Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:59:22 -0800
To: scott huminski, email@example.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: The bliss of ignorance... living in denial, and proposed new year resolution for 2010 - Let's re-connect with reality
I hate to kill your bliss, but if not for you, your case could be critically helpful for many others across the US, who may choose to connect with reality in 2010.
Happy New Year!
1) SCOTT X WAS DECEIVED AT THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA - THROUGH CROSS THE FINGERS BEHIND THE BACK LITIGATION -
Where the U.S. Magistrate and U.S. Judge crossed their fingers behind their backs. They did so to protect the corrupt local state judges and others. Scott never realized that he had been dragged for years at the US District Court, Montana, through a cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back procedures. He was in fact still participating to this date in some procedures of that sort. He was positive that he was participating in a litigation of a true national tribunal, in compliance with ratified international law. National tribunals that routinely crossed their fingers behind their backs in select litigations, were likely to be deemed serious violation of ratified International Law - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2) SCOTT X WAS DECEIVED AT THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA - THROUGH CROSS THE FINGERS BEHIND THE BACK JUDGMENT -
Which was finally issued after dragging Scott X for years in that court.
3) SCOTT X FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA JUDGEMENT AT THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON -
Scott did not realize that he had no way to appeal the US District Court Montana Judgment, because he had no US District Court, Montana Judgment in the first place. The Montana Judgment was not an honest valid and effectual judgment that required "full faith and credit". Therefore it was not an appealable judgment either.
4) THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, DECEIVED SCOTT X BY NEVER INFORMING SCOTT X THAT THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE JUDGMENT -
And that the US Court of Appeal, Oregon, had no authority and no jurisdiction over cross the fingers behind the back judgments. Instead, the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, as was its custom in such cases, followed in suit - it too crossed its fingers behind its back, for a cross the fingers behind the back appeal at the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, from a cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back Judgment from US District Court, Montana.
5) SCOTT WENT ON TO PAY FEES, TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY, TIME, AND EFFORT - ON THAT CROSS-THE-FINGERS-BEHIND-THE-BACK APPEAL IN OREGON.
6) THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, FINALLY DECEIVED SCOTT X BY ISSUING A CROSS-THE-FINGERS- BEHIND-THE-BACK SUMMARY ORDER AND JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE CROSS-THE-FINGERS-BEHIND-THE- BACK JUDGMENT OF THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA -
There was no other way for the US District Court, Oregon to issue any papers in that appeal - since the US District Court, Oregon has no jurisdiction in such case. There also was no possible other outcome to the Cross-the-Fingers-behind-the-Back appeal. The US Court of Appeal had no authority to reverse and remand, or do anything else on that Cross the Fingers behind the Back Judgment from Montana, except issue a void, not voidable papers on it. Therefore, it was not a case where Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor could easily fix the situation by now signing her name on that Summary Order of that appeal. She never signed it for a good reason in the first place. It was a Summary Order that she could never, ever sign. She had no authority to sign it.
7) FIVE YEARS LATER, OUT OF THE BLUE CAME JOE SCHMO, A NOBODY -
And told Scott X about the new unpublished rules of court -- about crossing your fingers behind the back procedures, based in the critical NEY documents, and about denial of access to NEY court papers - all over the US.
8) SCOTT X FIRST TOLD JOE SCHMO THAT JOE WAS CLUELESS -
Scott X never heard about such thing as NEY papers. Moreover, such denial of access to NEY papers could not possibly be - Scott X said it would violate the First Amendment. After all, Scott X was a brand name in the First Amendment biz.
9) JOE SCHMO THEN CALLED THE CLERK OF US COURT OF APPEAL, OREGON -
And demonstrated to Scott x - First - that NEY papers did exist in Scott's case, and Second - that the denial of access to NEY papers was in fact in place in Oregon - as predicted - like in any other US court that Joe Schmo tested.
10) JOE SHMOE URGED SCOTT X TO CALL THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, AND ASK TO FINALLY BE SERVED WITH THE ONE PAGE NEY PAPER OF THE SUMMARY ORDER -
Integral part of the Summary Order, which the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, had failed to serve Scott X in the first place, and which would show whether or not Sotomayor crossed her fingers behind the back or not.
