy Marshal Darcy Smith.

On April 7, 2010, Dr. Zernik received a request was then received by email from Deputy Marshal Darcy Smith – for an “interview.” The request was signed by Deputy Marshal Darcy Smith on behalf of the “District Threat Unit.”

Dr Zernik responded by email, explaining that he believed that the US Marshals had no legal authority to conduct “interviews”. Dr Zernik asked for explicit explanation of the legal foundation for the invitation.

He has received no response to that email.

On or about April 24, 2010, Dr. Zernik was informed by his neighbor that the previous night, unidentified armed federal agents appeared at Dr. Zernik’s residence and tried to apprehend Dr Zernik.

According to the neighbor, the agents also knocked on his door and asked the neighbor about Dr. Zernik’s whereabouts. The neighbor also told Dr. Zernik his concern that shooting was going to take place if the agents appeared again.

Dr Zernik immediately abandoned his residence and has not returned ever since.

It was about that tim that this writer received the phone call from her noticeably shaken colleague. He had requested that if his postings are not seen for a few days, to reach out. He feared being kidnapped or disappeared in prison, justifiable fears, as few know as well as he.

No known corrective actions have been taken to this date regarding the false and deliberately misleading PACER dockets in Zernik v Connor et al or in Fine v Sheriff.