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

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:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2010/12/10-12-05-human-rights-alert-ngo-seeks.html

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.

10-12-23 Indefinite Detention by Executive Order // Detención indefinida por la Orden Ejecutiva // 由行政命令无限期拘留

Why the White House's Proposed Indefinite Detention by Executive Order Should Scare the Hell Out of People

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:01pm. 

• Guest Commentary

BILL QUIGLEY AND VINCE WARREN FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The right to liberty is one of the foundation rights of a free people.  The idea that any US President can bypass Congress and bypass the Courts by issuing an Executive Order setting up a new legal system for indefinite detention of people should rightfully scare the hell out of the American people.

Advisors in the Obama administration have floated the idea of creating a special new legal system to indefinitely detain people by Executive Order.  Why?  To do something with the people wrongfully imprisoned in Guantanamo.  Why not follow the law and try them?  The government knows it will not be able to win prosecutions against them because they were tortured by the US.

Guantanamo is coming up on its ninth anniversary - a horrifying stain on the character of the US commitment to justice.  President Obama knows well that Guantanamo is the most powerful recruitment tool for those challenging the US. Unfortunately, this proposal for indefinite detention will prolong the corrosive effects of the illegal and immoral detentions at Guantanamo rightly condemned world-wide.

The practical, logical, constitutional and human rights problems with the proposal are uncountable.

Our system provides a simple answer developed over hundreds of years - try them or release them.  Any other stop gap measure like the one proposed merely pushes the problem back down the road and back into the courts again.  While it may appear to be a popular political response, the public will soon enough see this for what it is - an unconstitutional usurping of power by the Executive branch and a clear and present danger to all Americans. The US government has never publicly said who can be prosecuted and who they have decided to hold indefinitely because they think they cannot successfully charge them.  Now, after holding people for years and years, they think they can create a new set of laws by Executive Order which will justify their actions?

Recall that dozens of the very same people who would now be subject to indefinite detention have already been cleared for release by the government. How can indefinite detention of people we already cleared to go home possibly be legal?

The government proposes essentially to detain people for being a potential member or friend of the enemy force - a standard that is too open ended and inconsistent with the US and international laws of war.

Our criminal process, requiring charge, conviction and other safeguards, is the primary means by which the government may deprive a person of liberty, with carefully limited exceptions.

"Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action."  The Supreme Court has "always been careful not to "minimize the importance and fundamental nature of the individual's right to liberty." Foucha v Louisiana, 504 US 71 (1992).

The liberty of all persons is protected by the criminal process guarantees, among other rights: the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; probable cause for arrest; right to counsel, right to indictment by grand jury; right to trial by an impartial jury; the right to a speedy public trial; the presumption of innocence; the right that government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to make out the charged offense; a privilege against self-incrimination; the right to confront and cross examine witnesses; the right to present witnesses and use compulsory process; the duty on the government to disclose exculpatory evidence; prohibition against double jeopardy; prohibition against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws; and a prohibition against selective prosecution.

For hundreds of years judges and legislatures and advocates for justice have struggled to create protections for our liberty.  People who suggest bypassing all of these protections of our liberty in the name of safety or politics do our people and our history a grave disservice. Some wrongfully suggest that preventive detention by the Executive would be allowed because the law already allows civil confinement.  But there are only very narrow circumstances when limited civil confinement is allowed by law.  It is clear government cannot use civil detention or anything like it to effect punishment or to escape the comprehensive constraints of the criminal justice system. Kansas v Crane, 534 US 407, 412 (2002) (noting that civil commitment must not "become a mechanism for retribution or general deterrence.")

Further, preventive detention also violates international law, specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 9.

The proposal to create a special new legal system by executive order is an end run around Congress and the Judiciary. It will lengthen the illegal detentions in Guantanamo and will force this entire system back into the courts for years. It will further damage US efforts to portray itself as a fair country of laws, and will threaten the liberty of every single US citizen who is not in Guantanamo because it will damage the due process guarantees which have built up over the years to protect each one of us.

By Bill Quigley and Vince Warren. Vince is the Executive Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).  Bill is Legal Director of CCR and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans.  You can reach Bill at Quigley77@gmail.com

10-12-24 What Wikileaks Revealed in 2010 // Wikileaks lo revelado en el 2010 // 在2010年什么Wikileaks的揭示

What WikiLeaks revealed to the world in 2010

BY GLENN GREENWALD

Throughout this year I've devoted substantial attention to WikiLeaks, particularly in the last four weeks as calls for its destruction intensified.  To understand why I've done so, and to see what motivates the increasing devotion of the U.S. Government and those influenced by it to destroying that organization, it's well worth reviewing exactly what WikiLeaks exposed to the world just in the last year:  the breadth of the corruption, deceit, brutality and criminality on the part of the world's most powerful factions.

As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing.  The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them:  WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning.  A consensus quickly emerged in the political and media class that they are Evil Villains who must be severely punished, while those responsible for the acts they revealed are guilty of nothing.  That reaction has not been weakened at all even by the Pentagon's own admission that, in stark contrast to its own actions, there is no evidence -- zero -- that any of WikiLeaks' actions has caused even a single death.  Meanwhile, the American establishment media -- even in the face of all these revelations -- continues to insist on the contradictory, Orwellian platitudes that (a) there is Nothing New™ in anything disclosed by WikiLeaks and (b) WikiLeaks has done Grave Harm to American National Security™ through its disclosures.

