10-02-03 What is an entered record in the United States courts today- the essence of the fraud in CM/ECF...

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:11:15 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL, FINE V SHERIFF

Scott:

Let me clarify it again.  If you read theCM/ECF Manual and theGeneral Order 08-02 you would realize that today the clerk no longer stamps the papers  "ENTERED" and signs his/her name to certify the entry of court paper. Instead, the only certification of entry is through the NEF, which is produced by the clerk through CM/ECF. In order for such certification of entry to be valid and effectual, the NEF must bear an RSA-encrypted digital signature. Such RSA-encrypted digital signature appears as a nonsense string of characters and numerals, about 4 lines long, at the bottom of the NEF.

Therefore, for the complaint inUS v City of LA et al, or Summons AS ISSUED BY CLERK (NOT SERVICE OF SUMMONS) to be valid and effectual, they had to have an NEF issued on them.  Similarly, for the petition for Habeas Corpus Fine v Sheriff to be deemed entered by the court, an NEF had to be issued on it, bearing a digital signature.

Absent such NEFs such papers were never deemed entered by the court. 

The key is in paragraph "O" of General Order 08-02. [1]  Since it appears hopeless that anybody here would ever read a document, I copy the paragraph in its entirety below.

Paragraph O (page 17) of the General Order 08-02 of the Central Distric of California states:[2]

 O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described

herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court.

The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United

States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An

encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the

NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming

the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of

Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF,

the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of

the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s)

is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

[1] Again - I deem the General Order 08-02 an integral part of the fraud - since it was never signed, never authenticated by a clerk, and bears no name of a judge who authored it, yet Dawn Bullock, Supervisor of Records, US District Court, LA,  claimed that it was the one governing and authorizing the operations of CM/ECF at the Central District of California, and so does the CM/ECF manual of the Central District of California. Similar provisions can be found in other District Court throughout the United States. However, uniformly, the issue is made vague and ambiguous.

[2] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-pacer-cm-ecf-us-dist-ct-cacd-general-orders-08-02-authorizing-cm-ecf-digital-verification-of-attestation-in-nef.pdf

At 04:47 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote:

JZ, I think i understand your facts quite well, you allege no service of summons and complaint in USA v. LA.  Then you made a legal conclusion that the entire case was void because of this.  You are talking law. -- scott

JZ,  Insufficiency of service is a question of fact and law.  Your declaration that USA v. LA was void because of insufficiency of service is a question of law.  Why do you inject legal questions into your conclusions if you do not wish to discuss law.  -- scott

---

From: s_huminski@live.com
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL, and FINE V SHERIFF
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:59:34 -0500



JZ, Your refusal to read the law of the US Supreme Court and the Federal Rules interferes with your conclusion that USA v. LA was not initiated properly.  Thus, you ignore the law and continue on ranting. -- scott

JZ, since when does the opinion of anyone making comments on the internet overrule the US Supreme Court and the Federal Rules.  Are you truly this dim? -- scott

---

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:51:46 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL, FINE V SHERIFF

Scott: Again, to apply the law, any rule or any supreme court decision, you must be familiar with the facts in the matter.   Somehow, reviewing the facts in the matter is the only thing you refuse to do... jz.


At 02:34 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote:

JZ, since when does the opinion of anyone making comments on the internet overrule the US Supreme Court and the Federal Rule.  Are you truly this dim? -- scott

 

---

From: s_huminski@live.com

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: FACT BASE DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:26:32 -0500

Again a false statement, I never claimed to inspect papers, i looked at the docket and could tell you were way out just from that.  I'm not going to look up the U.S. Supreme Court case law again or cite from the federal rules again to prove you dead wrong for the second time on the same issue.

 

Ok here it is again, Read JZ and don't make your stupid arguments over and over,

 

It is well settled that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived, see Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703-05 (1982), and, as to a defendant appearing in an action, the defense is deemed waived if not raised by motion before trial, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). 

 

OK Mr. expert on law, a summons is not neccessary as it can be waived.  I guess the US Supreme Court and the federal rule are wrong.  JZ is the expert on everything.  In USA v. LA the trial phase was replaced with a joint consent agreement, a settlement.  SERVICE OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS WAS WAIVED.  Now stop this endless cr@p.   -- scott

---

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:47:01 -0800

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

From: jz12345@earthlink.net

Subject: FACT BASE DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL

Scott:

1) You claimed to have inspected the papers.   Where did you find the certifications of Counsel for Defendants?

2) Regarding commencing court action with no summons at all, let me refer to:

a) Opinion of Brad - that the case must not be started with no summons being issued by the clerk.

b) Opinion of John Wolfgram (later reversed) that issuing of summons was not optional, but a must.

jz

At 01:00 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote:

Joe,  Your claim that USA v. LA was initiated improperly was dead wrong.  Fact, how about admitting it. You have lost all credibility. You are shooting from the hip with wild accusations.  See wolf's post on your sensational conclusions.  You are no PT Barnum, he was a better con-man.  -- scott

 

---

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:44:38 -0800

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

From: jz12345@earthlink.net

Subject: Judges in the United States are prone to racketeering, evidence from California and elsewhere...

Scott:

Your response seemed to consider the claim of racketeering by judges as scandalous, or even incredible.  Attorney Gottschalk can provide you with the exact case captions. He seemed to be an encyclopedia of judicial corruption.  

California and US judges were prosecuted for racketeering in:

a) San Jose California

b) San Diego California

Outside of California there were conviction of judges for racketeering in:

c) Cook County, Illinois (Chicago, Greylord)

Currently there is prosecution of judges for racketeering in:

d) Luzerne County, PA.

Currently, a major case of judicial corruption is being prosecuted, with all papers sealed, for unclear reasons, so that the public has hardly any information, and in violation of Sixth Amendment right for public trial (I am referring to the right of the public, since I assume that the sealing in this case was meant to benefit the defendants), at:

e) El Paso Texas.

Finally:

I provided the US Attorney General office ample evidence of racketeering in the Los Angeles Courts already in early 2008, well before Richard Fine was arrested.  The US Attorney General office refused to respond.  Thereafter, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Diane Watson issued Congressional  Inquiries on the US Department of Justice and the FBI on my behalf:

Why they would not respond to my requests for equal protection of the 10 million residents of LA County. 

The responses provided by Director of the US Attorney General Office, Kenneth Melson, and Assistant Director Kenneth Kaiser of FBI to United States Congress, are the subject of my current complaint to the DOJ IG.  I claimed that;

a) Such responses reflected refusal of US officers to perform their duties and provide equal protection, and

b) Such responses reflected fraud by US officers on US Congress.

The two gentlemen never contradicted my claims of racketeering by the judges in Los Angeles. Instead, they provided false and deliberately misleading responses, such as:

a) That I never proved "federal investigational jurisdiction" it the matter, and

b) That I never claimed any "specific violation of federal law".

Needless to say, if such claims of racketeering by judges in Los Angeles County were out to lunch, I doubt that Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Watson would have issued inquiries on my behalf.

IN SHORT - Claiming that judges in the United States are prone to racketeering in no news any longer, surely not scandalous.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.

To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.