Friday, December 31, 2010

10-12-31 Welcome Switzerland - Last New Visitor! // Bienvenido Suiza - Visitante Mas Reciente! // 欢迎瑞士- 最后的新访问者!

Last New Visitor

Visited December 31, 2010

10-12-31 Natural Born Citizen: Twitter Rules Supreme // Twitter Reglas Supremo // Twitter的规则最高法院

Judge James Robertson_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _President Barack Obama
US District Court, Washington DC

Birth certification question hits Buda, Texas

1) Disclaimer:I have taken no sides in the Birthers' court struggles, and no sides in the Don't Ask Don't Tell issue.  In both cases, I only pointed out that the US courts were running pretense litigations with pretense dockets and uncertified judgments on matters of national public policy significance (robbing the citizens through false court actions is old news).

2) To the Point:The latest Birthers' case is before SCOTUS now - Hollister v Soetoro (09-5080)

The issue is the ruling by US Judge James Robertson from the US District Court in Washington DC:

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Obviously, constitutional matters are today adjudicated by twittering, not by the US courts, or that is at least the view from the bench...

3) And SCOTUS observer's Prognostication:
The outcome of the matter would be noticed following the January 14, 2010 SCOTUS conference through an unsigned letter from SCOTUS clerk WILLIAM SUTER, or by a signed letter by DANNY BICKEL, signing either as "Staff Attorney", or with no title at all, just as a private citizen. 

Review of the paper court file would reveal no evidence of any order certified by a SCOTUS Justice.

Read more:

New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court   

10-12-31 Welcome France - Last New Visitor! // Bienvenido Francia - Visitante Mas Reciente! // 欢迎法国- 最后的新访问者!

Last New Visitor

Visited December 31, 2010

10-12-31 Welcome Malaysia - Last New Visitor! // Bienvenido Malaysia - Visitante Mas Receiente! // Bienvenido Malasia - Visitantes de Nueva pasado!

Last New Visitor

Visited December 31, 2010

Thursday, December 30, 2010

10-12-30 Fraud on the Court Opined in Litigation in Civil Rights Matter, US District Court, Colorado // Fraude opinó en Litigios de Derechos Civiles en los EE.UU. Tribunal de Distrito de Colorado // 欺诈诉讼中认为民权的美国地区法院,美国科罗拉多州

10-12-30 Fraud on the Court Opined in Litigation in Civil Rights Matter, Presided by US Judge Christine Arguello, US District Court, Colorado

US Judge Christine Arguello
US District Court, Colorado

Los Angeles, December 30 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), issued a report opining Fraud on the Court in litigation of Lewis et al v. Gleason et al (1:10-cv-01850) in the US District Court, Colorado. [i]

Gerald Lewis and Alison Maynard, in pro se, filed complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law 42 USC §1983 in the US District Court, Colorado, against John Gleason, Counsel at the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation and others, including, but not limited to, Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court William Lucero, Mary Mullarkey, Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. , and Michael Bender.
The matter arose from disciplinary actions taken against Maynard and her former client Lewis, alleged by the Plaintiffs as deprivation of rights and retaliation for exposing corruption in the State of Colorado courts.
The US District Court docket lists US Judge Christine M. Arguello as Presiding Judge in the case.  According to the Denver Post, Judge Arguello was set in 2009 for a US Supreme Court Justice position. [ii] US Magistrate Michael J. Watanabe is listed as presiding by reference in the case.
The report was based on examination of the PACER (the Court’s online public access system) records in the case. 
The report noted that the records examination was incomplete, since the PACER docket excludes all the electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk of the Court.
Regardless, the report concluded:
[S]ufficient evidence is found in the docket and related records of Lewis et al v. Gleason et al (1:10-cv-01850) as detailed in 2), above, of notations of entry of records by individuals, whose names and authority are not spelled out in the PACER docket, pertaining to judicial and clerical records, which are patently invalid court records.
Therefore, Dr Zernik opines that the Docket Report of Lewis et al v. Gleason et al (1:10-cv-01850) is false and deliberately misleading, meticulously constructed to convey the perception of valid litigation, where in fact the evidence indicates that the litigation was and is deliberately invalid from its commencement.
The report recommended:
It is recommended that the Plaintiff report the conduct of US Judge Christine M. Arguello, US Magistrate Michael J. Watanabe, and Clerk of the US District Court Gregory C. Langham to the Public Integrity Section of the US Department of Justice and to the US Congress Committees on the Judiciary.

