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

Cookbook Recipe


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

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.


Human Rights Alert said...

The best response I got from a reader so far described the situation in the US courts, which is described in the recipe below as "spontaneous rapid self dis-assembly".
In my opinion, the same term could be useful in describing a few other areas of the US government today, beyond the US courts.

Anonymous said...

I recently received a court document with the electronic signature of the assigned US District Court Judge. This document was a denial of all my motions, rule 15 (followed) amendment, and my Response to the Defendants answer to the Complaint which was a pleading of particularity and attached to my Motion to Disqualify Counsel and strike their affirmative Defenses of which by law none stood, including case law for this very court. I backed my response with appeals court circuit 7 authority that states it is OK to attach pleadings to a motion as well as rule 9 documentation. I wanted Defense Counsel disqualified because it was the same law firm of which an attorney of theirs broke multiple title 18 violations when this action commenced before a federal agency. The federal agency ignored the facts and creatively ignored all law, rules, and their own regulations. There was a large money transaction by the Defendant just a few days before the Attorney hand delivered the Defendant's Position Statement to the federal agency. Now in federal court since August but yet to see a judge. No scheduling order--No status conference--Motions for same ignored. I am filing electronically. I researched the documents I receive from the court and they are created by the Court's Pro Se Staff Attorney and she signs with the judge’s electronic signature. I even received one on a Sunday afternoon. Yea right, the judge was at work on a Sunday. She manipulates the filing date. It is one of these fraudulent memorandums and orders I received just after I motioned to enjoin this fool (Barbara Morse and she is on the ethics committee) from my case. The total document void of rule, law, fact and a legal signature. She changed the font that I had pointed out she was using as compared to the font the judge uses but the PDF properties still name her as the author and this document does not come up on the all recent opinions link. I have written the Chief Judge--nothing. The inmates are running the asylum. I am happy I am 3000 miles away from where this case is taken place; I do not feel safe. This is RICCO with collusion by the attorneys, the court attorney and the federal agency and they have no fear of court because nothing ever sees a judge as they see to it that you are blacklisted from employment and too poor to afford an attorney so all goes through these pro se staff attorneys. The name is catchy--one would think they are there to help the pro se litigant and they even put out publications on how the court can help the pro se litigant but there is no access to the court for the pro se litigant. This is in the US District Court of Massachusetts. I am disabled and they are breaking federal law thru oppression of this disabled person as they deny me my constitutional rights, and intimidate me with threats of sanctions. I am unsure if the judge's have a clue or not because you cannot get to them all communication is intercepted by court staff--even US Mail. They have fraud thru the ECF system mastered. There was even 6 files switched in the ECF and I have the docket proof where my case was entered and a note stating an action by the clerk yet no action taken or needed because what he said he did I had already done. These judges are letting the computer savvy generation run the court and have not a clue; if they are aware we are in even graver trouble.