Los Angeles, March 5, 2010 request was filed with Los Angeles County Ombudsman by Human Rights activist Dr Joseph Zernik, requesting guidance for the correct procedures for filing complaints against accountable County of Los Angeles agencies for colluding in alleged fraud related to the operation of computer systems with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angles. Zernik alleged that the operation of such systems should be deemed as fraud, and serious abuses of the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all 10 million residents of this county.

Zernik also filed previous separate complaints with assistance of the office of Los Angeles County Ombudsman, which pertained to operations of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, California. Zernik claimed that the methods of alleged fraud were very similar. The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, had been concealing the true court records for a number of years, in what must upon review be deemed as violations of First Amendment rights - to access court records - to inspect and to copy. Instead, just as had been described in complaints against the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, the Court had been publishing online false and deliberately misleading records, in lieu of true records including, but not limited to Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, and Index of All Cases.

Additionally, Zernik claimed the court and the county of Los Angeles had been operating a server that holds images of court records. However, security programs, such as McAfee, routinely issued severe warnings against such server - that it was operated under false Verisign identity certificates. Needless to say - any court records that were obtained from a source holding false identity must be deemed lacking in authenticity.

The County of Los Angeles, California, was alleged as an obvious party to this alleged fraud, since the Court and the County, jointly, published disclaimers regarding such allegedly fraudulent online publications of court records -
The Courts and County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis and typically by parties of record and participants, does not constitute the official record of the court. Any user of the information is hereby advised that it is being provided as is and that it may be subject to error or omission. The user acknowledges and agrees that neither the Los Angeles Superior Court nor the County of Los Angeles are liable in any way whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided.
Additionally, Zernik claimed that at times, when the Court denied access to records stored on such computers, such denial was falsely excused by the claim that the computers were operated by the County of Los Angeles.

Zernik also noted in his letter to the Ombudsman that KPMG, the independent auditor of the County of Los Angeles, California, separately issued a report which similarly noted material deficiency in validity and security of other computer system operated by the County of Los Angeles.

As was the case pertaining to the computers of the Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles, Zernik suggested that the proposed solution was in publicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems.

The reason for the letter to the Ombudsman was the previous attempts to file complaints with County of Los Angeles agencies were denied. County agencies repeatedly claimed that they were not accountable, or that they had no authority to review the operations of such computers. Such claims appeared unreasonable, since the evidence was clear that the County of Los Angeles was colluding with the Superior Court of California in such alleged large scale fraud and abuse of rights of the residents of the County of Los Angeles, California.
Response by the Los Angeles County Ombudsman was requested within 2 business days.