The report provided an overview of Dr Zernik’s experience in examination of computerized records, particularly computerized court records, and multiple instances, where his opinion of fraud was either re-affirmed, or supported by leading Fraud Experts or computer science scholars.
A report, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations by Dr Zernik on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO) in April 2010 was later incorporated in an official United Nations report with reference to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California”.
[i] 10-12-30 Lewis Et Al v Gleason Et Al (1:10-cv-01850) in the US District Court, Colorado – Opinion Regarding PACER Docket and Court Records in a Civil Rights Matter
[ii] 09-05-20 Judge Set for Supreme Courtship - Denver Post:

10-12-30 Broadening coalition: Capital's war against WikiLeaks // Coalición en la Guerra Contra WikiLeaks // 维基解密联盟发动战争

Capital's war against WikiLeaks
Can the leak phenonomen sustain the continued assault by the corporate sector to prevail in the first ever cyber-war?

Mark LeVine Last Modified: 29 Dec 2010 13:47 GMT

In the words of Thomas Friedman,"the hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas..."[EPA]

When your Swiss banker throws you overboard, you know you've made some very powerful enemies.

Long famed for hiding money for everyone from Nazis and drug lords to spies and dictators, the Swiss government's banking arm has decided that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are just too hot even for it to handle.

And so the PostFinance, which runs the country's banks, declared in early December that it had "ended its business relationship with WikiLeaks founder Julian Paul Assange" after accusing Mr. Assange of - gasp! - providing false information about his place of residence.

This move followed similar moves by credit card companies MasterCard and Visa, as well as PayPal and, to no longer process WikiLeaks payments and, in's case, to cease hosting its data.

As I write this, Bank of America has joined the crescendo of corporations taking aim at WikiLeaks, refusing to process payments for it any longer because of "our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments."

And soon after, none other than Apple joined the chorus, pulling the plug on a WikiLeaks app only days after it went on sale on its iTunes website. Every sector of the corporate economy, it seems, is out to get WikiLeaks.


10-12-30 Colorado: Alleged Widespread Public Corruption // Colorado: denuncian la corrupción pública generalizada // 科罗拉多州:公众普遍腐败指控


1) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:45:53
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: About: alert - email not private / evidence of government corruption in Colorado...
Cc: , LA County DA Office , LA County DA Office , US Attorney Florida , US Attorney ThomMRozek , "Kenneth Melson (DOJ)" , US DOJ , US DOJ , US DOJ , US DOJ , US DOJ dojfitzgerald , US DOJ EmilyLanglie , US DOJ-IG , US DOJ-IG , US DOJ-IG , US Holder Eric , , , "Civil Rights Devision" <>, "Division, Criminal" ,, "Smith, Darcy \(USMS\)" , "Shell, Thomas\(USMS\)"
Hi []:

Thanks for providing the case number.  I will take a look at the docket.

Given the nature of the case you are describing, it is likely that you are victim of invalid/ pretense litigation by the court.  Your comment "DAMN CLERK" misses the point.  In such conduct the clerks are operating in tight collusion with the judges.

We are back at square one:

Do you have the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) for any of the papers issued by the Clerk or the Judge/Magistrate in your case? 

Of particular significance are the NEFs of: i. Summons, ii. Assignment Order of a Judge, iii. Referral Order to a Magistrate, iii. Minutes, iv. Orders, v. Judgments.

Needless to say, if the NEF of the summons is invalid, which is likely, your litigation was designated by the court as invalid, albeit, without your knowledge, from the start.  Similarly, if the Assignment Order and Referral Order are invalid, the Judge and the Magistrate are acting with no judicial authority. Their conduct should under such circumstances be deemed extrajudicial conduct, with no immunity.
  • If you have the NEFs, I would be grateful if you forward copies for my archive.
  • If you do not have the NEFs, you can see detailed instructions on how to get them at the link below. [1]
  • You may also wish to ask the Clerk of the US District Court to certify a copy of your PACER docket.  The response would be telling.
  • I also highly recommend that you read the Motion to Intervene in Log Cabins Republicans v USA et al. [2] 
The intervention in Log Cabins Republicans v USA et al deliberately avoided any discussion of the matter of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

Instead, the focus of the Intervention is the conduct of litigation in Log Cabins Republicans v USA et al, which  was deliberately void from start to finish, with two judges appearing with no assignment orders, with no summons and no complaint docketed, with no execution or waiver of execution of service of the summons and complaint, and with the publication of two opposing judgments: one in 2006, which was published as "entered" in the Judgment Index, and was never overturned, and the second, opposing judgment, which was published as "entered" in 2010, but fails to appear in the Judgment Index, and is now subject to appeals.

