10-01-01 Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) at the United States Court

Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
 


Notice of Electronic Filing (N
EF) is part of the system established by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts through the dual docketing and access systems of PACER & CM/ECF.[1] The NEF provides the authentication of the service of an electronically-filed pleading or other filing by parties, or of service of the electronically-filed orders and judgments of the courts, upon attorneys in the case who have been permitted by the court  to participate in electronic filing in CM/ECF. Therefore, for such parties, the NEF replaced the traditional certificate of service or proof of service. Likewise, the graphic hand-signatures in traditional certificates of service were replaced in NEFs by digital signatures, which visibly appear as RSA encrypted alphanumeric strings. Therefore, an NEF bearing a valid RSA-encryption is today the critical instrument, which provides the authentication of court papers as such that should be given "full faith and credit".[2] Albeit, access to this critical instrument is restricted only to those permitted access to CM/ECF in a given case, in a given district court.

Figure 1: NEF including a digital signature, encrypted as an RSA alphanumeric string (in red rectangle), U.S. Court, Eastern District of California, 2004

Figure 2: NEF with no RSA encrypted digital signature, U.S. District Court, Alabama, 2008


Figure 3: Traditional Certificate of Service, by a pro se filer, US District Court, Vermont, 2009



Contents
1 Sources of information
2 Authority in implementation
3 Perspectives
4 References
5 External links

Sources of information
The central source for information regarding NEFs remains in CM/ECF manuals.[3][4][5][6] For example, the most explicit definition of the power and effect of NEF in the Central District of California, one of the most populous in the U.S., including Los Angeles County, remained in the "Unofficial Manual" of CM/ECF as follows (Rev 07, 2008, page 13):[3]

L. The
otice of Electronic Filing
The system will present you with a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) screen and will also e-mail you a copy of the NEF. The Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) is your proof that the document has been E-Filed. You should print the screen to a piece of paper or a PDF (or both) before proceeding, because you will need to attach the NEF as the last page of the courtesy copy that you submit to the Court. The NEF includes a “document number” and a link. Be sure to note that document number, as you will need it if you need to email a proposed order to the Court. The NEF also includes an “Electronic Document Stamp” which is a string of letters and numbers which Court staff can use to verify the authenticity of the NEF. The NEF also contains the path and file name of the document you uploaded and any attachments.

The other source of information regarding the NEF at the Central District of California was in General Order 08-02, which was posted on the U.S. District Court's web site, albeit - an unsigned order, with no name of its author,  and with no authentication.[7]

Such order stated (page 6):

I. Authorization. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(d)(2)(3) and 83, the court hereby authorizes and establishes operating rules for the electronic filing of pleadings and papers.

However, operating rules of the court required establishment pursuant to Rule Making Enabling Act, not a General Order.

Critical definitions were provided in such order (page 7):

II. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to these rules regarding electronic filing: A. “CM/ECF System” refers to the automated Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system implemented by the court. The CM/ECF system stores case files in a database, and documents are filed electronically, to the extent possible. The CM/ECF system is available at https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov. B. “CM/ECF Website” refers to the court’s CM/ECF website that provides pertinent information regarding the CM/ECF system. The CM/ECF website is available at www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf. C. “CM/ECF Registration” refers to registering with the United States District Court, Central District of California, to file documents electronically through the CM/ECF system. Registration is completed on-line through the CM/ECF website. Upon the completion of CM/ECF Registration, a CM/ECF login and password is provided. D. “CM/ECF User” is a person who is registered to file in the CM/ECF system. E. “Electronic Filing” refers to the process of logging on the CM/ECF system and completing a transaction that includes the uploading of the document(s) to be filed. Sending a document by e-mail does not constitute an electronic filing. F. “Electronic Signature” refers to the signature of an electronically filed document based on: (1) the CM/ECF User’s login and password and (2) the person’s representative signature, “/S/ – Name,” or a digitized personalized signature or facsimile signature on the signature line of the document. used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the  transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the 
custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and  correct copy of the original filed with the court.

