IN PRO PER IN L.A. // בעצמו, בלתי מיוצג: 10-05-16 Filing with the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit and US Supreme Court // Presentación ante la Corte de Apelaciones de EE.UU., 2 º Circuito de la Corte Suprema y los EE.UU. // Einreichung bei der US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit und US-Supreme Court

RE: Huminski v Rutland Police Dept (1:99 -cv-160) Potential filing with the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, and the US Supreme Court in re: Alleged honest services fraud at the US District Court, Vermont

Filing with the US Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court, as proposed by Plaintiff Huminski, below, on the matter of alleged honest services fraud in PACER and CM/ECF, and false appearances by counsel at the US court, Vermont, is something to be pondered, only for demonstration purposes....

1) US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit was approached a number of times in requests to access the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) - the authentication records - in Huminski v Town of Bennington, Vermont (03-7036) to inspect and to copy. Access to such court records was and is denied, in disregard of First Amendment rights and the US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) .[1] Honest Services Fraud on Huminski at the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, was alleged under such caption by then circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor, compounded by her false filing with US Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the nomination-confirmation hearings. [2]

2) US Supreme Court was petitioned in papers filed under Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), which included detailed compelling evidence of the alleged large scale fraud in PACER and CM/ECF and false appearances by counsel at the US District Court, Central District of California, and US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. [3] The US Supreme Court engaged in the same practices seen in lower courts - papers that provide compelling evidence of corruption of the judiciary and perversion of justice were simply eliminated from the record, with no Due Process at all. [4]

Therefore, the only reason to file again with the US courts on the matter would likely serve to document again the disregard of First Amendment rights - through the vanishing of papers filed to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Truly,

Why don't you file a pleading after your inquiry is not satisfactorily addressed. I'll probably join it. Judge Murtha absolutely hates me, so that will bring an opportunity to bring your issue to the US 2nd cir. After the federal district, the 2d cir is considered most reknown because of the securities cases, big mafia cases, etc.

At 13:38 5/15/2010, Rocker Scott Huminski wrote:

Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 13:38:34 -0400

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2010 17:38:34.0722 (UTC) FILETIME=[7181F420:01CAF455]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

You picked the most connected firm in Vermont, good choice. Within the past 5 years their partners have been appointed to Chief Justice, Vermont Supreme Court, Justice, US 2nd Cir. Court of Appeals. Paul Reiber, Peter Hall.

On May 15, 2010, 5:07 AM Dr Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 05:07:43 -0400
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: Huminski v Rutland Police Dept (1:99-cv-160) Alleged Honest Services Fraud at the US District Court in Vermont
CC: amendmentone@comcast.net

RE: Huminski v Rutland Police Dept (1:99-cv-160) Alleged Honest Services Fraud at the US District Court in Vermont

The case of Huminski v Rutland Police Department, from the US District Court, Vermont, detailed below, surprisingly mimicked in great detail the case of Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County at the US District Court, Central District of California, where Attorney Kevin McCormick engaged in false appearances for Judge David Yaffe, while not Counsel of Record in the case, where the Judicial Council of California, which retained Attorney McCormick for such false appearances, insisted on referring to the case using a false caption, corrupting the name of first Defendant as "Sheriff of Los Angeles Court", [1] and were invalid NEFs were produced by the Court for all Minutes, Orders, Judgment, and Mandate served in the case. [2]

Joseph Zernik

LINKS:
[1] Correspondence with California Judicial Council in re: Engagement of Kevin McCormick in the habeas corpus of Richard Fine.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28645522/10-03-19b-Richard-Fine-Dr-Zernik-Mr-Carrizosa-Corresponde-in-re-Case-Caption
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28787678/10-03-22-Richard-Fine-Final-Response-by-Mr-Carrizosa-California-Judicial-Council-Re-Case-Caption-s
[2] See Human Rights Alert Filing with the United Nations, linked as [3] , below.

On May 15, 2010, 4:50 AM Dr Joseph Zernik wrote:

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: jz
Sent: May 15, 2010 4:50 AM
To: bertrand@kenlanlaw.com, Feedback@kenlanlaw.com, 1-802-775-1581@metrofax.com
Cc: joseph zernik , dlc@clearyshahi.com, plynn@IYlmlawvt.com, mking@lynnlawvt.com, mpatane@atg.state.vt.us, angelav@atg.state.vt.us, cgoldstein@atg.state.vt.us, rhooker@atg.state.vt.us, hthomas@lynnlawvt.com, aspears@lynlawvt.com, s_huminski@live.com
Subject: Huminski v Rutland Police Dept (1:99-cv-160) February 12, 2010 Defendant Corsones objection to Huminskis Motion for Limited Discovery and related issues.
May 14, 2010

Attorney Shalmon A. Bertrand
KENLAN, SCHWIEBERT, FACEY & GOSS, P.C. bertrand@kenlanlaw.com
Feedback@kenlanlaw.com
1-802-775-1581@metrofax.com

RE: Huminski v Rutland Police Dept (1:99-cv-160) February 12, 2010 Defendant Corsones objection to Huminskis Motion for Limited Discovery and related issues.
Attorney Bertrand:
I am in receipt of your paper, referenced above, [1] and also of Judge Murthas Memo and Order. [2] Some technical deficiencies appeared in both papers, where I request your assistance, which would require minimal effort at best, and would be critical in the safeguard of Human Rights at the US District Court in Vermont and beyond [3]:

