09-12-30 - Likely evidence for fraud by a US Supreme Court Justice - Sonia Sonyamayor

 
Scott Huminski_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ Sonia Sotomayor

At 12:56 30/12/2009, Scott Huminski wrote:

Here's one for you Joe......

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/

_______________________
Joseph Zernik wrote:


Suspect Fraud Order
US Court of Appeals for the Second District 
Scott Huminski v Town of Bennington, Vermont (No. 03-7036)
 

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:04:41 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Alleged large scale fraud in PACER &; CM/ECF at the United States courts.

You sent it with no NEF at all. Did it come with one more paper?
Please check the sample NEF, which I posted in wikipedia, above your certificate of service.  If you click on it, you see it enlarged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nef-w-digital-sig-us-court-eastern-dist-cal.jpg
Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ 
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music! 

At 13:18 30/12/2009, Scott Huminski wrote:

To the best of my recollection, i have never received a nef.  All districts have different rules.  I know that after one of my pleadings was scanned, i noticed that the court missed an attachment, so i called the clerk, she retrieved the paper copy from file and corrected the pacer version.  As they can always go back to paper at least in the Vermont district, i wonder if they even issue these nefs.  The Vermont us district has no pro se department, no magistrates and perhaps keeps paper records still.  What do the local rules say for US District Court (Vermont)? -- scott

---

        Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:44  Joseph Zernik Wrote

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:44:12 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik

Subject: RE: Alleged large scale fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the United States courts.

Hi Scott:

FYI:
I just called the office of the Clerk of the Court, US Court of Appeals, 2nd District. I spoke with Jennin Cook, Executive Assistant to the Clerk of the Court:

• I stated that I wanted a copy of the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) of the order in your case. 
• First - she tried to say that she did not know what I was talking about. 
• Later - she asked if I were a party to the case. 
• In response - I stated that I was not. However, I requested to access the NEF pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
• In reply - she flatly denied my request.

Would you please try to call her yourself?  212-857-8702  Jennin Cook.

I would be glad to pay for the call and the one page copying charge.
You may have presented evidence of fraud by a US Supreme Court Justice.
Could you please make a short declaration that you received it by mail from the court? (since you stated that you did not keep the envelopes).

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ 
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!
 

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:26  Joseph Zernik Wrote:

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:26:24 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com, "scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Alleged large scale fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the United States courts.

Hi Scott:
Forget the Vermont court.  The fact that Sonia Sotomayor, a Supreme Court Justice was involved in the case at the 2nd Circuit makes it by far more interesting.  My experience with the 9th district, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and also the experience of Richard Fine in jail with the 9th district, was exactly like yours. They sent the orders of denial with no NEFs at all, and unsigned.   I consider it:

a) Fraud - pursuant to state law

b) Misprision of felonies of the lower court (assuming we can prove the Kozniski fraud on you in Vermont)

c) Mail Fraud

d) Perversion of Justice

e) Deprivation of implied guarantee for honest services

f) Denial of access to the court

g) you could probably find more sections that applied.

Depending on the method of accounting, in that one mailing of one order, Sonia Sotomayor and her buddies possibly committed more than sufficient number of predicated acts for conviction on racketeering!
I was party in interest in the case of Richard Fine at the 9th District, and asked for the NEF. To this date, I never received it.
Please do me the favor and ask for the NEF from Jennin Cook at 2nd District. Too late today, but tomorrow. It is her direct number, it would take you no more than 1 minute.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

At 13:28 30/12/2009, Scott Huminski wrote:

Public access to (most) court documents is a well documented 1st amendment right.  This is not a sealed case and does not concern a minor or any of the other exceptions to access.  You can get any document you want from the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  A litigant has no enhanced right of access than the public in this case.  Much more disturbing to me is Sotomayor's use of the wrong standard of appellate review in summary judgment cases.  Should be de novo, she (her robot law clerk) used review for reversable error.  -- scott

  Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:17:44  Joseph Zernik wrote:

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com, "scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Alleged large scale fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the United States courts.

