Thursday, December 31, 2009

09-12-31 New year resolution for 2010 - let's reconnect with reality



Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:59:22 -0800
To: scott huminski, lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik

Subject: The bliss of ignorance... living in denial, and proposed new year resolution for 2010 - Let's re-connect with reality

Hi Scott:
I hate to kill your bliss, but if not for you, your case could be critically helpful for many others across the US, who may choose to connect with reality in 2010.
Happy New Year!
Joe Schmo

The outline:

1) SCOTT X WAS DECEIVED AT THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA - THROUGH CROSS THE FINGERS BEHIND THE BACK LITIGATION -
Where the U.S. Magistrate and U.S. Judge crossed their fingers behind their backs. They did so to protect the corrupt local state judges and others.  Scott never realized that he had been dragged for years at the US District Court, Montana, through a cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back procedures.  He was in fact still participating to this date in some procedures of that sort.  He was positive that he was participating in a litigation of a true national tribunal, in compliance with ratified international law.  National tribunals that routinely crossed their fingers behind their backs in select litigations, were likely to be deemed serious violation of ratified International Law - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2) SCOTT X WAS DECEIVED AT THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA - THROUGH CROSS THE FINGERS BEHIND THE BACK JUDGMENT -
Which was finally issued after dragging Scott X for years in that court.

3) SCOTT X FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA JUDGEMENT AT THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON -  
Scott  did not realize that he had no way to appeal the US District Court Montana Judgment, because he had no US District Court, Montana Judgment in the first place.  The Montana Judgment was not an honest valid and effectual judgment that required "full faith and credit". Therefore it was not an appealable judgment either.

4) THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, DECEIVED SCOTT X BY NEVER INFORMING SCOTT X THAT THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE JUDGMENT -
And that the US Court of Appeal, Oregon, had no authority and no jurisdiction over cross the fingers behind the back judgments.  Instead, the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, as was its custom in such cases, followed in suit - it too crossed its fingers behind its back, for a cross the fingers behind the back appeal at the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, from a cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back Judgment from US District Court, Montana. 

5) SCOTT WENT ON TO PAY FEES, TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY, TIME, AND EFFORT - ON THAT CROSS-THE-FINGERS-BEHIND-THE-BACK APPEAL IN OREGON.

6) THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, FINALLY DECEIVED SCOTT X BY ISSUING A CROSS-THE-FINGERS- BEHIND-THE-BACK SUMMARY ORDER AND JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE CROSS-THE-FINGERS-BEHIND-THE- BACK JUDGMENT OF THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA -
There was no other way for the US District Court, Oregon to issue any papers in that appeal - since the US District Court, Oregon has no jurisdiction in such case.  There also was no possible other outcome to the Cross-the-Fingers-behind-the-Back appeal. The US Court of Appeal had no authority to reverse and remand, or do anything else on that Cross the Fingers behind the Back Judgment from Montana, except issue a void, not voidable papers on it.  Therefore, it was not a case where Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor could easily fix the situation by now signing her name on that Summary Order of that appeal.  She never signed it for a good reason in the first place.  It was a Summary Order that she could never, ever sign. She had no authority to sign it.

7) FIVE YEARS LATER, OUT OF THE BLUE CAME JOE SCHMO, A NOBODY -
And told Scott X about the new unpublished rules of court -- about crossing your fingers behind the back procedures, based in the critical NEY documents, and about denial of access to NEY court papers - all over the US.

8) SCOTT X FIRST TOLD JOE SCHMO THAT JOE WAS CLUELESS -
Scott X never heard about such thing as NEY papers. Moreover, such denial of access to NEY papers could not possibly be -  Scott X said it would violate the First Amendment. After all, Scott X was a brand name in the First Amendment biz.

9) JOE SCHMO THEN CALLED THE CLERK OF US COURT OF APPEAL, OREGON - 
And demonstrated to Scott x - First - that NEY papers did exist in Scott's case, and Second - that the denial of access to NEY papers was in fact in place in Oregon - as predicted - like in any other US court that Joe Schmo tested.