Today, the Clerk of the Court is refusing to certify the PACER docket, and also refuses to provide copies of the electronic certificates (NEFs) of the two judgments.

The only way to describe such conduct, is the way the US Courts were described in the US congress a century ago - "a burlesque". [3] Both a century ago and today, central to orchestrating the "burlesque" are the clerks, through refusing to file papers and through the publication in the PACER dockets of summons, minutes, orders, judgments as "entered", while they are not deemed by the court itself as valid. 

Needless to say, such conduct should be deemed in violation of the Clerks' Oath of Office.

Most important from your perspective in the Motion to Intervene is a collection of sample NEFs, showing you both valid and invalid NEFs, so that you can review you own NEFs, once you get them.

The Motion to Intervene also includes discussion of the NEF as a Certificate of Authentication/Attestation, as held by the US Courts.

The Motion to Intervene asks the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit to enter two Declaratory Mandates:
a)  that the NEFs, as drafted,  are invalid Certificates by the Clerk, and
b) that implementation of the NEFs by the US District Court as replacement of the Certificates of Service by the Clerk amounts to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law

Several reasons are provided. One pertains to the language of the NEFs, which includes no certification.  The other main reason - denial of access to pro se litigants and the public at large.

The Motion claims that the US District Court in fact established two classes, separate and unequal, in access to essential court records:
a) Authorized counsel and the US District Court, and
b) The public at large and pro se litigants.

The Motion to Intervene alleges that such conduct violates First Amendment, Due Process, Access to the Courts, and Equal Protection rights.

The former class is permitted to know, which records are valid and which are void court records, the latter is deliberately kept in the dark.

Although the entire discussion pertains to the US District Court, Central District of California, the discussion, and also the sample NEFs apply just as well to any US District Court across the nation.  I have similar samples from other US District Courts across the US.

The Motion to Intervene was alternatively construed as Notice to Reliably Inform The Court of Unprofessional Conduct, and it called upon the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to initiate corrective actions pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges - through entering the requested Mandates.

Therefore, it is claimed that any ruling on the matter would be of significance, including refusal to permit Leave to File.  I consider even refusal of the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to docket the Motion - with no authority - as significant in this matter. 

In sum: It does not make sense to participate in litigation where you are denied the ability to know which of the court records in your PACER docket are valid and which are void, unless you are fond of being abused. The conduct of litigation under such circumstances falls in my opinion under what is called in fraud lingo "Shell Game Fraud" or "Confidence Trick".


Detailed instruction on how to gain access to NEFs in the US district courts:
[2]  10-12-27 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634 and 10-56813) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Dr Joseph Zernik's Motion to Intervene
02-00-00 Messinger, I Scott: Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts, Federal Judicial Center (2002)

2) At 05:14 AM 12/30/2010, [] wrote:
Nelson Lane is the one who bought Judge Lass (and his successor Karen Romeo) in Summit County.  He even bragged about "my judge" and Bob Swenson (who has fronted for Lane) said, "We have a judge in our pocket."

Lane assaulted Halena Lewis and me on a county road and drew a knife on the water commissioner.  That's described in our complaint.

Very weird and bad things have gone on in the federal court since Jerry and I sued Lane, as well.  (He's one of 21 defendants in 10 CV 1850.)  I moved for entry of default and default judgment, because he didn't answer, and the clerk denied entry of default, saying various things about the return of service not showing that service was properly made, when on its face the server's affidavit provided every piece of information she said wasn't there.  I submitted a supplemental affidavit from Jerry Lewis, and renewed the motion for default--and same thing.  We are just held up by the clerk.  She did the same thing with our motion for default of Bob Swenson.


So I moved the judge/magistrate to overrule the clerk, showing that everything was there which she said was not, and of course my motion has not been ruled on.  NONE of my motions have been ruled on except those for extension of time.

