Saturday, December 25, 2010
10-12-25 Cookbook Recipe: Invalid Cases in the US District Courts and Courts of Appeals // Los casos no válidos en los EE.UU. Juzgados de Distrito y los Tribunales de Apelaciones // 无效的案件在美国地区法院和上诉法院
FOUR SIMPLE STEPS IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY, OR LACK THEREOF, OF JUDGMENTS OF THE US DISTRICT COURT AND APPEALS IN THE US COURTS OF APPEALS
Dec 25, 2010 – In response on requests to examine the records in various cases of suspected fraud by the US Courts on pro se filers, particularly in matters pertaining to Civil Rights, Human Rights Alert published a four-step recipe for examining the validity of records of the US courts.
The Basic Ingredients
Most of the times, the void, not voidable orders and judgments in the US District Court in pretense litigations are such that were certified by a Judge, but never duly authenticated/attested by the Clerk of the Court.
The routine today in the US courts is that when the losing party files appeal from such judgment or dispositive order, the US Court of Appeals runs an appeal where the appeal is denied, albeit, through an appeal process, where no order or mandate are signed by a circuit judge.
In my opinion the honest way that the court of appeals should have handled such appeals is through dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Preparation and Cooking
1) You can easily find out the beginning of the answer regarding a given case... The simplest way is to check the very first orders issued in the appeal. If it started with unsigned orders, you have a good indication that it would end up like that as well, and that the judgment, which the appeal was taken from was void as well.
2) However, to get the definitive answer, you need the NEF of the judgment or the dispositive judgment. In the pretense judgments, the NEF would be defective, missing the 'electronic document stamp'. This step is a bit tricky, since the US District Court often deny access to the NEFs, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.
Additional instructions for pro se filers, on how to gain access to the NEF:
Some have suggested that it is all sloppiness in the US Courts from coast to coast. However, a reasonable person would conclude that consistent sloppiness in particular cases, where all minutes, orders, and judgments are 'sloppy', failing to include valid NEFs, and all orders and mandates in the respective appeals are unsigned, is not inadvertent 'sloppiness', but deliberate 'sloppiness' instead.
Furthermore critical tests in determining the nature of such cases are:
3) Requesting the Clerk of the Court and the Presiding Judge of the Court to take corrective actions regarding the apparent 'sloppiness' in the court records in such cases.
In no case that such request was made, was any record corrected.
4) Requesting the Clerk of the US District Court to certify the PACER docket of the case.
In no case that request was made to certify the PACER docket, was the docket certified.
Presentation and Service Suggestions of the Completed Dish
Here is a suggestion for presentation and service of the completed dish:
1) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus, at the US District Court, Central District of California, the NEF of the June 29, 2009 Judgment, issued in the name of Judge John Walter, was inspected and it was invalid, missing the 'electronic document stamp'.
2) In Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, all Orders and the Mandate of the Court of Appeals were unsigned, and were served with no NDA.
3) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) the mandate from Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) was later docketed under false docketing text, calling it a Mandate denying "Certificate of Appealability". Perhaps the false docketing text was meant to imply that there was no appealability in the void judgment in the first place.
4) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) the NEF of the mandate, as docketed in the US District Court was invalid as well, missing the 'electronic document stamp'.
5) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Presiding Judge of the US District Court, Central District of California, Audrey Collins has refused to take any corrective actions regarding the defects in the court docket and court records under Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
6) In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) the Clerk of the US District Court, Central District of California, Terry Nafisi has refused to certify the PACER docket.
Request for Help, Comments, Suggestions
1) Any documentation of pretense judgments in the US District Courts and pretense matching appeals in the US Courts of Appeals would be gratefully received for the archives.
2) Alternative interpretations of the facts, described above, would be also gratefully received.
3) Any suggestions would be appreciated regarding the best way to describe the overall combined practice of the US District Courts and the US Courts of Appeals in such cases.
Some terms, used in the past: Chain Reaction or Cascade of Pretense Court Actions.The description above was of only two or three steps in a Cascade or Chain Reaction. However, the Cascade, or Chain Reaction can be much more elaborate, including multiple steps, e.g., state courts, arresting agencies, prisons, the US district court, the US court of appeals, and SCOTUS, where all without exception would generate void, pretense legal records in a given case.