10-11-25 Fraud on the US Courts through Appearance of Unauthorized Counsel is Enabled by CM/ECF // El Fraude en los Tribunales de EE.UU.

 

Introduction:

PACER and CM/ECF, the electronic administrative systems of the US Courts, were implemented by the Administrative Office of the US Courts over the last two decades, albeit, with no public oversight.  PACER is the online Public Access to Court Electronic Records. CM/ECF is the Case Management/Electronic Court Filing system.

In report, previously published in an international, peer-reviewed scholarly computer science/informatics journal, with Editorial Board naming scholars from six European nations and Canada, the systems were opined as a large-scale computer fraud, which undermines the integrity of the US courts. [1]

Here, discussion with various practicing attorneys centered on one specific type of Fraud on the Courts enabled in the systems - appearances by unauthorized counsel with 'no communications with client' clause.  

In all cases, where such fraud was discovered to this date, the beneficiaries were either large financial institutions or government officers/agencies.

LINKS:

[1] Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/

______________

1) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:56:00 Joseph Zernik wrote:
Subject: Re: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by  unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause... 

Sunny:
Correction:
The Rule is explicit:
"attorney of record" is required to sign the pleadings he or she files... NOT "attorney".  Therein lies the difference.
JZ

2) At 07:48 PM 11/25/2010, Sunny wrote:

Yes, an attorney is required, by Rule 11, to sign the pleadings he or she files.
S

3) From: joseph zernik
Sent: Thu, November 25, 2010 3:38:53 AM
Subject: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause...

Hi Sunny:

The other reference to the issue is found in FRCP Rule 11: Sanctions:

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party.

However, as stated before, even after a year-long investigation showed that Countrywide employed in courts throughout the US outside counsel who were explicitly engaged as NOT counsel of record, no sanctions were imposed by the court.

Moreover, Countrywide made promises in that court to cease the practice, but the evidence shows that following the takeover by BofA, not only was the practice never ceased, but propagated to BofA...
JZ 

4) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:50:55 Joseph Zernik wrote
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by  unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause...

I beg to disagree.  Please do me a favor and read the Memorandum Opinion of Judge Jeff Bohm.
Not being an attorney, I know fully well the difference between Counsel and Counsel of Record.  Counsel of Record is permitted to appear in a given case, and is permitted to sign pleading, papers, in court on behalf of its client.

Even as an individual in California, I had the experience of engaging myself a counsel, with the explicit stipulation that prohibited the counsel from appearing in court on my behalf... He was only permitted to counsel me, that is all.

In case you need further proof, please read the Outside Counsel procedures of Bank of America Corporation. [1]  I also had discussion of the matter with senior staff at the General Counsel office, under Timothy Mayopoulos (prior to his December 10, 2008 ouster in the midst of Merrill merger, and ouster that was subject of investigations by US Congress, NY AG Cuomo, and others).  His office explicitly told me that Brian Cave, LLP, was appearing in court on behalf of BofA with no authorization at all.

After the ouster of Mayopoulos and his replacement by Moynihan, I got a strange email from senior staff at the same office, trying to backtrack, which only made it sound worse.
JZ
[1] 08-12-11 Bank of America - Outside Counsel Procedures s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932516/

5) At 07:46 PM 11/25/2010, Sunny wrote:

Joseph, I would disagree here.  There is no difference between "counsel" and "counsel of record" that I know of.  There is flexibility in the way court pleadings are signed, and court appearances are made, basically traditions which just develop in different firms.  (By the way, I have never used "Comes now..." to start a pleading.)

Sunny

6) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:43:01 Joseph Zernik wrote
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by  unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause...

The key record regarding Countrywide is Memorandum Opinion of Judge Jeff Bohm on the matter, which he states culminated a year-long investigation of the matter by him and by the US Trustee.  For general convenience, I posted it online.
As previously said, the Memorandum states that Countrywide admitted the practice, and senior officers of the corporation promised to cease the practice. However, Judge Bohm, in explaining his decision not impose sanctions on the perps, stated that "the Court would continue to watch that its faith was well-placed..."
In response, I later filed with Judge Bohm, under the same docket, evidence that his faith was ill-placed...