1)      Your service of the February 12, 2010 Defendant Corsones Objection failed to include the NEF from the US District Court Vermonts CM/ECF. [1]
As is patent in the various users manuals of the US district courts, the Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) are today the authentication instruments of the US courts. However, since I am not authorized in CM/ECF the Courts case management system, at the US District Court Vermont, I was denied service and notice of such critical paper through CM/ECF by the Court itself.
The record, referenced above, [1] showed the US District Court header imprint on its pages:
            Case 1:99-cv-00160-jgm Document 351 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 4
It was obvious that you served Proposed Intervenor Zernik his copy of Defendant Consones paper after its filing at the US District Court in Vermont. For such filing to be honest, valid, and effectual, you should have received by email in response to your electronic filing a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) from the US District Court in Vermonts CM/ECF the Courts case management system.
In fact, you referred to that fact in your Certificate of Service (Dkt #351-1), where for some of the parties you stated that the authentication would be delivered VIA CM/ECF.
Therefore, I request that you forward to me the NEF for the paper you served on me, so that I would be able to discern whether the paper that you served on me was indeed a paper that was an honest, valid, and effectual filing at the US District Court, Vermont. Given that the NEF is an electronic record, I would be grateful if you forward it by email to .

2)      Your February 12, 2010 Defendant Corsones Objection [1] failed to state the correct caption of the case at hand.
The Court listed the first Defendant in the case as Rutland City Police Department. [2] You entirely failed to list such Defendant, and therefore, the case caption of your paper was inadequate or invalid.

Therefore, I request that you please serve me a corrected paper, alternatively a reasonable explanation for the erroneous case caption used by you.

3)      Your February 12, 2010 Defendant Corsones Objection [1] failed to include an adequate signature box for the Counsel.
Therefore, I would be grateful if you could forward me an explicit statement that you were and are Counsel of Record for Defendant Corsones in the caption of Scott Huminski, Plaintiff v. Rutland City Police Department, Rutland County Sheriff's Department, Town of Rutland, Unnamed Members of the Rutland County Sheriff's Department, Unnamed Rutland Police Officer, State of Vermont, Nancy Corsones, Karen Predom, Vermont State Police, Unnamed Vermont State Police Officer, Rutland District Court, R.J. Elrick, S. Schutt, Robert Emerick, M. Patricia Zimmerman, Bennington County Sheriff's Department, Gary Forrest, City of Rutland, Rutland County, Defendants. (1:99-CV-160) at the United States District Court For The District Of Vermont.

4)      The Courts February 12, 2010 Memo and Order [2] was likewise served with no authentication at all.
The Court served its Memo and Order with no authentication at all. Given that I was and am denied access to the NEFs in CM/ECF, there was and is no way that I could discern whether the paper served on me by the Court required full faith and credit.
Therefore, I would be grateful for your help in forwarding to me by email the NEF which you surely received by email from CM/ECF on the February 12, 2010 Judge Murthas Memo and Order.
Your help in these matters would be greatly appreciated. No doubt you realize that such simple technical matters are critical for the furtherance of justice and for the safeguard of the Human Rights of all who reside in the United States in view of the manner in which the US courts are today administered through PACER and CM/ECF.
Truly,
___/s/_______
Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
CC:
David L. Cleary
dlc@clearyshahi.com
Pietro J. Lynn
plynn@IYlmlawvt.com
mking@lynnlawvt.com
Mark J. Patane
mpatane@atg.state.vt.us
angelav@atg.state.vt.us
cgoldstein@atg.state.vt.us
rhooker@atg.state.vt.us
Heather E. Thomas
hthomas@lynnlawvt.com
aspears@lynlawvt.com
Scott Huminski
s_huminski@live.com

LINKS:
[1] February 12, 2010 Defendant Corsones Objection
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31305312/10-02-12-Huminski-v-Rutland-Sheriff-s-Department-et-al-at-the-US-District-Court-Vermont-False-Memo-and-Order-served-with-no-NEF-at-all-s

[2] February 12, 2010 Judge Murtahs Memo and Order
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31305312/10-02-12-Huminski-v-Rutland-Sheriff-s-Department-et-al-at-the-US-District-Court-Vermont-False-Memo-and-Order-served-with-no-NEF-at-all-s

[3] April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Filed-UPR-Report-with-the-United-Nations
b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/10-04-18-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Submission-to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010-Universal-Periodic-Review-of-the-US-s
c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Appendix-for-Submission-to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010-UPR-of-the-United-States-s
d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/10-04-13-UPR-Tool-Kit-Urban-Justice-Center-USA-provided-by-UN-office-of-High-Commissioner-for-Human-Rights

IN PRO PER IN L.A. // בעצמו, בלתי מיוצג

Sunday, May 16, 2010

10-05-16 Filing with the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit and US Supreme Court // Presentación ante la Corte de Apelaciones de EE.UU., 2 º Circuito de la Corte Suprema y los EE.UU. // Einreichung bei der US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit und US-Supreme Court

No comments:

Post a Comment