Authority in implementation

The authority for implementation of CM/ECF is often cited as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which allow Local Rules of Courts. However the implementation, as shown above, was not via Local Rules of Courts, which would have been established pursuant to the federal Rule-Making Enabling Act28 USC 2071 2077, which required any new rules established by the court to be posted for a reasonable opportunity for public comment and challenge, prior to such published rules taking effect. For example, the detailed rules pertaining to the implementation of PACER & CM/ECF at the Central District of California were provided only in an "Unofficial Manual",[3], which stated, that at some future time it was expected that such rules would be incorporated into Rules of Court.

Perspectives

There was no doubt that the change from paper administration of the courts to digital administration was a must.  However, such transition amounted, by necessity, to a sea change in the mode of operations. The NEF represented a core issue in this regard, since it held the key to any validity and effect of court papers. However, the authority of the NEF, in and of itself, was never adequately established by either law or by rules of court, and so far has been hardly documented in valid court records in various U.S. court districts that were examined. The primary source of information, albeit no valid source of authority, remained in CM/ECF User Manuals. Moreover, at times even access to the manuals was restricted. In contrast, no mention of the NEF was made in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures[8] or respective Rules of Criminal Procedures.[9] Neither was the power and effect of the NEF clearly defined in General Orders in the local rules of the various courts.

Through the duality of PACER and CM/ECF, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts established in fact conditions in digital ("electronic") court records, that were substantially different than those that prevailed for hundreds of years in paper court files in the U.S., and even before that - in the English-speaking legal system, where a common law right was established for public access to court records to inspect and to copy, which included all paper court file records (unless sealed, for example). The common law public right to access court records to inspect and to copy was re-affirmed in the U.S. by the Supreme Court in its landmark Nixon v Warner Communication, Inc (1978) decision. In that decision the U.S. Supreme Court found that the common law right was critical for allowing the public to "keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies"[10] - in fact - such "public agencies" included the courts themselves - the judicial branch of government. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court found that such common law right, in its various manifestations was also embedded in the First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The dual digital systems diverged from such tradition considerably, since the NEFs were never included so far in PACER -which was accessible to all. Instead, the NEFs were included so far only in CM/ECF, where access was only by court permission. The outcome was that the public was denied the access to critical court records, which were the only source of authority and validity of court orders and judgments, and which determine which court papers required "full faith and credit" and which ones did not.

References

1. ^ PACER is a public-access system, to which access is permitted to any person, albeit for pay and after
registration. CM/ECF is the Case Management/Electronic Court Filing system, available only to those permitted by a particular U.S. District or U.S. Court of Appeals.

2. ^ The U.S.Constitution, Article IV, §1, declares:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every
other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The Act of May 26, 1790, states:

That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by havig the seal of their
respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be
proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal
of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding
magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial
proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within
the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records
are, or shall be taken.

The Act of March 27, 1804, states:

That, from and after the passage of this act, all records and exemplifications of office books, which are or
may be kept in any public office of any state, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any
other court or office in any other state, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the
seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the
court of the county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept or of the
governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or the keeper of the great seal of the state, that the said
attestation is in due form, and by the proper officer and the said certificate, if given by the presiding justice
of a court, shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify,
under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified;
or if the said certificate be given by the; governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the
great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the state in which the said certificate is made. And the said
proceedings of the said court.