LINKS
[1] 08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/

7) At 07:38 PM 11/25/2010, Sunny wrote:

Joseph (do you go by "Joe," by the way?), I am in Italy but coming back tomorrow.  I am pretty sure that in the C.R.C.P., which usually tracks the F.R.C.P. closely, it is Sec. 1 of Rule 121, which are considered the local rules.  I need to check the F.R.C.P to find the same provision.  Also, can't comment on the Countrywide thing without seeing the pleadings.

S

8) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:43:26 Joseph Zernik wrote:
To: Jim
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause... -

Jim:
Don't even get me started on SEC v BAC (1-09-cv-06829) under judge Jed Rakoff at the US District Court, Manhattan.  I wrote a report on that subject alone for a top tier, scholarly, peer-reviewed international law journal, opining the litigation as a whole as Fraud on the Court.[1] All you need to do is look at the PACER Docket.
By the way, I was to the best of my knowledge (the PACER docket is no guide in that litigation at all), the only party who filed, as a shareholder, Affidavit in opposition of the initial settlement ($33m) than pending.  The essence of my affidavit was:
a) The evidence showed that SEC had no intention to enforce the law on BofA
b) The evidence showed that BofA had no intention of complying with the law.
c) The two parties showed up in court with a proposed settlement in hand. Therefore, it could not reasonably be deemed an adversarial action, in fact it was a joint venture.  Therefore, I argued, that even if Judge Rakoff rejected the initial proposed settlment (which he did), there was no way to litigate the case (and surely enough, it was never litigated, although Judge Rakoff was good in putting up a show).
d) That the Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest (Stanford Law and Business, former Commissioner of SEC) in favor of the initial proposed settlement was unreasonably narrowly construed.  I had first hand evidence that Prof Grundfest had in his possession voluminous evidence of wrongdoing by BofA, yet he opined that BofA was "highly regulated".

And getting back to Notice of Appearance and CM/ECF:
The case of SEC v BAC (1-09-cv-06829) must be deemed unique in that respect.  Attorney Vacilescu (SEC) filed and entered in the PACER docket an Adobe Acrobat Notice of Appearance form that was not signed at all.  My report [1] claimed that the record showed the degree to which integrity, security, and validity of PACER dockets is undermined... The Acrobat form was of the type that was ready-made for digital signatures... First - it document the effects of allowing counsel to enter records in the docket with no Clerical. Moreover, any reasonable digital docketing system should have recognized that the form was unsigned, and automatically rejected it. 
Here we have a digital docketing system of a major metropolitan US Court in the United States, in a case that was repeatedly reported by NYT, WSJ, WashPost, Times of London (my report also reviewed the fallacy of media reporting on the case), and such blatantly false record could make it to the docket...
________________
[1] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States - pending

9) At 07:01 PM 11/25/2010, Jim wrote:

And, Joe,  I never authorized the SEC to be
class action atty to sweep matters under the rug on some phony settlement with B of A,  dinky amount,
where the Settlement Fund Administrator is in Minn.( and roofed stuff, too)
And, yet, just another fleecing.
I am  a victim in the matters.
Not the atty of record. Not the named lead class action plaintiff, just one of the unnamed screwed.
That will cause Smith to say he is crying  a river.
In other words, he is going in for 2nds
 on apple pie, and pigging out today.

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

10) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:08:37 Joseph Zernik wrote:
To: Jim , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause...

Jim:

Let me make it clear, I never referred to your conduct as an individual in any way shape or form.  I am raising a question pertaining to the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF in general, as part of a series of papers I am writing on the subject for international, scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, examining the conditions of the justice system in the United States. [1]  The series as a whole opines large-scale computer fraud in the design and operations of PACER and CM/ECF, which is central to undermining the integrity of the US Justice system, as we see it today.

Your response below was obliquely helpful:

As to authorization of some attorney for some client, obviously none of us are privvy to that, are you..?

Really?