11) SCOTT X CALLED THE COURT OF APPEALS IN OREGON AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE NO NEY PAPERS AT THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, ONLY NEZ PAPERS, AND IT WOULD COST $26 TO BE SERVED WITH HIS OWN NEZ PAPER -
And Scott X - an experienced litigator and First Amendment brand name, just accepted it as business as usual, and never asked any question about where all of this came from...
12) JOE SHMOE URGED SCOTT X TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS AND DOCUMENT THE EXCHANGE -
Joe Schmo claimed that Scott x was entitled to the NEY/NEZ paper for free, and that at minimum, Scott X should ask the Court for the Rules of Court defining that whole NEY/NEZ secret business.
13) SCOTT X TOLD JOE SCHMO THAT IT REALLY DID NOT MATTER ANYWAY -
Scott preferred to go on engaging in the cross the fingers behind the back litigations at US Courts. He had been doing it for years, it was very convenient, and he would just like to go on doing business the way he was used to. He explained to Joe Schmo that it really did not matter if he had been designated by the US District Court, Montana, to cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back tribunal procedures on anything that he may ever file there. It was all the same anyway.
14) JOE SCHMO TOLD SCOTT X IT WAS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME AS DENYING HIM ACCESS TO THAT COURT FOR LIFE -
The type of order that Scott X considered illegal on its face, and which he spent years to fight.
Living in Denial
At 16:34 31/12/2009, you wrote:
I paid the $26 for the cd of the hearing i obtained. Seems like a standard fee. -- scott
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:56 -0800
Subject: Re: FW: You may want to talk by phone
I would be grateful if you could write a short declaration, who you spoke with, what you asked, and what they answered.
This does not make sense at all:
1) There must be a Rule of Court for them to chareg what they ask for.
2) Please also note in the letter, that I stated that you never received it in the first place. Anywhere you look in CM/ECF manuals, the first copy of any paper is for free for parties in the case. You clearly never saw an NEF in your life.
3) Could you please ask them what is NDA, and where in Rule of Court it was defined?
If you still don't get it, I have no interest in the hearing itself - it was most likely null and void to start out... It could be whatever. Tt is all about the crossing the fingers behind the back, then trying to hide the fact that they were crossing their fingers behind their backs. What they said when they crossed their fingers behind their backs makes not difference at all.
All I am trying to do, is gain access to the information - did they or didn't they cross their fingers behind their backs.
Happy New Year,
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
- To be added soon- deep house music!
At 13:47 31/12/2009, you wrote:
- Joe didn't you get this earlier.
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: You may want to talk by phone
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:02:43 -0500
- Hi Joe, Spoke to the court. They say they use something called a NDA and havn't started using NEF's yet. In either case, you can draft a letter with my name requesting a NEF or NDA for the summary order include a check made out to the court for $26.00 and we can see what happens. Mail it to me and i'll sign it and mail it to the court. Apparently, the fee is the same for 1 or 100 pages, so look at the docket to see if you want anything else. I have an audio copy of the hearing before sotomayor. -- scott
- > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:45:21 -0800
- > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- > From: email@example.com
- > Subject: You may want to talk by phone
- > Hi Scott:
- > There were various aspects to the fraud perpetrated on you by the
- > courts, base on my experience with other cases:
- > a) It is a chain reaction. The first court - e.g. a state court,
- > starts with a sham court action (e.g. - off the record, whatever you
- > want to call it), and then all the rest follow suit - state court of
- > appeal, US district Court, Us Court of appeals, etc.
- > b) Often the counsel is not counsel of record at the US Court. You
- > can figure it out if you read carefully the rules of court, where it
- > says what the rules are for first appearance by counsel. Either they
- > have to file "Notice of Appearance' or Certificate of Appearance, or
- > something of the sort. If they failed to do it, then they were also
- > fake counsel, or sham counsel, or what ever you want to call it.
- > c) Then you have to check the assignment orders to judges and
- > magistrates, etc etc.
- > That is what I consider my specialty.. I don't look at the legal
- > issues, only the clerical. That was the reason from the beginning I
- > had no interest in the issue of disqualification, immunity and such
- > nonsense. The fraud in a different area altogether.
- > There is a method to this madness, that is what is so sleazy about
- > it. It is carefully executed fraud on pro se filers, or filers
- > represented where it is individual against a large corporation or
- > against government.
- > It is serious abuse of Human Rights of the American people by its own
- > government. jz
"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.