3. ^ a b c Anderson's Unofficial Manual for e-filing at the Central district of California. No Official Manual existed. (http://efile.andersonlaw.net/)

4. ^ Official Manual of the Eastern District of California
(http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caed/DOCUMENTS/CMECF/UserManual.pdf)

5. ^ Official Manual of the Southern District of California
(http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf/pdf/SDCA_Users_manual.pdf)

6. ^ Compilations of Local Rules of U.S. District Courts (http://docs.google.com/viewer?
a=v&q=cache:MxhAitN1ZekJ:west.thomson.com/store/filingandshelvingdownload.aspx%3Ffile%3D12942_2008329_135333.pdf+northern+district+of+illinois+cm/ecf+manual&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESibX6mf-QKkbkmvQ7DB6JN3qCYs2lLHODLLTNo4BxdpajoFAJ4sFax8rb0NHzGP05V3fNLFfyGvmFHuvcitHdh-1QjKVTY5NcpAMURpIQqWywiJDJaF5vujqLnPPiKCRP_28W-k&sig=AHIEtbTeIuioblVZauGwfFnvZHdjeAxVZQ)

7. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-pacer-cm-ecf-us-dist-ct-cacd-general-orders-08-02-authorizingcm-ecf-digital-verification-of-attestation-in-nef.pdf

8. ^ Portal for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/)

9. ^ Portal for Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/)

10. ^ "The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E. 535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L.332, 336-339 (1879)" Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978),(pp 434-5)


Please cite:
Joseph Zernik, 12/17/2009

10-01-01 Richard Isaac Fine - an overview

Richard Isaac Fine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _      

Richard Isaac Fine (born 1940) is an American taxpayers' advocate, anti-trust attorney, and former U.S. prosecutor. Fine investigated the Los Angeles, California City government under the Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, then founded the first Anti-Trust Department for Los Angeles County. The State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007 for "moral turpitude" - construed as the filing of
complaints in US Courts against corruption of California state judges. Since 2001 he was central to exposing, advertising and denouncing then secret payments to all judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court by Los Angeles County. In October 2008 such payments were ruled "not permitted". On February 20, 2009, such payments required the signing of pardons to all recipient judges by the Governor of California.

On March 4, 2009, less than two weeks after the signing of the pardons, Fine was arrested in open court, albeit - with no warrant. He has been jailed in solitary "coercive confinement" ever since, under coerced hospitalization with no medical justification. His various petitions and appeals to the courts, challenging his arrest were so far all denied.

Contents
1 Childhood, education, government employment
2 Private practice
3 Disbarment
4 Exposé of unconstitutional payments
5 Arrest and jail
6 Petition for habeas corpus and emergency petition
7 Public response and perspectives
8 References

Childhood, education, government employment

Fine was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a middle-class family. He earned his baccalaureate degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, his law degree from the University of Chicago, and a doctorate from the London School of Economics. Fine served at the U.S. Department of Justice (1968-72) in the Anti Trust Division. Later he served the City of Los Angeles (1973-74) in anti-trust capacities.[1]

Private practice

In private practice, Fine was successful as an anti-trust attorney in pursuing taxpayers' cases against the County of Los Angeles and the State of California.[2] His resume shows his efforts have returned approximately $1 billion dollars to California taxpayers.[3]

Disbarment


Fine's disbarment in October 2007 was the outcome of administrative procedure of the State Bar of California, where he was charged with "moral turpitude" for filing complaints against judges who had received illegal supplemental payments from Los Angeles County while ruling favorably in cases in which the County was a party.[4] Fine alleged violations of his First Amendment rights in response.[5] Fine's petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied, allowing the disbarment to stand. Fine was listed as being "involuntarily inactive" beginning 10/17/2007 and disbarred as of 3/13/2009.[6][7][8]

Exposé of unconstitutional payments

Fine was the first to disclose that unconstitutional payments were being made to Los Angeles County judges. In August 2001, Fine's opening brief in the appeal of Silva v. Garcetti, revealed that payments of over $46,000 per judge, per year were being made by Los Angeles County to all (~430) Los Angeles County judges (and ~140 Commissioners).[9] The payments, now some $57,000 per judge per year, have been made since the late 1980s, costing taxpayers over $300 million to date, and figuring prominently in County's "budget crisis".[10][11] Fine also revealed that it had become practically impossible to win a case against the County at the Superior Court.[12]