Below are three example (I have more), where I am privy to authorization of some attorney for some client in a particular caption.
_________
[1] 10-08-18 Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/
_________
The question at hand is:
Is there any place in FRCP or in the standard PACER docket, where Counsel, appearing on behalf of Client in a given caption, is required to certify that the Counsel was in fact engaged by the Client as Counsel of Record, authorized to appear on behalf of the particular Client in the particular caption.
In a small fraction of the US courts, the language of the certification in Notice of Appearance serves that purpose, stating Counsel of Record, but in the vast majority of US courts, such certification was nowhere to be found.
It is a glaring defect in the FRCO and PACER and CM/ECF, which opens the door to conduct (appearance of unauthorized counsel, with 'no communications with client'), opined herein, in general, as one type of Fraud on the Court enabled through PACER and CM/ECF.  However, in no case that was discovered so far, was such conducted perpetrated by Counsel on behalf of an individual Client, only on behalf of large financial institutions, government officials and agencies.

Particular examples:
1) Borrower William Parsley (4:05-bk-90374) - at the US Bankruptcy Court, Texas, Judge Jeff Bohm 72 page March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion. [1]
The memorandum also referenced a year-long investigation by the United States Trustee into litigation practices relative to engagement by Countrywide of outside counsel, to appear not as Counsel of Record, with "no communications with client clause".  Amazingly, at the end of the day, neither Countrywide, nor the outside counsel were even sanctioned.  Moreover, according to the Memorandum Countrywide admitted the findings, and senior Countrywide officers promised to cease the practice...(although the evidence shows that it was never ceased at all).
[1] Judge Jeff Bohm 72 page March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/

2) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District Court, Central District of California - habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine.
The Sheriff, named as Respondent, refused to respond. However, Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to order the release of Richard Fine.  Instead, she permitted Judge David Yaffe and the Superior Court to respond in lieu of the Sheriff. 
Consequently, Attorney Kevin McCormick appeared on behalf of the Superior Court.  As it later turned out, Attorney McCormick was in fact engaged not by the Superior Court itself, but by the California Judicial Council, under a false and deliberately misleading caption. [i] Attorney McCormick appeared nevertheless in Fine v Sheriff on behalf of the Superior Court with no authority at all, filed false records and a false declaration (while not a competent fact witness) - to affect the continued imprisonment of Richard Fine.
The records produced by Attorney McCormick as the foundation for the imprisonment contradicted the records, which were published online by the Sheriff.  The Sheriff himself never filed any declaration in the matter, to clarify which, if any, of the contradictory records was deemed by him valid.  Neither did Judge Yaffe - the alternate Respondent.  Moreover, none of the records, which were produced by Attorney McCormick were authenticated or certified by the Clerk of the Superior Court of California.  Additionally, the foundation record - the Register of Actions (California civil docket) was never produced.  Appearance of Attorney McCormick in Fine v Sheriff at the US District Court should be deemed Fraud on the Court.
Purportedly, none of these fatal defects in the proceedings and key evidence were ever noticed by the US District Court.  On June 12, 2009 Magistrate Carla Woehrle issued a lengthy Report and Recommendation, which was marked by the fact that the caption of the case Marina v LA County, in which former US prosecutor Richard Fine was purportedly imprisoned, was never mentioned at all. [ii]  Access to the authentication record of the June 12, 2009 Report continues to be denied, and therefore, there is no way to ascertain, whether it were in fact deemed a valid or void court record by the US Court and US Magistrate Carla Woehrle herself.
The purported June 29, 2009 Judgment by US Judge John Walter, adopted the Report and denied the Habeas Corpus Petition.  However, as it later turned out, it was void, false, and deliberately misleading judicial record: it was never authenticated/attested by the Clerk of the US District Court as required by the US District Court General Order 08-02.
No public access is permitted to the Calendar of the case at the US District Court, and court records fail to include summons or a Civil Cover Sheet, which is required by the US courts for establishing a civil docket. [iii]
The Clerk of the US Courts continues to deny requests to certify the docket of Fine v Sheriff- the habeas corpus petition.  Therefore, it is likely that the litigation as a whole was never deemed by the US Court itself as a valid litigation.
The case as a whole, and appearance of Attorney Kevin McCormick, in particular, are opined as Fraud on the Court.
_________

[i] 10-03-19b Richard Fine: Dr Zernik's correspondence with Mr Phillip Carrizosa of the California Judicial Council in re: Case Caption in engagement of Attorney McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28645522/
[ii] 09-06-12 Report and Recommendation by US Magistrate Carla Woehrle in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43992187/
[iii] Regarding calendars, summons, and Civil Cover Sheet in civil dockets, see:
Zernik, Joseph: Calendars and Clerks of the US Courts � pending.
_________
3) Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - at the US Supreme Court - Application for stay of execution (of solitary confinement) of Richard Fine
The SCOTUS docket lists as counsel for the Sheriff the law-firm of Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi PC.  However, the Legal Department of the Sheriff of Los Angeles had no idea of such appearance, and named an entirely different law-firm as authorized in the matter.
_________
11) Jim wrote 