10) JOE SHMOE URGED SCOTT X TO CALL THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, AND ASK TO FINALLY BE SERVED WITH THE ONE PAGE NEY PAPER OF THE SUMMARY ORDER -
Integral part of the Summary Order, which the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, had failed to serve Scott X in the first place, and which would show whether or not Sotomayor crossed her fingers behind the back or not. 

11) SCOTT X CALLED THE COURT OF APPEALS IN OREGON AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE NO NEY PAPERS AT THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, ONLY NEZ PAPERS, AND IT WOULD COST $26 TO BE SERVED WITH HIS OWN NEZ PAPER -
And Scott X - an experienced litigator and First Amendment brand name, just accepted it as business as usual, and never asked any question about where all of this came from...

12) JOE SHMOE URGED SCOTT X TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS AND DOCUMENT THE EXCHANGE -
Joe Schmo claimed that Scott x was entitled to the NEY/NEZ paper for free, and that at minimum, Scott X should ask the Court for the Rules of Court defining that whole NEY/NEZ secret business.

13) SCOTT X TOLD JOE SCHMO THAT IT REALLY DID NOT MATTER ANYWAY -
Scott preferred to go on engaging in the cross the fingers behind the back litigations at US Courts. He had been doing it for years, it was very convenient, and he would just like to go on doing business the way he was used to. He explained to Joe Schmo that it really did not matter if he had been designated by the US District Court, Montana, to cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back tribunal procedures on anything that he may ever file there.  It was all the same anyway.

14) JOE SCHMO TOLD SCOTT X IT WAS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME AS DENYING HIM ACCESS TO THAT COURT FOR LIFE -
The type of order that Scott X considered illegal on its face, and which he spent years to fight.


  
Living in Denial

At 16:34 31/12/2009, you wrote:

I paid the $26 for the cd of the hearing i obtained.  Seems like a standard fee. -- scott



Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:56 -0800
To: s_huminski@live.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FW: You may want to talk by phone

Hi Scott:
I would be grateful if you could write a short declaration, who you spoke with, what you asked, and what they answered.

This does not make sense at all:
1) There must be a Rule of Court for them to chareg what they ask for.
2) Please also note in the letter, that I stated that you never received it in the first place.  Anywhere you look in CM/ECF manuals, the first copy of any paper is for free for parties in the case. You clearly never saw an NEF in your life.
3) Could you please ask them what is NDA, and where in Rule of Court it was defined?

If you still don't get it, I have no interest in the hearing itself - it was most likely null and void to start out... It could be whatever. Tt is all about the crossing the fingers behind the back, then trying to hide the fact that they were crossing their fingers behind their backs.  What they said when they crossed their fingers behind their backs makes not difference at all. 
All I am trying to do, is gain access to the information - did they or didn't they cross their fingers behind their backs.

Happy New Year,
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 13:47 31/12/2009, you wrote:

Joe didn't you get this earlier.

From: s_huminski@live.com
To: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: You may want to talk by phone
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:02:43 -0500
Hi Joe, Spoke to the court.  They say they use something called a NDA and havn't started using NEF's yet.  In either case, you can draft a letter with my name requesting a NEF or NDA for the summary order include a check made out to the court for $26.00 and we can see what happens.  Mail it to me and i'll sign it and mail it to the court.  Apparently, the fee is the same for 1 or 100 pages, so look at the docket to see if you want anything else.  I have an audio copy of the hearing before sotomayor. -- scott
 