• Continue reading

10-12-23 ACLU on Terrorist List in Tennessee // ACLU en la Lista de Terroristas en Tennessee // 美国公民自由联盟在田纳西州的恐怖分子名单

The Raw Story

ACLU placed on Tennessee terror map for letter to schools

By Daniel Tencer
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010 -- 6:40 pm

The ACLU of Tennessee says it ended up on a map of potential terrorist threats after it sent a letter to school superintendents asking them to be "inclusive" in their holiday celebrations.

The civil rights group says it found itself on the Tennessee Fusion Center's map identified under the category “terrorism events and other suspicious activity," with the explanation "ACLU cautions Tennessee schools about observing 'one religious holiday.'"

"It is deeply disturbing that Tennessee’s fusion center is tracking First Amendment-protected activity," Hedy Weinberg, executive director of ACLU-Tennessee, said in a statement. "Equating a group’s attempts to protect religious freedom in Tennessee with suspicious activity related to terrorism is outrageous. Religious freedom is a founding principle in our Constitution—not fodder for overzealous law enforcement."

State fusion centers were set up after 9/11 to help states collect and share information on potential security threats. The ACLU has previously warned of "the potential dangers of fusion centers, including their ambiguous lines of authority, excessive secrecy, troubling private-sector and military roles and a bent toward collection of information about innocent activities and data mining."

A fusion center spokesman told the Nashville City Paper that it was a mistake to have labeled the ACLU's letter as a "terrorist" event and said the tag on the map should have been labeled "general information."

But the City Paper found that the ACLU icon had instead been reclassified as "general terrorism news."

"You can argue that you don’t like the word terrorism in there, but it’s just general news that’s provided," fusion center spokesman Mike Browning responded to City Paper. "That’s the general news category. It doesn’t have anything to do with terrorism. It was just provided to schools as general information."

"After the City Paper pointed out to Browning that the entire map was labeled 'terrorism events and other suspicious activity' on the website, that was changed to 'open source news reports,'" the paper reported.

As of Thursday evening, the icon identifying the ACLU appeared to have been removed from the map altogether.

According to the ACLU, the controversy started after the group received "numerous" complaints from families around Tennessee complaining of overtly religious Christmas events in public schools.

The group responded with a letter to school superintendents arguing that "while public schools can teach about religion and religious holidays, public schools may not engage in indoctrination."

The letter went on to say that the ACLU "welcomes holiday celebrations that teach children about a variety of holidays. We believe, however, that holiday celebrations that focus primarily on one religious holiday can result in indoctrination as well as a sense within students who do not share that religion of being outsiders to the school."

The ACLU's Wenberg told the Chattanooga Times Free Press that she's taking the fusion center "at their word" that the terrorism designation was a mistake.

"I have not heard a good explanation for why school resource officers, who have a very important job in schools, would at all be interested or need to know about the letter we sent to local school superintendents about the need to keep holiday celebrations all inclusive," she added.

10-12-23 Anti-war Activists Subpoenaed in Chicago // Activistas contra la guerra Citados en Chicago // 反战传唤在芝加哥

Chicago Tribune

Amina Sharif, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, was among several people who gathered outside the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on Thursday to protest the flurry of subpoenas that have been issued to anti-war activists. Four such subpoenas have been issued in Chicago this week, an attorney for the activists said. (Keri Wiginton, Chicago Tribune /December 22, 2010)

By Andy Grimm, Tribune reporter

6:59 p.m. CST, December 23, 2010

• 
  
  More federal grand jury subpoenas went out this week as part of an apparent investigation into possible links between U.S. anti-war groups and foreign terrorist organizations, according to an attorney for the anti-war activists.

More than 20 activists in the Chicago and Minneapolis areas have now been subpoenaed since September as part of the federal probe, according to attorney Michael Deutsch, who is coordinating the activists' defense.

That month, subpoenas and search warrants executed on homes in Chicago and Minneapolis stated the investigation was seeking evidence of "material support of terrorism" and was seeking records of travel by the activists in the Middle East and South America.

The warrants also sought information about donations or support for groups listed on a State Department list of terrorist organizations, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

A group of activists gathered at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on Thursday to protest the government's actions.

"They're using the grand jury as a witch hunt to investigate political activists," Deutsch said.

Spokesmen for the FBI in Chicago and U.S. attorney's office in Chicago and Minneapolis declined comment, stating that grand jury proceedings are confidential.

Special Agent Steve Warfield, a spokesman for the FBI in Minneapolis, said only that an investigation of material support of terrorism is ongoing.

Since the initial round of subpoenas in September, at least nine more people in Chicago have been called to testify before the grand jury, including four this week, Deutsch said. All told, at least 23 people have been called to appear before a special grand jury seated in Chicago, he said.

Activists who received subpoenas in September told authorities they would refuse to appear. So far, none has been cited for contempt or compelled to testify.

Maureen Murphy, a member of the Chicago-based Palestine Solidarity Group and editor of the pro-Palestinian Web site Electronic Intifada, said she was served a subpoena Tuesday to appear before the grand jury Jan. 25. Murphy said she would not testify.

The Logan Square home of labor activist Joe Iosbaker and his wife, Stephanie Weiner, was searched by FBI agents in September. Both refused to testify before the grand jury in October.

In the months since, the couple has heard nothing from authorities, though FBI agents have returned his cell phone and a box of personal papers, which were among several boxes of evidence taken during the September search, Iosbaker said.

agrimm@tribune.com