| Ron Branson | 
May 24 (20 hours ago)
|
Scott Huminski, I am appending my latest U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Cert. Therein, you will find a number of cases on attacking void judgments. Of course, the courts ignored everyone of them, including the Court that made the decisions. God bless.
Ron Branson
Attachments (2)
Certiorari to US Supreme Court 2-17-2012.doc105 KB View Download
VictoryUSA.vcf524 B View Download
______
Void Judgments - the big picture
Again, I would like to start from an Israeli example, to make it easier for US readers to review unemotionally.
ISRAEL
The 2013 Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN Human Rights Council Periodic Review of Israel included system-wide review of electronic court records. The submission was written in 2010-2012, and I had no knowledge of conditions in the local courts, the local law, or recent interesting court cases.
However, one of the key finding emerged from a simple computerized search of Israeli Supreme Court decision records over the past 20 years: [1]
Such survey showed that in March 2002, the decision records were drastically changed. From that day on there is no more certification by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court on the records. In fact, from that day on there is no mention of the Office of the Clerk anywhere in the records. Moreover, from that day on, all decision records bear a disclaimer: "Version subject to editing and phrasing changes". None of the decision records shows any type of graphic, printed, or electronic signature of a Justice either.
The office of Administration of Courts, which was in charge of computerization of the courts refused to answer on Freedom of Information request for records that explain the legal foundation for the change in the decision records in 2002.
Obviously, in 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court (or whoever is in control - this was 7 years after the coup d'estat against Rabin) decided to VOID ALL FUTURE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT RECORDS. Not one or two decisions, but all decisions. And that is the way it is until this day.
Now, if you come to the Supreme Court of Israel, with a claim of void judgment in your district court, do you expect that the Supreme Court would accept such claim?
CALIFORNIA AND US
The same changes took place in the US much earlier. Therefore, it is more difficult to document the exact transition and actors. However, in Los Angeles County, California, I could track it down - to 1984 - when Ronald George was in leadership positions in the LA Superior Court, and when Sustain was first implemented as the case management system of the court.(it was one of the first, if not the first of its kind in the US).
The California Civil Code, Section 664 says that all judgments must be entered in a "Judgment Book" to be "effectual for any purpose." The Judgment Book is traditionally one of the key Books of Court in the common law courts. While the Index and the Calendar (other Books of Court) define the scope of actions of the court, the Judgment Book defines the output of the system.
Elsewhere in the California Government Code it is detailed that the "Judgment Book" can be maintained by microfilm, by magnetic tape, on computers and other devices, but there must be a "Judgment Book" in which judgments are entered to be effectual for any purpose.
The Local Rules of the LA Superior Court are even more specific: The Local Rules state that the "Judgment Book" is maintained in the Public Department of the Office of the Clerk in each District of the Court, etc.
However, since the implementation of SUSTAIN in the LA Superior Court there is no paper "Judgment Book" in the Office of the Clerk, regardless of what the Local Rules say. There is no Judgment Book in Sustain either.
In short, in 1984, the LA Superior Court decided to VOID ALL ITS CIVIL JUDGMENTS. Not only a few. All.
Now, if you come with a claim of void judgment from the LA Superior Court to any court in the nation, do you expect that they would accept such claim?
(The matter is detailed with full documentation, including correspondence with the offices of the Presiding Judge and Clerk of the LA Superior Court, all under the Motion to Intervene and related records in Richard Fine's habeas corpus in the US Supreme Court) [2]
LINKS
[1] 12-06-04 Human Right Alert, Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/92826212/
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QWtZcjVQLWVFZ0k
[2] 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik, with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/
10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/
10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/
10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/
10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/
10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Dr Zernik's Motion to Intervene 5 Amended Appendices http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/
10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendix IX b: Zernik's Declaration in re: April 16, 2010 search for records in the Courts microfilm judgments archive s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/
10-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - Dr Zernik's Declaration RE: Court Counsel Danny Bickell and Filing at US Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430464/
me (Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) change) 2:49 PM (36 minutes ago)
FORGOT TO ADD:
US COURTS - PACER AND CM/ECF
The fraud inherent to PACER and CM/ECF is in the false implementation of electronic signatures of judge and clerks (NEF etc, all of that is detailed, relative to the US District Court, Central District of California, also in the Motion to Intervene in USSC. The US District Court never entered a judgment in the habeas corpus, and the 9th District of course dismissed Fine's Emergency Petition from the habeas corpus, which he could not get the District Court to certify.
The District Courts consider a record "entered" when it has a matching NEF, which is validated by the "Electronic Document Stamp", and issue minutes, orders, judgments, which may or may not bear such validation. Needless to say, such system has no basis in the law. Moreover, the NEF records, bearing (or not) the "Electronic Document Stamp" are hidden from public access.
US Supreme Court
None of the records are published bearing a graphic or electronic signatures. Search that was conducted by George McDermott, and was in part related to the petitions of Richard Fine to the Supreme Court, showed that there were no signed paper records of the USSC in the paper files either. In short, there may be somewhere records, where the justices sign, or do not sign, but none of that data is accessible to the public for several decades. In some notable cases (Citizens United v FEC) it was possible to further document that there was no judgment record at all, and none was served on the parties either.
- show quoted text -
me (Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) change) 3:06 PM (19 minutes ago)
Forgot to add:
Variations among US District Courts
Among my studies on the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF, I conducted research of the differences in implementation of the systems in the various US district courts. The platform is always the same, but there are noticeable differences among the district courts, which are indicative of local corruption. For example, most US district courts have in PACER an electronic Judgment Index (the equivalent of common law Judgments Book). However, if my memory does not fail me it was the Georgia District Courts (or maybe only the one in Atlanta), which had NO Judgment Index. Therefore, I was not surprised at all when I saw the records in Bill Windsor's cases in that court. There are no valid records there...
If my memory does not fail me, it is Arkansas, or maybe Oklahoma, where the local district court has some 50% of civil cases "sealed". A bit odd...
Then there are some district courts that deny public access to the Calendar of the Court (therefore, one cannot tell if one was scheduled for an "On the Calendar", or an "Off the Calendar" proceeding).
The other local peculiarity: The US District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles, appeared unique in the unusual number of MJ cases (Magistrate cases). In such cases, the plaintiffs are usually unnamed US agencies and the Defendants often unnamed. The public records often indicate the subject matter to be a request to move a person, an object (car, box), or large sums of money from point A to point B (named or unnamed). My interpretation is that the US Court in Los Angeles specializes as a clearinghouse for such agencies in such dubious actions (may be related to Extraordinary Rendition, for example). The other peculiarity of the such cases, was that they were often linked by case number to an unrelated CV case (civil case), which appeared to be uniquely compromised, but was entirely unrelated to the MJ case of the same number, I tend to interpret it as a quid pro quo...
That's why they call me autistic... :)
No comments:
Post a Comment