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:45:21 -0800
> To: s_huminski@live.com
> From: jz12345@earthlink.net
> Subject: You may want to talk by phone
>
> Hi Scott:
>
> There were various aspects to the fraud perpetrated on you by the
> courts, base on my experience with other cases:
> a) It is a chain reaction. The first court - e.g. a state court,
> starts with a sham court action (e.g. - off the record, whatever you
> want to call it), and then all the rest follow suit - state court of
> appeal, US district Court, Us Court of appeals, etc.
> b) Often the counsel is not counsel of record at the US Court. You
> can figure it out if you read carefully the rules of court, where it
> says what the rules are for first appearance by counsel. Either they
> have to file "Notice of Appearance' or Certificate of Appearance, or
> something of the sort. If they failed to do it, then they were also
> fake counsel, or sham counsel, or what ever you want to call it.
> c) Then you have to check the assignment orders to judges and
> magistrates, etc etc.
>
> That is what I consider my specialty.. I don't look at the legal
> issues, only the clerical. That was the reason from the beginning I
> had no interest in the issue of disqualification, immunity and such
> nonsense. The fraud in a different area altogether.
>
> There is a method to this madness, that is what is so sleazy about
> it. It is carefully executed fraud on pro se filers, or filers
> represented where it is individual against a large corporation or
> against government.
>
> It is serious abuse of Human Rights of the American people by its own
> government. jz
>
See full size image
"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.

09-12-31 Kozinski Fraud, Kozinski Culture, Flimflam, and Confidence Tricks...

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:55:49 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com, "scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik  
Subject: RE: Request for help - please get your NEFs, please provide me a copy.

[] CM/ECF Logo Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts: PACER Service Center

Hi Scott:

That is what you think!

What the judges think is that it was OK to cheat and lie, as long as they were crossing their fingers behind their back, while they were doing whatever they were doing. That is what I call the
Kozinski Culture. In the past 10 years or so, judges across the US secretly developed this novel doctrine in the theory of law, that it was ok for judges to lie and defraud from the bench or from chambers, as long as they crossing their fingers behind their backs.

They just forgot to tell the American people about it.

Moreover, in violation of First Amendment and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), they insisted that the people were not allowed to see whether or not they were crossing their fingers behind their back while they were writing those false and fraudulent orders and judgments. That is what I call the
Old Flimflam - Shell Game Fraud.

In the theory of fraud, Shell Game Fraud falls under the category of
Confidence Tricks. Your responses are a perfect example of that.  You were and are confident that you understand well enough how the courts work. But they secretly changed it all on you.  You yourself stated that you were not aware of the look and meaning of NEF.  It is not by chance, because the whole system of PACER & CM/ECF was installed with no authority at all. They just forgot to update the Rules of Court, or Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. The former, would have been judicial responsibility, the latter - legislative.  However, the changes were implemented in this case by the judiciary, not by the legislative. Therefore, I hold that it was judicial responsibility to update the Rules of Court.

Happy New Year!

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 13:59 31/12/2009, Scott Huminski wrote:
If the computerized filing was to your specifications or if the whole thing reverted back to paper only,

You still would have judges who willfully ignore the facts.
You still would have judges who ignore the law.
You would still have a justice system totally unacountable.
You would still have immunity protecting all the government actors.

-- scott

09-12-31 Anybody propagating US court papers without the respective NEF, in this day and age, must be questioned for motive...

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:31 -0800
To: "Ron " , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik

Subject: Re: Dr Z: see the right hand corner of this BK court order signed by Judge Morgan -The Sonic Blue BK reogranization was crooked & she disallowed fees from 3 major BK lawfirms.

Hi Attorney Gottschalk:
For your convenience, and for the convinience of others like you, I added a figure in the wikipedia entry at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_of_Electronic_Filing
You can see there an example of what I deem a valid NEF, and what I deem an invalid (possibly foundation for fraud by the court) NEF. By clicking on the figures, you can enlarge them.
Anybody who propagates online in this day and age any court paper without the respective NEF must be questioned for his/her motives.
Happy New Year!
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

___________________
To Attorney Ron Gottschalk
Dear Attorney Gottschalk:
I cannot figure out why you forwarded this paper to me.
  • Who prepared this paper?
  • Why is the signature of the judge on front page and not at the end, as is usual and customary?
  • Why is there no hand endorsement by the clerk?
  • Why is there no certificate of mailing/service?
  • Why is there no NEF?
In its totality it is most likely an invalid, ineffectual court paper, void not voidable on its face.  I am no attorney, I never read any of the content of this paper, I based my opinion only on matters appearing on the face of the paper.