3) In a message dated 12/29/2010 1:35:30 P.M. [] writes:
Dear [],
     My being framed for a crime is something Monica Piergrossi, Senator Bennet’s Western Slope Director, expressed concern about in September � just hoours after deep pocket Republican, Nelson Lane, had threatened to shoot Jerry Lewis and myself when I attempted to serve federal court papers on Lane at the ranch.(WHERE)  Lane boldly asked Jerry Lewis(Co plaintiff in []'s FED suit) why the Sheriff  WHAT SHERIF, (state) wasn’t serving the papers.(ehat--in a federal court matter....?)  One of the people included in my email this morning was Monica Piergrossi of Senator Bennet’s office, who has been wonderful, as has Christine Scanlan, HD56 Representative. 
     How many people have to pay with their assets, their liberty, even their lives for standing up for truth and expecting justice??  To date I’ve survived two car tamperings, much to the annoyance of those who want to silence me (I’m a retired race car driver trained to Formula 1 standards).  I’ve faced criminal charges for things which never happened, in once case there was the inconvenience of a witness to verify the facts � deputy DA Michael Angel said I should never have bbeen charged.  Slanderous gossip and character defamation are a known tactic of the corrupties � my family’s name has been dragged through the mud.  It’s the ancient Spartan strategy of ‘kill the messenger’.  Those of us living with and exposing public corruption have, and are, paying a high price.
     Sometimes I wonder if this is America or a Soviet country when the Iron Curtain existed (I visited Hungary in 1979) and Civil Rights didn’t.  Remote communities with 70% and more second homeownership, shouldn’t be black holes where our Civil Rights and justice don’t exist.  As bad as 5JD is, I’ve heard 14JD (Steamboat) is worse.  Someone, somewhere, needs to hear our pleas for help and for justice to mean something, not just-us.

4) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:55:08, Joseph Zernik wrote:
To: []
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: High alert - on the high PLAINS, ROCKY Mountain TROUBLEs brewing, 2011
Dear []:
If you ever believed that you had any privacy in your email correspondence, you must be delusional.
Jim repeatedly asked me why I copied the US Marshals on my email notes...
Well, the answer is twofold:
1) To save taxpayers dollars, and save government officers time and effort in going through my email.
2) To put those I correspond with on notice, that all such email correspondence is likely to be monitored.
Joseph Zernik
5) -----Original Message-----
From: []
To: 'joseph zernik'
Sent: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 7:00 am
Subject: High alert - email not private
Information which has come to me in the last hour indicates knowledge of content of an email I sent early this morning. The person threw the content of the email to me in an argument and claimed his information originated from DA Mark Hurlbert’s office.
I have to conclude my email has been hacked into and is not private OR there is a court order for wiretapping.  I acknowledge that exposing public corruption is a dangerous act, especially for those doing the exposing.
I have done nothing wrong.  I have exercised 1st Amendment petitioning of government in a grievance.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

10-12-29 US refuses cooperation with Poland’s CIA ‘black site’ probe // EE.UU. se niega a cooperar con Polonia en la investigación de tortura de la CIA en Polonia // 美国拒绝与波兰合作调查美国中央情报局在波兰酷刑


US refuses cooperation with Poland’s CIA ‘black site’ probe

28.12.2010 13:40
A giant billboard has appeared on Ulica Żydowska in Poznan, designed by artistic group declaring “Welcome to Poland – where they torture people.”
The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected a request from prosecutors in Warsaw for assistance in the investigation into the alleged CIA prisons in Poland, where captives claim they were tortured.

On 18 March, the Prosecutor’s Office of Appeal in Warsaw filed a motion for legal assistance from the US Department of Justice into the probe. 

On 7 October, reports the PAP news agency, the US informed prosecutors that the motion had been rejected on the basis of the international Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and that the U.S. authorities consider the matter “to be closed”.

According to the agreement, a country has the right to refuse to provide legal assistance if the execution of the request would encroach on this country’s security or another interest of this country.

The revelation that the US will not be cooperating with the investigation into the alleged black site, thought to have been in northern Poland near the Szymany air base, comes after a second man followed al-Qaeda suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in asking prosecutors in Warsaw to look into his case.

"According to the information we have, Abu Zubaydah was one of those people detained and interrogated by the CIA somewhere on the territory of Poland," Polish lawyer Bartlomiej Jankowski told journalists in the Polish capital earlier this month.

Both Zubaydah and Nashiri are both currently being held at the U.S. military jail at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Despite denials from former president Aleksander Kwasniewski and former prime minister Leszek Miller that they knew of the CIA activity in Poland, air traffic control in warsaw published a report stating that at least six CIA flights had landed at a disused military air base in northern Poland in 2003.

Two aircraft, a Boeing 737 and a Gulfstream V, were US-registered and previously known to be part of CIA operations. (pg/mg)