Los Angeles, February 5, 2010, requests were faxed to the office of Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke, Clerk of the Court, for clarification regarding the finances and operations of the court:

1) In the past few years statements were found by three attorneys, who may be considered “close to the court”, regarding operation of “Equity Courts” at the Los Angeles Superior Court. Such courts were purportedly not bound by United States or California law, but instead were operating pursuant to Maxim of Equity. Operation of such courts by judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on the premises of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles must be deemed part of racketeering.

The Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court were requested to confirm or refute the operation of such Equity Courts on the premises of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

2) Already in 1999 the Washington-based "Insight Magazine" published a series of articles regarding shady corporations controlled by the judges of the LA Superior Court, which held substantial sums of money from unclear sources and for unclear purposes. The evidence showed that the judges continue to hold such corporations to this date.

The questions on this matter were:
a) For what purpose did the judges create such corporations?
b) What is the source of the funds held by such corporations?
c) What is the purpose of such funds?

3) The LA Superior Court, as a corporation/organization has not published any audited financial statements in years, or for that matter, any financial statement whatsoever. The annual reports did not include even a letter by an accountant/auditor. Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke, Clerk of the Court, refused to respond on requests for copies of such reports, if they ever existed. In contrast, similar courts, across the nation, publish audited financial statements in their annual reports.

The questions on this matter were:
a) Why the Presiding Judge and the Clerk of the Court refused to publish any audited financial statements?
b) Were the Court’s finances ever audited?

4) Previously, a series of cases were identified, where all fees were falsely designated as "Journal Entry". In contrast, in normal cases all fees were designated "Filing Fees", "Motion Fees", "Stipulation Fees". Accountancy textbooks considered false use of "Journal Entry" as a cardinal sign of financial fraud. Both Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke, Clerk of the Court refused to disclose the designation of funds that were collected as fees, but were falsely listed as "Journal Entry".

The questions on this matter were:
a) What were the reasons for the false designation of fees for court services in such cases as "Journal Entry"?
b) What was the final destination such "Journal Entry" funds?

Response by the Court on such matters was requested within 10 days.