Dated: December 31, 2009                
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California             Joseph H Zernik 
                                                                []
                                                                
By: ______________
                                                        
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                        PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                        Fax: 801 998 0917
                                                        Email
                                                        Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/


At 05:34 31/12/2009, Ron Gottschalk wrote:  
Dr Z: see the right hand corner of this BK court order signed by Judge Morgan -The Sonic Blue BK reogranization was crooked & she disallowed fees from 3 major BK lawfirms.


09-12-31 Request for help in re: Alleged large scale fraud in operation of computers at the courts.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:50:57 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Request for help - please get your NEFs, please provide me a copy.

Hi All:
My allegation pertain to the operation of case management systems at the courts - computer systems such as PACER & CM/ECR, and a large scale fraud on the American people in the past decade or so, which was the backdrop, and most likely also the foundation for the observed widespread corruption at the courts.
The basic claim is that such systems, in both state and federal court were installed with no authorization.  It was further claimed that the introduction of such systems amounted to a sea change in the mode of operation of the courts.  Therefore, such system were new Local Rules of Courts, and should have been subjected to federal and/or Rulemaking Enabling Acts.
Finally, it is claimed that the only solution for the large-scale alleged fraud now seen in the operation of such systems in setting process and procedure for publicly accountable validation of the systems - certified funcational logic verification.
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

Attached: See drafts in next posting

09-12-31 How to get copies of court papers - a request for help

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; fax: 801 998-0917; email: jz12345@earthlink.net

Request for Help - Please obtain your pertinent court papers and provide me a copy:

1)      As in any business transaction, it is recommended that you keep a copy of the letter you forward to others, for your files:
a.       In cases when I hand delivered a letter, I brought a second copy, which I asked to be stamped or inscribed “Received”, dated, and hand signed. 
b.      In cases when I sent by mail – I sent registered with request for return receipt, restricted delivery – the Clerk of the Court .
2)      In cases when you deliver the request in person at the Office of the Clerk, Records Department, you should expect to get the copies (unless a voluminous request) on the spot without unreasonable delays.
3)      In any case when any papers were received in response to such requests:
a.       Please do not discard any papers, no matter how trivial they look to you.
b.      Please do not change the order of the papers.
c.       In case papers were received by mail – keep the envelope with the postal stamp.
d.      Please fax/email to me images of all the above ASAP.
4)      In cases when it was agreed upon in writing in advance, I may be willing to participate in the cost of obtaining the papers.

 Thank you for your help in this important matter!

 Truly,


These drafts were prepared by Joseph H Zernik, PhD. The writer is not an attorney, not even by a long shot.  Therefore, this writing is not legal advice, only the writing of a lay person, assisting in typing of a letter.  Please consult an attorney if you have any further questions in this regard.
The primary intent in making these requests is in collecting evidence for alleged fraud in operation of case management (computer) systems at the courts.
No attempt would be made to analyze or understand the true underlying legal matters. -JZ.

___________


DRAFT #1 (for use in United States Courts)

Notice: NEF is one page per document. Therefore, even if charges were to be applied, the cost is not prohibitive.

TO CLERK OF THE COURT, US Court of Appeals, 2nd District, by

RE:     Huminski v Town of Bennington et al (No. 03-7036)

Request to access court records – to inspect and to copy.


My name is Scott Huminski. I was party to case captioned Huminski v Town of Bennington et al (No. 03-7036) at your court.  I am writing to request access to court record(s) – to inspect and to copy – in the same case - pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). 

Request is for a copy of the NEF (Notices of Electronic Filings) of the following record:
1) November 5, 2004, Summary Order, Dkt # < >.

I do not believe that I ever received the NEF for the record listed above by mail with the service of the Summary Order. Therefore I request that no charges would be applied.  In case charges were to be applied, please let me know the exact sum, so that I may immediately pay.

