10-12-12 Press Release: Log Cabin Republicans v USA – ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ - Notice of Intent to Intervene Given to Parties in the Appeal // los gays en el ejército y la integridad de los Tribunales de EE.UU. // 在军事同性恋和美国法院的完整性

 

Los Angeles, December 12 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, has filed with attorneys representing Log Cabin Republicans and the United States a notice of intent to intervene in appeals now pending before the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit. [1]

Human Rights Alert has recently reviewed litigation records from the past six years issued by Judges George Schiavelli and Virginia Phillips of the US District Court, Central District of California.  The review revealed an invalid case docket, inconsistent with US law. [2] Of particular concern, two contradictory judgments were published by the Court.  In the first judgment, recorded in the Judgment Index of the Court, Judge Schiavelli ruled in favor of the United States and dismissed the Log Cabin Republicans’ complaint.  In the second judgment, not recorded in the Judgment Index of the Court, Judge Virginia Phillips ruled in favor of the Log Cabin Republicans and imposed an injunction on the US government’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy.  Furthermore, the case docket failed to show a valid Assignment Order for either judge. 

The nature of the litigation at the US District Court and the validity of both contradictory judgments was further muddied by the fact that the Court has so far denied Public Access to the ‘electronic document stamps’, which are required to ensure authenticity of judicial records.  

If the judgments are indeed invalid, as claimed by Human Rights Alert, then the Appeals, now pending before the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, should be dismissed, since the Court of Appeals only holds authority to conduct appeals of authentic judgments from a US District Court.  Moreover, if the District Court’s judgments are inauthentic, there is no appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeals, since the original ruling would be null and void.  In other words, the appeals, now pending, would be moot.

Human Rights Alert has previously managed to gain access to the ‘electronic document stamps’ in another civil rights case in the US District Court, Central District of California – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) – the habeas corpus of the 70 year old former US prosecutor, Richard Fine.  Dr Fine was held for 18 months in solitary confinement in Los Angeles County after he exposed and rebuked the taking of ‘not permitted’ payments by California state judges, which were labeled by the media as ‘bribes’. Dr Fine was imprisoned by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County with no warrant and with no judgment or conviction ever entered in his case.  Regardless, in June 2009 his habeas corpus petition was reported in the media to have been denied in the US District Court. 

Months later, Human Rights Alert exposed the fact that the June 2009 judgment by Judge John Walter, denying the habeas corpus petition, was not an authentic judicial record and had been published without an ‘electronic document stamp’.

Human Rights Alert asserts that the public policy significance of Log Cabin Republicans v the United States by far exceeds the question of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’- the subject matter of the complaint.   Instead, this litigation places the spotlight on the denial of Public Access to the ‘electronic document stamps’ and thus, the question of the integrity of judicial records and processes at the US District Court, Central District of California.  Hiding the ‘electronic document stamps’ from public view constitutes serious, widespread disregard of First Amendment and Due Process rights – it leaves the Public unable to distinguish between valid and invalid judicial records.

Human Rights Alert has expressed the hope that attorneys for the Log Cabin Republicans, attorneys of the United States, or the Clerk of the District Court would finally permit the Public to inspect the ‘electronic document stamps’ of the two contradictory judgments in Log Cabin Republicans v the United States, and therefore, avoid the need for Human Rights Alert to file for intervention in the appeal.  The potential intervention by Human Rights Alert would ask the US Court of Appeals’ assistance in gaining access to the ‘electronic document stamps’ and determining the authenticity of the October 2010 injunction by Judge Virginia Phillips.

If the October 2010 injunction is not an authentic judgment, the Log Cabin Republicans may choose to launch a new complaint on the matter of ‘Don’t Ask –Don’t Tell’, insisting that the US District Court enter an authentic assignment order to a US judge and enter an authentic judgment on the issue. 

Regardless of any potential delay in deciding the issue of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’, Human Rights Alert argues that a ruling by the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, on the matter of Public Access to the ‘electronic document stamps’ and the authenticity of judicial records in the US District Court, Central District of California, would have a major impact on the safeguard of Human Rights in California and the United States. 

________

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.

LINKS

[1] 10-12-12 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit: Notice of Intent to Intervene and Request to Confer

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45138727/

[2] 10-12-06 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (2:04-cv-08425) at the US District Court, Central District of California: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – Evidence of Another Pretense Litigation by Judge Virginia Phillips

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44771304/ 

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ 
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345  
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES?
*  "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations."
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute
http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
*     "Innocent people remain in prison"
*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
*   "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
*   "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."    
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
*   "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/