Joe:

I  was not addressing  my  situation on any particular matter
I am not privvy as to what you loosely call fraud on the court.( with no facts or specifics), court, parties, issues, records etc.
As to your understandings as to counsel of record, check the docket sheets and pleadindgs in a particular case.( the many), Lexis if Fed Court, if you are properly characterizing.
As to the authorization of a client on matters, who is the client is a question, in your view..?
I am not a client, or attorney of record in any matter that concerns you, or an expert witness.
A lot of DOJ attys are not admitted to the bar who prepared pleadings & have ' em filed in fed  court( s)
You assume they are.( admitted)
As to authorization of some attorney for some client, obviously none of us are privvy to that, are you..?
Really.,?
Have you got a citation to
Judge Bohm's decision is it reported...?
Docket sheets list attorney of records, and the status on that., filings.
What you claim as a fraud on the court is not addressed with much basis, legal or factual.
I never noted I appeared for B of A,
Countrywide, and loan servicer, etc.
A motion  pro hoc vice would be relevant if a Chase atty( in house in NY) was appearing in Summit County Co,  and is not admitted to the Co Bar, or the Co Sup Crt.
I think you missed the point of my comment Joe.
Just because you claim something is a fraud on the court, don't make it so.
I don't rep for a large financial institution(s)
Nor, ever audited their books etc. Either
( see on Silverado)
On your authorization suppositions,
why is it of concern to you, do you have a dog in the fight a tangible financial interest..?

I was not addressing electronic filings.
Most law firms who filed hard copies had runners take the pleadings to the court house for filing like Quick Silver, who are not attorneys.( just filing at Clerks office for a Firm)

Are you making a Mountain out of. Mole hill, Joe.
Have you got one official court holding
that decreed " fraud on the court" in the matters you noted..?
Where.,??
So, if some atty problem on appearance, Chase can solve that, don't you imagine..?

Jim 

Sent from my iPhone

12) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:44:46 Joseph Zernik wrote:
To: Jim
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause...

Jim:
Don't even get me started on SEC v BAC (1-09-cv-06829) under judge Jed Rakoff at the US District Court, Manhattan.  I wrote a report on that subject alone for a top tier, scholarly, peer-reviewed international law journal, opining the litigation as a whole as Fraud on the Court.[1] All you need to do is look at the PACER Docket.
By the way, I was to the best of my knowledge (the PACER docket is no guide in that litigation at all), the only party who filed, as a shareholder, Affidavit in opposition of the initial settlement ($33m) than pending.  The essence of my affidavit was:
a) The evidence showed that SEC had no intention to enforce the law on BofA
b) The evidence showed that BofA had no intention of complying with the law.
c) The two parties showed up in court with a proposed settlement in hand. Therefore, it could not reasonably be deemed an adversarial action, in fact it was a joint venture.  Therefore, I argued, that even if Judge Rakoff rejected the initial proposed settlment (which he did), there was no way to litigate the case (and surely enough, it was never litigated, although Judge Rakoff was good in putting up a show).
d) That the Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest (Stanford Law and Business, former Commissioner of SEC) in favor of the initial proposed settlement was unreasonably narrowly construed.  I had first hand evidence that Prof Grundfest had in his possession voluminous evidence of wrongdoing by BofA, yet he opined that BofA was "highly regulated".

