11-05-10 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission - Simulated Litigation in the US Supreme Court… // Litigios simulado en los EE.UU. Corte Suprema ... // 模拟诉讼在美国最高法院...

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark case.  A valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment is yet to be discovered… Most recently, an invalid record was produced by FEC.

 

Los Angeles, March 22 - Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (08-205) is no doubt one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court. It was reported to have accorded corporations First Amendment rights, “decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns… a stunning example of judicial activism…” [[i]]  However, a valid and effectual copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment in the case - a historic document - is yet to be discovered... 

An invalid record was recently produced by FEC as the February 22, 2010 Judgment

Most recently, May 9, 2011 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response was received from FEC on request for the February 22, 2010 Judgment and the corresponding authentication by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court. [[ii]]

Figure 1: The record that was provided by FEC as the February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission combined with its authentication by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.

The judgment record, which was provided in the FOIA-response by FEC cannot possibly be deemed a valid court record:

·        It is a record dated January 21, 2010, whereas the online docket noted the issuance of a Judgment on February 22, 2010.

·        It is an unsigned record, which bears a stamp certifying that it is a “true copy” of an unsigned original record.

·        The stamp itself is signed, but not dated.  Moreover, the name and authority of the person who signed the stamp (Cynthia Rapp) were not printed below the signature line.  Therefore, the signature on the stamp, certifying “true copy” is of dubious validity as well.

·        Contrary to what was stated in the FOIA response letter [i], the record, which was provided, did not include true and valid attestation/authentication by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.

A legal dictionary says:

AUTHENTICATION - An attestation made by a proper officer, by which he certifies that a record is in due form of law, and that the person who certifies it is the officer appointed by law to do so… By authentication is also understood whatever act is done either by the party or some other person with a view of causing an instrument to be known and identified.

It should be of particular concern that FEC, like other parties to the litigation, so far has not produced a copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment as served on FEC by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.  Instead, the record, which was produced, was derived from the PACER docket of the US Court, District of Columbia.  However, to the degree that the record, which was provided, was a record filed and entered in the US Court, District of Columbia, it was missing the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing), which is deemed the valid authentication record by the US district courts under electronic filing. [[iii]]

Entry of February 22, 2010 Judgment remains ambiguous in the online records of the Supreme Court.

The online records of the Supreme Court and previous attempts to discover a valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment support the notion that no valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment exists.

·        The online docket of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission states: [[iv]]

Feb 22, 2010 JUDGMENT ISSUED.

 

 

Figure 2: Excerpts from the online docket of the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

·        "Issuing" of orders and judgments, which are neither certified, nor entered, is a common fraud in the lower courts. [[v]]  The February 22, 2010 Judgment was not found among the online records of the US Supreme Court.

·        The online records of the US Supreme Court [[vi]] also show that the Journal for January 21, 2010, the date of the presumed decision, is missing the typical introductory remark, found in many (but not all) dates of seating of the court, regarding certification and entry of the orders and decisions.  

For example, on January 25, 2010, the immediate next seating of the Court, the Journal says:

The Chief Justice said:

"We have issued orders today, they have been duly entered and certified, and filed with the Clerk." [underline added -jz]

Previous attempts failed to discover the February 22, 2010 Judgment, as served on parties to the litigation.

·        The March 29, 2011 response from Office of Solicitor General to FOIA Request, states:

Neither of these records were found in review of records maintained by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

·        The March 24, 2011 response from the Civil Division of the US Department of Justice to FOIA request states:

The Civil Division does not maintain records relating to that case.   

·         Request was also forwarded to parties in the case, for a copy of the judgment, which was supposed to have been noticed and served.  One party responded that the February 22, 2010 Judgment was neither served nor noticed, in apparent violation of Due Process rights.  No party responded that a February 22, 2010 Judgment was either noticed or served. 

·        Previous attempts to discover valid and effectual judicial records in paper court files of the US Supreme Court uniformly failed. Access to the electronic records of the US Supreme Court was and is denied, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights. 

Efforts to discover a copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission continue. 

Reports of the United Nations Crime Prevention Center on "Strengthening Judicial Integrity" list missing court records as a cardinal sign of judicial corruption. [[vii]]

Simulated Litigation is today a common practice in both the state and US courts.

Simulated litigation is defined in the Texas Penal Code (§32.48) as follows:

A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process…

The practice of Simulated Litigation is the most common form of corruption of judges and clerks in both the state and US courts today.  It is common in all levels of the US courts, in both obscure and high profile cases.

Two examples of recent cases of Simulated Litigation, which were widely reported by media as valid court actions are:

·        Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425) in the US District Court, Central District of California (US Judge Virginia Phillips), and its counterpart, the appeal (10-56634) still underway in the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit.  The underlying matter is the disputed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of the armed forces. [[viii]]

·        Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York (US Judge Jed Rakoff).  The underlying matter is the unlawful taking of $5.8 billions in bonuses by banking executives during the Merrill Lynch- Bank of America merger. [[ix]]

Invalid case management systems in the courts are the enabling tools of Simulated Litigation

The practice of Simulated Litigation is probably as old as the courts themselves.  Over centuries, record keeping of the courts, the core of Due Process, evolved to prevent it.  Implementation of computerized case management systems in the state and US courts, where the nature of signatures and authentication was left vague and ambiguous, is claimed to be central to the widespread practice of Simulated Litigation.  Request for review of the evidence of fraud in the computerized records of the US District Courts and Courts of Appeals (PACER and CM/ECF) was previously forwarded to Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler, an expert on computers and the law. [[x]]

Needless to say, computer technology could have had the opposite effect, if correctly implemented.

In conclusion: 

·        So far, the records of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) remain vague and ambiguous, like the vague and ambiguous records of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), where the Supreme Court was reported to have recognized corporations as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

·        Citizens United v Federal Election Commission presumably accorded corporations First Amendment rights.  However, the First Amendment right of the people, for access to valid and effectual records of the Supreme Court of the United States, is denied.  As a result, so far, there is no way to ascertain, whether in fact a valid and effectual February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission was ever certified and entered.  

·        The US Supreme Court’s case management system, a key to establishing the validity, or lack thereof, of various Supreme Court records, remains under a veil of secrecy, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights. Claims of online publication of false and deliberately misleading records by the office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court were part of the previous request for impeachment of Clerk William Suter. [[xi]] 

LINKS:

---

[i]      0-01-21 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) at the Supreme Court of the United States - opinion of Prof Chemerinsky and Wikipedia overview

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/41364083/      

[ii]       11-05-10 Reply on FEC Response on FEC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, No. 2011-46, in re: February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805) -s

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/55053218/

[iii]      Regarding the NEFs as authentication records of the US courts under electronic filing, see:

11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/ 

[iv]      11-03-16 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States - Review and Compiled Online Records

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/50900898/

[v]       For review of false issuance of invalid records in the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals (PACER and CM/ECF), see:

        11-02-09 Press Release: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'  the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense Judgment of the US District Court

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/

        11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/  

        For review of false issuance of invalid records in the Superior Court of California (eCourt and Sustain), see:

        11-04-17 PRESS RELEASE: Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) – Fraud turns into Extortion in the Los Angeles Superior Court

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/53212710/

        09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir's Opinion Letter re: Sustain - the Case Management System of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/46069337/

[vi]      11-03-16 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States - Review and Compiled Online Records

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/50900898/

[vii]      00-04-00 Report of the First Vienna Convention - Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2000) (See p5-6)

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/

        01-03-01 Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption CICP-10, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2001) (see p5-6)

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/

[viii]    11-02-09 Press Release: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'  the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense Judgment of the US District Court

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/

[ix]      Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Simulated Litigation and Simulated Banking Regulation in the United States

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/

[x]       11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud in the US courts

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/

[xi]      11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER s

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/47539382/ 

____

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

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.
_______  
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

Flag Counter: 119
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Total Reads: 405,060
Followers: 564
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http ://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Total Item Views: 317,053
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?

* "...a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences." 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50753639/ 
Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?

* ”...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/27433920/
* "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 /
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?

* "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California." 
United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS 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 (2010)
http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?

* "More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning "mandatory and enforceable" ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by "recent media reports," the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others."
More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011) 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49586436/
_____________________________
WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* "The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition..."
Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50137887/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?

* In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" on the US Department of Justice. Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/
_____