Dear Scott:

December 29, 2009 Los Angeles District Court , in person
That was the subject of discussion yesterday in my visit to US District Court in LA. The Records Supervisor of the Court, with whom I have been communicating for half a year on the subject claims:
First - that it was not permitted per General Order 08-02.  I challenged her on that, from memory, and I was right.
Second - she said that the NEF included personal information. I challenged her on that - any information in the NEF is also present in the Attorneys and Parties page of PACER.
At the end, she simply said I was not permitted to see these pages. I
I asked why, and she said she would research the issue, and get back to me hopefully by mid-January.

December 30, 2009, US Court of Appeals, 2nd District, by phone
I just did the experiment and reported to you the results. 

Total experience to this date
There is a reason why they denied me access to these records in:
DISTRICT COURTS

• Los Angeles
• New York
• Pittsburgh
• Houston

COURT OF APPEALS

• 9th Circuit  (my case, case of Richard Fine)
• 2nd Circuit (your case)

Just asking you the favor of calling Jennin Cook and asking for a copy of one single page.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!
 

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:00:13  Joseph Zernik wrote:

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com, "scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Alleged large scale fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the United States courts.

Hi Scott, Hi all:
If you look back, the very first message in this series, about the cathedral, pricey parking, Hollywood retail woes... The bottom line was -
REPEAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY ACTIVIST JUDGES -  WITH NO NOTICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
Access to court records is not written in the First Amendment per se, but it was construed into it by the US Supreme Court in Nixon V Warner Communications, inc (1978). The Supreme Court in its decision said that it was not inventing any new right, it was anyway a common law right, but the Supreme Court re-affirmed it as  First, Fifth/Fourteens, and Sixth Amendments right, depending on the situation.
I have tested it by now in the courts that I listed before - they all denied it.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

P.S. That's how discussion got to Beyonce Knowls -
I claimed that Habeas Corpus - like the one by Richard Fine, and the First Amendment right to access court records, were connected at the hips.. They were from about the same period - late middle ages.
In Los Angeles County, and elsewhere in the US, in 2010, thanks to new computer systems, we are fighting to restore medieval rights!!!

Patriotic hips by Beyonce!

09-12-30 Alleged widespread fraud in the United States Court- through case management system CM/ECF

 

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:57 -0800
To: scott huminski
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Alleged large scale fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the United States courts.

December 30, 2009

Dear Scott:

Concern is with the fundamental issue of validity, or lack thereof, in papers of the United States courts across the United States in the past decade.  I allege that in the past decade, the United States courts have engaged in a large scale fraud on the people. Such fraud was directly related to the introduction of the case management system CM/ECF by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.  Such system was introduced with no authority at all, and with no publicly accountable validation of the system.  I further allege, that the current crisis involving rampant corruption of the courts, and also failure of major financial institutions, as well as United States Banking Regulators,  are all directly tied to such fraud by the United States Courts and other United States agencies - related to the operation of unvalidated large computer systems. In fact - it is a systemic failure of integrity.

In the courts, the concern is regarding Attestations by Clerks of the Court pursuant to Article IV 1 to the US Constitution and the Act of May 26, 1790.  Otherwise stated: 

• Were any of the papers that you and other parties filed, truly entered by the court?
• Were any of the court orders in your matter truly ones that required "full faith and credit"?

There was no way that I or you could tell.  In other words, in reviewing numerous cases, including both civil and criminal cases, including high visibility cases of purported "enforcement" by United States Government on major financial institutions such as Bank of America Corporation and the Swiss UBS, AG, I concluded the following:
Since the introduction of CM/ECF, the US courts' case management system, almost any US Court adopted the practice, which I deem fraudulent, of issuing orders that were deemed by the court invalid and ineffectual - they lacked digital signatures.  Such orders may appear signed to you, but the were not deemed signed by the court! These were the category of fraud cases that I designated "Kozinski Fraud" (Type - "Fundamental Fraud"; Sub-type -CM/ECF).

In short, the NEFs are the ONLY way that you can tell today if anything, which you received from the court was valid and effectual. If you dumped the NEF papers, since they appeared insignificant to you,  I humbly request that you please ask the court for copies.  I would have done it for you, but as stated, the court denied my access. (Such denial of access in and of itself was suspect...)
_________________________________________________
Figure 1: Huminski v Bennington - US District Court, Vermont - partial docket. [1]

 

________________________________________________________
The docket itself, which you forwarded to me, and which you derived from PACER, was evidence of the fraudulent nature of the systems as well.