And getting back to Notice of Appearance and CM/ECF:
The case of SEC v BAC (1-09-cv-06829) must be deemed unique in that respect.  Attorney Vacilescu (SEC) filed and entered in the PACER docket an Adobe Acrobat Notice of Appearance form that was not signed at all.  My report [1] claimed that the record showed the degree to which integrity, security, and validity of PACER dockets is undermined... The Acrobat form was of the type that was ready-made for digital signatures... First - it document the effects of allowing counsel to enter records in the docket with no Clerical. Moreover, any reasonable digital docketing system should have recognized that the form was unsigned, and automatically rejected it. 
Here we have a digital docketing system of a major metropolitan US Court in the United States, in a case that was repeatedly reported by NYT, WSJ, WashPost, Times of London (my report also reviewed the fallacy of media reporting on the case), and such blatantly false record could make it to the docket...
________________
[1] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States - pending

13) At 07:01 PM 11/25/2010, Jim wrote:

And, Joe,  I never authorized the SEC to be
class action atty to sweep matters under the rug on some phony settlement with B of A,  dinky amount,
where the Settlement Fund Administrator is in Minn.( and roofed stuff, too)
And, yet, just another fleecing.
I am  a victim in the matters.
Not the atty of record. Not the named lead class action plaintiff, just one of the unnamed screwed.
That will cause Smith to say he is crying  a river.
In other words, he is going in for 2nds
 on apple pie, and pigging out today.

Jim

14) At 07:25 PM 11/25/2010, joseph zernik wrote:

Jim:
Your response below appears logically flawed to the core.  What is the relationship between a general question on Counsel authorization and foreclosures?
Is the need of banks to foreclose justifying unauthorized appearances by Counsel?
Anyway, I gave you a couple of habeas corpus examples as well...
Maybe you hold that the need to imprison persons with no valid foundation justifies unauthorized appearances by Counsel as well?
I expected better than that from you...
JZ

15) At 06:46 PM 11/25/2010, Jim wrote:

It is like Jerry in Boulder, and his beef
with the ex 's Esq.
Jerry wants to see the guy in jail.( Indicted), he really does, to cut to the chase.
Xrist, the question is;
If B of A and Chase can't foreclose on loans where people not paying,( on liar loans)
what does that do to the real estate
market..?
So Joe is arguing over " attorney"
and " attorney of record".

Sunny is her own attorney.
Her client, Sunny.
And, Sunny filed Joe's emails.
So, what next, your dog, Soffie,
and Murp  and Newt get deposition notices, next ??

Jim 

16) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:33:29 Joseph Zernik wrote:
To: Jim , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Counsel appearance, Notice of Appearance, Appearance by unauthorized counsel with 'no communication with client' clause...

Hi Jim:

You failed to address the question at all...

Your admissions to the bar says nothing about your authorization as Counsel/Attorney of Record for a particular client in a particular case.

A common Fraud on the Court today, on behalf of large financial institutions, government officials, and government agencies, are counsel, who are surely admitted to the bar, but never authorized as Counsel of Record in a given case for a given client, yet appear, with 'no communications with client' clause. 

The scheme was best described in a Memorandum Opinion of Judge Jeff Bohm, relative to conduct of outside counsel - large national law-firms for Countrywide in US Bankruptcy Courts across the nation. [1]

In most US District Courts and Courts of Appeals that I have inspected, the standard Notice of Appearance fails to state Attorney of Record, instead only stating Attorney.  Moreover, if you wish to find a record, if any, where counsel was required by Local Rules to sign as Attorney of Record, you may find it in the most unlikely places.  For example: US District Court, Central District of California Local Rules require it only on the Certificate of Parties...

Given the frequency of this type of Fraud on the Court, the question is:
* Is the failure to establish clear and unambiguous Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which would put an end to this practice, just a chance event?

I cannot imagine an individual ever engaging in such Fraud on the Court, or benefiting from it...

This type of Fraud on the Court is an example of fraud enabled by CM/ECF, since attorney is able to appear without having his/her records ever reviewed by the Clerk of the Court, as was the case in the paper-era. For any paper to be entered in the docket, the clerk had to stamp it FILED on its face, and inscribe his/her signature as well.  CM/ECF undermined the accountability of the clerks of the courts for electronic court records.

To wit: The clerks of the US Courts today refuse to certify the PACER docekts.

JZ
LINKS:
[1] 08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/ 

17) At 03:53 PM 11/25/2010, Jim wrote:

In Re Finincial institutions: audits and stuff:

I appreciate most of you are chowing down today, and may not read this;
 busy as things are;

In comment on Joe's below, however.