Litigation, which originated from taxpayer objections to such payments, and where plaintiff Harold Sturgeon was represented by Judicial Watch (Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles (BC351286)) resulted in a October 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeal,4th District (San Diego) that the payments were constitutionally "not permitted" as judges were to be paid only by their employers, the State of California.[13] To counter potential civil and criminal liabilities to all California judges, and the county supervisors who approved the payments, a bill was passed and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009, providing retroactive immunity to all involved.[14][15][16][17]

Arrest and jail

Two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff's  Department, at the end of a proceeding, represented as "Sentencing" - in the presence of media - by Judge David Yaffe, whom Richard Fine was attempting to disqualify. The basis for affidavits of disqualification for a cause was Judge David Yaffe's accepting of such payments from a party to the litigation then at bar - Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles (BS109420).
The entire proceeding later failed to appear in the publicly available litigation docket published online by the court.


Likewise, the court record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, including what was represented as sentencing, which was widely reported by media present on March 4, 2009 in court, was later discovered to be invalid on its face.[18] The record also lacked authentication.[19]


Fine has been held ever since at the Men's Central Jail facility in Los Angeles - part of the Twin Towers Jail
complex, under unusual, possibly unprecedented conditions.[20][21] He has been held under continuous solitary confinement, in a hospital room in the jail, even though no disease or disability has been claimed by jail authorities.


In the first few months of his jailing, he was denied access to pen and paper, and such conditions undermined his ability to file habeas corpus and related petitions. Jail authorities also explicitly attempted in the initial period to deprive him of the right to represent himself in pro se, and to coerce him to accept representation by counsel, which Fine declined.


On June 7, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published report by journalist Victoria Kim, who managed to enter the Men's Jail, interview Fine, and emerge from the jail unnoticed, at a time that the Sheriff's Department and the court banned interviews with Fine.[22][23]

Petition for habeas corpus and emergency petition

Fine's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Fine v Sheriff Department of the County of Los Angeles (2:09-cv-01914)[24] was dictated by phone to a friend, and was filed on behalf of Fine at the U.S. Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), but without his hand signature, and without review of the filed document by him. Key documents were later claimed missing from the docket.[25] The case was unusual in that the Sheriff, named as  respondent, refused to respond.


Eventually, a response was filed by the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe. However, such response was filed by attorney Kevin McCormick, who failed to file the required certifications indicating that he was indeed engaged as Counsel of Record in the case by his clients, and therefore authorized to file and appear in the case on their behalf. In Attorney McCormick's response there was no evidence that he had ever communicated with his clients. Similarly, the records which he filed were all derived from the Sheriff's Department, not from the Court, including a copy of the invalid March 4, 2009 Judgement and Order for Contempt, with no authentication.


McCormick's filings included a short declaration by counsel - not a competent fact witness in this case, not by Judge David Yaffe or any officer of the Los Angeles Superior courts. A scheme, involving representation by counsel - albeit not counsel of record - with "not communications with client" clause, had been previously discovered and rebuked in an unrelated case in Texas, in March 2008, and a 72-page Memorandum Opinion provided the details of such schemes.[26]


A June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendation issued by Magistrate Carla Woehrle concluded by recommending denial with prejudice.[27]. District Court Judge John Walter[28] accepted the recommendation and dismissed the action on June 29, 2009. Subsequent appeals were denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, most recently on December 16, 2009.[29]


The circumstances surrounding these denials remain unclear, since Fine has been held at the time of this writing (November 2009) for seven months with no warrant at all.[30] The information provided by the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County in this matter on its Inmate Information Center was incorrect, [31] and possibly misleading. The arrest and booking were listed as if they had taken place at Municipal Division 86 at the San Pedro Courthouse. However, no such agency existed. In fact - no municipal courts existed in Los Angeles for almost a decade.


Public response and perspectives

Fine's jailing was perceived by many as false imprisonment, and became the center point for demands for reform of the judiciary. Small rallies took place outside the Men's Central Jail, and fundraisers were organized to help sponsor his legal expenses.[32] