Cynthia L. Bauerly
"[D]ecision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns... a stunning example of judicial activism." [[ii]]
However, based on review of US Supreme Court, US District Court, Washington DC, and FEC and US Solicitor General FOIA-response records, the request opined that Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805) in the US Supreme Court and Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC, were cases of Simulated Litigation. [[iii]]
- No valid summons was ever issued or served on the FEC in the case in the US District Court, DC
- No Judgment is listed as entered in the Judgment Index of the case in the US District Court, DC
- No valid, duly signed and authenticated record of the Judgment of the US Supreme Court has been discovered so far.
- There is no record to show that the Judgment of the US Supreme Court has ever been served by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court on the FEC.
Report, authored by him, and based in part on analysis of computerized court records, was incorporated into the official 2010 Staff Report of the United Nations Human Rights Council, as part of the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, with a reference note stating:
The request was copied to Senator Dianne Feinstein.
[i] 11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC s
[ii] 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
[iii] Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code; section 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) 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 with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
[iv] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch
[v] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession".
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.
Flag Counter: 119
Total Reads: 431,060
Total Item Views: 342,338