For example: Dkt #186, your paper, presumably entered by "kak". (Figure 1)
Since you were a PACER user (like all pro se filers) you only saw the text "kak", and if you examine the java script of the page, any tags that were specialized and were associated with this text were stripped.  However, "kak" in CM/ECF was associated (or not) with the digital signature of kak in the NEF.  Therefore, those authorized of access to  CM/ECF were allowed to see the record with its validating signatures, while you were relying on PACER docket, and were left in the dark: Did kak really sign it or not?

Let me share an unrelated record, as a graphic illustration (not an exact legal analogy, just a graphic illustration).
_______________________________________
Figure 2: USC Credit Union, a California Financial Institution.
Purported Minutes of the Board, December 15, 2008  [2]

_______________
Page 1

_______________
Page 2

_______________
Page 3

 _______________
Page 4

_______________

In 2008, I caught a small California financial institution - USC Credit Union - in alleged fraud.   I demanded the relevant papers.  They sent me all kinds of papers, that were evidence of additional fraud.  I demanded that they provide me papers only with declaration of Custodian of Records of the bank per California law. Then they told me that they did not have a custodian of records. I told them in return - Please tell your Board that it was about time that they appointed one in compliance with the law.
Half a year later, I got the same records again, and more, from the president of the bank, claiming that he had been appointed custodian of records, or worse yet - delegated the authority to appoint ad hoc custodians of records as the need arose.  I claimed that such decision by the Board was likely to be neither valid, nor in compliance with the law. I demanded to see the Minutes of the Board of such decision.
By and by - USC Credit Union provided me the Minutes of the Board - albeit - with signatures "redacted".

Is this a valid and effectual record of the USC Credit Union December 15, 2008 Minutes of the Board?  No way that I could tell.... the graphic signatures were "REDACTED".
This is exactly your PACER docket is as presented to all users who were not CM/ECF authorized.
The digital signatures of all court records in PACER were "REDACTED"!

Please let me know if what I said made sense to you at all.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!


Linked Records:
[1] Huminsky v Bennington - recent docket from US Court, Vermont.
http://inproperinla.com/09-12-30-huminski-v-bennington-partial-docket.pdf

[2] USC Credit Union, Minutes of the Board, December 15, 2008, P1-4
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-usc-credit-union_08-12-15-usc-cu-board-meeting-minutes-appoint-custodian-of-records.pdf


At 08:44 30/12/2009, Scott Hunimski wrote:

Joe,  Here's  the current docket in one of my cases.  What of concern to you......
CLOSED, ENE

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.

09-12-30 Delayed response by Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles - continued denial of access to California public records - arrest and booking papers.

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:53:10 -0800
To: "Sheriff's Headquarters Bureau"
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: RE: Repeat request to access public records that were the arrest and booking records of inmates in the sheriff's facilities: Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk.

December 30, 2009

Dear Sheriff's Headquarter Bureau:

Thanks for the December 30, 2009 response to my December 10, 2009 request (both copied below), albeit delayed. Your response again referred me to the Discovery Unit, where I had been referred already in October 2009 (to Cindy) in this regard.  Cindy seemed confused about the referral, and was unable to help.  I later requested help in this matter from the Hon Michael Antonovich, who issued an inquiry.  In response, I received on December 22, 2009, a fax from your office (dated November 4, 2009), which in fact amounted to denial of access to the requested arrest and booking papers - public records pursuant to California Public Records Act 6254(f).

For your information, I copied below the latest request I filed with the Hon Michael Antonovich, dated December 29, 2009, for help in this matter.

Respectfully,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music! 

CC:
The Hon Michael Antonovich
___________________
December 29, 2009 Letter by Joseph Zernik to Hon Michael Antonovich, Supervisor
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; fax: 801 998-0917; email: jz12345@earthlink.net
December 29, 2009

Michael Antonovich, Supervisor
County of Los Angeles
By fax: 1.213.974.1010@efaxsend.com
By email: fifthdistrict@lacbos.org

RE: Additional Request for Assistance by the Hon Michael Antonovich, Supervisor, in re - Inquiries on Sheriff Lee Baca regarding arrest and booking of two attorneys/inmates who were/are subjected to coerced hospitalization: (a) Booking No: 1824367 Richard Fine,[1]

and (b) Booking No: 2088144 Ronald Gottschalk [2]

Dear Supervisor Antonowitch:

Thank you for your help in this matter. It was only through your help that for the first time in almost
three months, I was able to get any written response from the office of Sheriff Lee Baca in this matter.
On December 22, 2009 I received by fax a letter dated November 4, 2009 from the Sheriffs office. The
information in that letter was reviewed in my letter to you, dated December 23, 2009. [3]
Regardless, Sheriff Lee Baca never produced the requested California public records that were the arrest
and booking papers of either of the two attorneys/inmates referenced above.

Therefore, please accept the following as additional requests for assistance by your good offices. I am
again requesting your help in inquiring upon Sheriff Lee Bacas office in this matter. Such additional
inquiries were necessitated only because the Sheriff refused to provide the arrest and booking papers,
and pertain to information that would have been provided in the requested and denied public records. In
case the Sheriff changed his mind in this matter, and would provide the papers, these inquiries would be
deemed unnecessary.

The additional requests for inquiries were listed in the attached paper titled:
09-12-29 Requests for Additional Assistance by the Hon Michael Antonovich, Supervisor, County
of Los Angeles, California, in re: Sheriff Lee Baca.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik

Linked Records:
[1] See: Booking No.: 1824367 Last Name: FINE First Name: RICHARD Middle Name: I
At: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department http://app4.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm
[2] See: Booking No.: 2088144 Last Name: GOTTSCHALK First Name: RONALD Middle Name:
NORTON
At: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department http://app4.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm
[3] December 23, 2009 Request for Supervisor Antonowitchs help:
http://inproperinla.com/09-12-23-req-supervisor-antonowitch-inquiry-on-sheriff-baca-letter-s.pdf

Page 2/3 December 29, 2009

09-12-29 Requests for Additional Assistance by the Hon Michael Antonovich, Supervisor, County
of Los Angeles, California, in re: Sheriff Lee Baca.

In view of Sheriff Lee Bacas refusal to provide copies of the arrest and booking papers, in disregard
of California Public Records Act, additional inquiries are requested on the office of Sheriff Lee Baca
in re: (a) Booking #1824367 Richard Fine, and (b) Booking #2088144 Ronald Gottschalk:

1) Given that Sheriff Lee Baca refused to ever provide copies of the California public records, which
were the warrants for the arrest of inmates Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk, request was for
statements on the record by Sheriff Lee Baca:
a. Did Sheriff Lee Baca ever obtain an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the March 4, 2009
arrest of Richard Fine? If so, what was its date, and who was it signed by?
b. Did Sheriff Lee Baca ever obtain an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the October 8, 2009
arrest of Ronald Gottschalk? If so, what was its date, and who was it signed by?
c. Was Richard Fine ever subjected to an honest, valid, and effectual booking procedure? If so, what
was its date, and who was it signed by?
d. Was Ronald Gottschalk ever subjected to an honest, valid, and effectual booking procedure? If so,
what was its date, and who was it signed by?

2) Given that Attorney Ronald Gottschalk described his holding in the psychiatric ward of the jail as
coercive and abusive, request was for statements on the record by Sheriff Lee Baca:
a. The name and license number of the physician, who signed the initiation of psychiatric
hospitalization of Attorney Ronald Gottschalk on October 8, 2009.
b. The name and license number of any other physician(s) who might have been involved in the
coerced psychiatric hospitalization of Attorney Ronald Gottschalk from October 8, 2009 to
November 11, 2009.

3) Given that Attorney Richard Fine has been continuously hospitalized from March 4, 2009 to this
date, with no evidence of any illness or disease that would have justified the hospitalization, request
was for statements on the record by Sheriff Lee Baca:
a. The name and license number of the physician, who signed the initiation of hospitalization of
Attorney Richard Fine, and
b. The name and license number of any other physician(s) who might have been involved in the
hospitalization of Attorney Richard Fine from March 4, 2009 to this date.