Respectfully submitted,


Dated:               
Town, County, State                            Scott Huminski
                                                                


                                                            By: ______________
                                                            Scott Huminski

                                                            Address
                                                            Phone, Fax, Email


___________

DRAFT #2 (for use in United States Courts)

Notice: NEF is one page per document. Therefore, even if charges were to be applied, the cost is not prohibitive. Listed below are the NEFs for the records that are typically of the highest interest for the type of investigation I am engaged in.

TO CLERK OF THE COURT, US Court. District of < >, by

RE:     Smith v Jones et al (2:09-cv-123456)

Request to access court records – to inspect and to copy.

 
My name is John Smith. I am/was party to case captioned Smith v Jones et al (2:09-cv-123456) at your court.  I am writing to request access to court record(s) – to inspect and to copy – in the same case - pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). 

Request is for a copy of the NEF (Notices of Electronic Filings) of the following record:
1)       November 5, 2004 Complaint,  # < >.
2)       Summons as issued by clerk, # < >.
3)       Notice of Assignment to Judge, # < >.
4)       Notice of Referral to Magistrate, # < >.
5)       Notice of Recusal and Return to Clerk for Reassignment, # < >.
6)       Notice of Reassignment, # < >.
7)       Notice of Appearance by Counsel, # < >.
8)       Notice of Interested Parties, # < >.
9)       Summons returned executed, # < >.
10)   Answer, # < >.
11)   Motion to dismiss, # < >.
12)   Order, # < >.
13)   Other important records of your choice, # < >.
14)   Report & Recommendation, # < >.
15)   Order adopting R & R, # < >.
16)   Judgment, # < >.

I do not believe that I ever received the NEF for the record listed above by mail with the service of the Summary Order. Therefore I request that no charges would be applied.  In case charges were to be applied, please let me know the exact sum, so that I may immediately pay.


Respectfully submitted,

Dated:               
Town, County, State                            George McDermott                                                        


                                                            By: ______________
                                                            George McDermott

                                                            Address
                                                            Phone, Fax, Email


___________

DRAFT #3 (for use at Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles)

Notice: Register of Action may be dozen of pages, and they may charge $0.50 per page, regardless of the fact that you had no chance to inspect it.  I truly believe it is a worthwhile investment for anybody who has business with that court.

TO CLERK OF THE COURT, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, John A Clarke, by

RE:     Smith v Jones (No. AB012345)

Request to access court records – to inspect and to copy.


My name is Diane Nezgoda. I was party to case captioned Smith v Jones (No. AB012345) at your court.  I am writing to request access to court record(s) – to inspect and to copy – in the same case - pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). 

Request is for a copy of the:
Register of Actions in Sustain  (Case History Report)
(not the online Case Summary, not the online List of Available Document Images).

I was never able to access the record listed above, so far. Therefore I request that no charges would be applied.  In case charges were to be applied, please let me know the exact sum, so that I would immediately pay.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated:               
Town, County, State                            Diane Nezgoda
                                                                


                                                            By: ______________
                                                            Diane Dezgoda

                                                            Address
                                                            Phone. Fax, Email



09-12-31 More evidence for fraud in operation of PACER & CM/ECF at US District Court, Los Angeles

[]CM/ECF LogoAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts: PACER Service Center

X-BeenThere: lawsters@googlegroups.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:09:19 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com,"scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Posted declaration, request for records, and records received
  in response at US Dist Crt, Dec 29, 2009.


Hi Scott, Hi All:

Posted declaration, request for records, and records received in response at US Dist Crt, Dec 29, 2009, at:
http://inproperinla.com/09-12-31-declaration-req-for-us-crt-la-records-n-response-nefs-s.pdf

I will post another part, including analysis in comparison to the docket in the case (Zernik v Connor), purported NEFs that were served by mail with the same orders, etc.

The issues that can be gleaned already from what I posted are:
1) Many or most purported NEFs, which I was provided by the clerk on Dec 29, 2009, were missing the RSA digital signatures.
2) The list of parties and counsel was different from what showed in other papers.

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


Did you call by chance the US Court, 2nd District?

__________________
Additional Notes:
Fraud type: Fundamental,
(additional Fraud Type: Shell Games/Confidence Tricks)
Subtype: PACER & CM/ECF.