Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:46:31 -0800
To: "US Gov, NGOs, and law school faculty"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-160) - Ex parte application for the US Court, Vermont, to cease the conduct of Kozinski Fraud on Pro Se Plaintiff Huminski.

Dear Law School Faculty, US agencies, NGOs, and others of interest:

Please take notice of ex parte application filed in Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-160) at the US District Court, Vermont, linked [1] and copied below. 

Scott Huminski is a brand-name troublemaker and also a household name in First Amendment circles. He is also the victim of Kozinski Fraud in Huminski v Corsones, and probably also in Huminsky v Rutland  - at the hands of now Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This filing describes and defines the Kozinski Fraud - serving on pro se filers, who are denied access to CM/ECF false and deliberately misleading court orders, bearing no honest, valid, and effectual NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). It also requests the US District Court, VT to cease the conduct of Kozinski Fraud in Huminski v Corsones. The common practice of Kozinski Fraud at the US courts is alleged to be the largest shell-game fraud in the history of mankind - by the US judges, as a class, against the People.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
Patriotic pics of Sharon Stone, Beyonce' Knowles, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

_______________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Scott Huminski,
Plaintiff,
v.
Hon. Nancy Corsones, et al,
Defendants.

Case No.1:99-cv-160

Request by Pro Se Filer, Joseph Zernik, that the US District Court, Vermont, Cease Issuing on Pro Se Plaintiff Huminski Sham Orders - Bearing No Valid and Effectual NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings).

NOW COMES, Joseph Zernik (Zernik), Pro Se Filer, of the people of the State of California,
requesting the Honorable Murtha and the US District Court, Vermont, to cease serving on his
fellow, Pro Se Plaintiff Huminski, sham orders - bearing dishonest, invalid, ineffectual NEFs
(Notices of Electronic Filings). 

1. Court orders and rulings in cases involving Pro Se Plaintiff Scott Huminski
demonstrated deception on pro se filer.
Attached as Exhibit 1 to this request, are copies of two NEFs by the US District Court
Vermont, in Huminski v Corsones et al, alternatively - Huminski v Rutland Police Dept et al
(1:99-cv-00160). Zernik was informed and believed that such NEFs were served upon Pro Se
Plaintiff Huminski. Upon review, such NEFs failed to include any RSA-encrypted digital
stamp of the court. Therefore, such NEFs were deemed false and deliberately misleading.
Attached as Exhibit 2 to this request, is a copy of an order by US Court of Appeals, for the 2nd
District, in Huminski v Town of Bennington, Vermont (03-7036), issued in the name of circuit
judges, including then Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, today Supreme Court Justice Sonia
Sotomayor. Zernik was informed and believed that such order was posted online by the court.
Upon review, such Order failed to include any signatures of the judges or the clerk.
Attempt was made to ascertain the facts in re: NEF for the order bearing the name of Supreme
Court Justice Sotomayor. Request was made to access court records to inspect and to copy -
at the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. The request was explicitly made pursuant to US
Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). In such decision, the
US Supreme Court re-affirmed the common law right of any person to access court records to
inspect and to copy. The US Supreme Court, in such decision, also found that such rights to
access court records to inspect and to copy were inherent, in their various manifestations, to
the First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution. The request to
access court records was flatly denied by the office of the US Court of Appeals, for the 2nd
Circuit. 

2. Court orders and rulings in cases involving jailed Pro Se Petitioner Richard Fine
demonstrated deception on pro se filer who was a prisoner.
Attached as Exhibit 3 to this request, is a copy of an order by US Court of Appeals, for the 9th
Circuit, in Fine v Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (09-71692), in the name of circuit
judges, including Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, for the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski.
Zernik was served with a copy of this order, with no signatures of the judges, and no NEF or
any other valid attestation by the clerk whatsoever. Zernik was informed and believed that also
jailed Pro Se Petitioner Richard Fine, was served with such order, likewise unsigned and
lacking any valid NEF. 

Zernik was also informed and believed that all orders and judgment of the US Court, Central
District of California, in Fine v Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914),
were likewise served with no honest, valid, and effectual NEFs at all. 

Attempts were also made to access such court records to inspect and to copy - at both the US
Court of Appeals, for 9th Circuit, and at the US Court, Central District of California. The
requests were explicitly made pursuant to US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978). The requests were denied by the offices clerks of both the US
Court of Appeals, for the 9th Circuit, and the US Court, Central District of California.
Attorney Richard Fine is a 70 year-old, former US prosecutor, former successful anti-trust
attorney in Los Angeles County, California, and anti-judicial corruption activist. Starting in
2001 he exposed and protested secret payments by Los Angeles County to all judges of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Such payments, amounting today to over
$45,000 per judge, per year (for some 250 judges and some 150 commissioners), have
continued for well over a decade. Richard Fine was also the first to compile data to show that
during such years, it became practically impossible to win a case against Los Angeles County
at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. 

In October 2008, such payments were ruled not permitted, by the California Court of Appeal,
for the 4th District. 

On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed into law retroactive immunities/
pardons (Sbx2-11) for all California judges, who had taken not permitted payments. Such
law was passed with no debate on the California Senate floor, and with no referral to
committee, in violation of the California Senate rules. It was passed at the urging of the
California Judicial Council, and reflected concerns regarding liabilities, both civil and criminal
of all the judges who had taken the payments. 

Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was arrested by the Sheriffs
Department Warrant Detail. Fine was arrested in open court, at the end of appearance before
Judge David Yaffe, of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, albeit with
no warrant, no conviction, and no sentencing to support the arrest and jailing. Richard Fine has
been held in solitary confinement under coerced hospitalization by the Sheriffs Department of
Los Angeles County, ever since then, albeit with no medical reason for the hospitalization.
Fine v Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) was the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus of Richard Fine to the US Court, Central District of California, and Fine v
Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (09-71692), was the emergency petition of Richard
Fine to the US Court of Appeals, for the 9th Circuit, originating from the aforementioned
habeas corpus petition. 

3. Concerns regarding the common issuance by US courts of orders and judgments lacking
honest, valid, and effectual NEFs, concomitant with concerted denial of access to NEFs.
Attached as Exhibit 4 to this request, is a copy of a short review by Zernik in re: NEFs in the
US courts. The review explained the significance of the NEFs as the essential instrument for
rendering US court papers, such as orders and judgments, as valid and effectual. Therefore,
orders and judgments that fail to bear honest, valid, and effectual NEFs were sham court papers
dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual. The review also makes it clear, that the legal foundation
for this novel practice of using the NEFs as attestations by the clerks - had no foundation in
the law. Neither had it any foundation in the local rules of courts, in any of the US district
courts or US courts of appeals, where Zernik reviewed the matter. 

The concomitant denial of access to the NEFs, a concerted practice in US courts across the
country, also had no foundation in the law or in the local rules of courts in any of the districts.
Furthermore, it was viewed as defying the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978). Additional features were found in regards to the NEFs, such as
that the local courts can arbitrarily set a number of days, such as 30, or 60, after which, the
email notice of the NEF to authorized attorneys, would self destruct. There simply was no
reasonable explanation why honest courts would permit such feature in their docketing system. 

4. Concerns regarding the general design and operation of PACER & CM/ECF, and a
proposed solution. 

a. The U.S. courts have completed the development and installation of the dual docketing
systems, PACER & CM/ECF. Such installation amounted to a sea change in the rules of
operations of the courts. However, no legal foundation was provided for such changes. 

b. The US courts in fact established, in an organized fashion, dual docketing systems,
which were separate and unequal, where the courts can segregate parties at will. 

c. Those segregated into PACER (attorneys who were not authorized by the court for a
given case, and invariably all pro se filers and all prisoners who file petitions) were
unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records among the large volume of
invalid and ineffectual records posted online by the courts, since they were denied
access to the NEFs. 

d. Therefore, litigations were conducted under such conditions - where some parties, but
not others, were left in the dark relative to the validity and effect of any records posted
in the docket by the courts during litigations. 

e. The solution: Publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of
case management systems at the courts - pursuant to the Rulemaking Enabling Act - 28
USC 2071-2077. 

5. Kozinski Fraud Defined
A reasonable person, reviewing such conduct at the US courts across the country, would
conclude: 

a. That there was no other purpose for judges to issue invalid, ineffectual orders and
judgments, unless such orders and judgment were meant as false and deliberately
misleading. 

b. That there was no other purpose for clerks to serve such orders and judgments,
unless such orders and judgments were meant as false and deliberately misleading. 

c. That there was no other purpose for the denial of access to NEFs, unless to conceal
the false and deliberately misleading nature of court orders and judgments. 

d. That through such conduct, the US courts deprived persons of liberty, property and
other fundamental Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights. 

e. That such conduct at the US courts across the country represented the largest shell-game
fraud in the history of mankind. 

In reference to the order issued in the name of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in Fine v Sheriff,
described above, such conduct was defined as Kozinski Fraud. 

6. Concerns regarding resulting large-scale alleged deprivation of the Human Rights of the
people under the color of law, by the US judges and courts, in violation of ratified
International Law.
The conduct at the US courts across the country was likely to be found as serious deprivation of
the Human Rights of the people of the US, pursuant to ratified International Law, including,
but not limited the Human Rights to for: Liberty (Article #3); Security of Person (Article #3);
Equal Protection under the Law (Article #7); Effective National Tribunals for Effective
Remedy of Acts Violating Human Rights & Rights Granted by the Constitution of this Country
and its Amendments (Article #8); Not Be Subjected to Arbitrary Arrest (Article #9); and Fair
and Public Hearing by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal, in the Determination of our
Rights and Obligations and of any Criminal Charge against us (Article #10). Furthermore, such
conduct represented deprivation of the common law right to access court records to inspect
and to copy. 

Overall, such conduct by the US courts, we, the People of the US, were forced to fight for the
rights for honest habeas corpus petitions and the right to access court records to inspect and
to copy. Those two rights were connected at the hips, and both were some of the oldest rights in
the English-speaking courts. Combined they established Liberty by law what the late Justice
Brandies saw as the greatest achievement of the English-speaking courts, and what the late
Justice Brennan called the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus, and a Cornerstone of the US
Constitution. 

In short through the implementation of PACER & CM/ECF, with no published rules of court
to provide the legal foundation for the practices associated with them, and with no public
opportunity for challenge or comment, the US Courts regressed into somewhere in the postmedieval
period. 

7. Therefore, Pro Se Filer Zernik kindly requests that Deputy Clerk Kathleen Korstange,
and the US District Court, Brattleboro, Vermont, issue honest valid, and effectual NEFs
on instant paper, and on any motions pending before the Court in instant caption,
including, but not limited to motion for disqualification.
Either serve honest, valid, and effectual court papers, or dont serve them at all.
Respectfully filed, 

Dated at La Verne, California this 14th day of January 2010.
Joseph Zernik 

  

By: _______________________
Joseph Zernik, Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd,
La Verne, California 91750
Fax: 801.998.0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

Linked Records:
[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/25229054/10-01-14-Ex-Parte-for-Leave-to-File-and-Request-not-to-serve-sham-court-orders-in-Huminski-v-Corsones-s