In each federal court   District  one gets a certificate of admission for example if  admitted to practice before U S District Court of Colorado.( if legit)
Yet, if in private private practice if have a case in the U. S District of  the Central District of FLordia , would have to file an motion to appear pro hac vice if not admitted to the bar in FL and associate with local counsel in FL, admitted to the FL Bar.
Also, after the origional complaint is filed and answer, any new attorney
 not on those pleadings must file a
 notice of appearance, in the case, or a notice of
Withdrawl from a case
.
The DOJ directs things out of D C by political sorts , all the time, and had Lisa C  file the pleadings, the D C attorneys( political animals) were never admitted to the Co Bar, ( Sunny's Doe matter)
I am speaking of Lisa whose hubby is John Walsh, now the U S Atty for Co,
who is touted as a Chamber man.
I have a whole box of admission certificates, like to the  u S District Court of Alaska. Etc
I stopped paying dues to the Alaska Bar, and  it took away the Bar membership, as they have a rule of mandatory payment of  Bar dues.
I could still appear in Alaska via a motion pro hac vice. But, I don't live in Alaska, any longer, so stopped paying dues to the Ak Bar.
I had studied hard to pass the Bar examine required for Ak.( passed it)
Also, each federal appeal court has their own admission requirments.
Like the 10th Cir, 9th Cir.
U S Supreme Court.( I belong to those.   have a glossy certificate from, all framed)
One has to apply for admission to get a certificate of admission.( each has own standards)
The courts maintain rolls of membership.
The mother f - er  in the DoJ D C who was Jewish, in D C never was admitted in Wyo, went after Burke .
I noted Burke, before.( his cases in the 10th Cir Region, federal circuit)
Big law firms usually list for an individual attorney every court where an individual of a firm is admitted.( like the WWW site for a firm)
The FDIC hires a lot of prviate corporate firms.
Ken Starr's firm was sued in matters for funny biz.( at  rep stuff  at an S& L in Colo.
Yet, that same firm represented Charles Keating in the S  & L matters
Met one of it's attys out walking my dogs.( on occassion)
Ken, I guess never noted E-Y accounting firm did the audits for Lincoln Savings and Loan.
Guess, he was too busy calling me names, or making up shit.
He might want to be damn careful who he throws his garbage at.
Now, he is sealed lips to Sunny, apparently.( now).
Harold had Stu M from Texas appear for him in Ca. N Dist of Ca, and the 9th Cir.
Stu lives in Texas and is not admitted to the Ca Bar.
Stu appeared for Harold in the Chevron case.( where the Ex U S Atty from L A ( then judge issued a decree on  " the first to be gullotined" as to Harold( an auditor for DOE)
He must have filed a motion pro hac vice.( Harold atty that is)
Maybe Harold could chime in on that
 since he noted " just- us".
Or, is he silento, now.
Ken is pro se.( around)
He has no admission certificates from any federal court.
But, he does look up donations to Grayson, etc etc
Admission to the Co Sup Court allows one to practice in any State Court in Co, as Sunny did in Summit County( once)
Al Simpson is not a member of the Colorado Bar,  he  just makes threats interstate.( when not blathering about " tits"
White boots Bob in Fl is a member of no Court or lawyer Bar,
But, he has blog pieces that note
Ken as a " Colorado attorney".
Amazing, what white boots Bob can do with his keyboard and  plugged into a Blog.
See before on "White boots Bob"

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

18) On Nov 24, 2010, at 7:23 PM, joseph zernik wrote:

Hi Sunny:

I compared a number of standard forms, and also papers found online for Notice of Appearance.  Only in a few of them the certificate specifically states "Counsel of Record". In most of them it only states "Counsel".  In my opinion, it opens the room for Fraud on the Court.

In all cases, where I have documented such Fraud on the Court actually being perpetrated, the beneficiaries were either large financial institutions, or government officials and government agencies.  I cannot imagine an individual perpetrating such Fraud on the Court, or benefiting from it.

Therefore, I tend to believe that the failure to state in standard form "Counsel of Record" was not a chance omission...

I wonder how many of the recipients have encountered this type of Fraud on the Court.

JZ

P.S. The standard text in legal dictionaries, under "Appearance", typically states the following:

"In general, the appearance of either party may be in person or by attorney, and, when by attorney, there is always supposed to be a warrant of attorney executed to the attorney by his client, authorizing such appearance."

"Supposed" appears a mild word in this context...  One would have expected a "must"...

Therefore, I suppose that this is an age-old Fraud on the Court, well recognized over the generations...