4) Given that Attorney Ronald Gottschalk described his jailing being entirely in the psychiatric ward,
and never having been in attention during the routine three-times-a-day Inmate Counts, request was
for a statement on the record by Sheriff Lee Baca:
Whether Attorney Ronald Gottschalk was ever on the Inmate Count List of the jail, or whether he
was held all along Off the Record and Off the Inmate Count List of the jail.

Page 3/3 December 29, 2009

5) Given that Attorney Richard Fine described his jailing being entirely in the hospital ward, and never
having been in attention during the routine three-times-a-day Inmate Counts, request was for a
statement on the record by Sheriff Lee Baca:
Whether Attorney Richard Fine was ever on the Inmate Count List of the jail, or whether he was
held all along Off the Record and Off the Inmate Count List of the jail.

6) Given that Attorney Richard Fine has been continuously hospitalized from March 4, 2009 to this
date, and in view of information posted online by Sheriff Lee Baca, of Permanent Housing
Assigned Date: 06/18/2009 and Assigned Time: 17:15 request was for statements on the
record by Sheriff Lee Baca:
a. Was hospitalization in this case the indefinite Permanent Housing Assignment?
b. In case indeed it was: The name of the individual who signed such Permanent Housing
Assignment for Attorney Richard Fine to a hospital room : 06/18/2009 , and
c. In case any physician(s) were involved in the June 18, 2009 Permanent Housing Assignment
the name(s) and license number(s) of such physician(s).
___________________
At 00:00 12/30/2009, Sheriff's Headquarters Bureau wrote:

Please contact the Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000

___________________
At 22:04 12/10/2009, Joseph Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Posted At: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:04 PM
Posted To: Web Emails
Conversation: Repeat request to access public records that were the arrest and booking records of inmates in the sheriffs facilities: Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk.
Subject: Repeat request to access public records that were the arrest and booking records of inmates in the sheriffs facilities: Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk.

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested

Please see attached, digitally signed:  RE: Repeat request to access public records that were the arrest and booking records of inmates in the sheriffs facilities: Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk.
Text is copied below
___________________
To Sheriff Lee Baca, Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County:

RE: Repeat request to access public records that were the arrest and booking records
of inmates in the sheriffs facilities: Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk

Dear sheriff Baca:
Please accept this notice as a repeat request to access public records which are arrest and booking
records, pursuant to the California Public Records Act - Cal Govt Code 6250 - 6276.48, particularly
pursuant to 6254(f).
This request pertains to the records of the following two individuals:
1) Booking No: 1824367; Last Name: FINE; First Name: RICHARD; Middle Name: I; Sex: M;
Race: W; Date Of Birth: 01/22/1940; Age: 69; Hair: GRY; Eyes: BRO; Height: 509 Weight:
175; Charge Level: O (Other)
2) Booking No: 2088144; Last Name: GOTTSCHALK; First Name: RONALD; Middle Name:
NORTON; Sex: M; Race: W; Date Of Birth: 07/15/1943; Age: 66; Hair: BRO; Eyes: BRO;
Height: 510; Weight: 185; Charge Level: F (Felony)
These cases were of particular concern, since both were attorneys who were arrested following the filing
of complaints pertaining to alleged widespread corruption of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Moreover,
the evidence indicated that in both cases they were arrested with no warrants at all. In both cases they
were held in the jails hospital, not in the jails regular facilities, with no reason at all, and in both cases,
the evidence indicated that they were never part of the jails count of inmates.
Needless to say, the above facts, upon review, were likely to be deemed serious abuse of Human Rights
pursuant to ratified International Law.
Please let me know where and when I would be allowed to access these records and/or obtain their
copies.
Dated December 10, 2009         
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California              Joseph H Zernik
                                                                      By: __/s/Joseph H Zernik__
                                                              JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                              PO Box 526, La Verne,CA 91750
                                                              Fax: 801 998 0917
                                                              Email
                                             

09-12-30 Marketing for beginners

Notes from a review session with coach, to hone my skills:

• Grab them hard, whatever it takes...
• Immediately lead them down the shopping aisle of interest
• Point landmark products to whet their appetites
• Focus and close the deal on the product of their immediate must consumption.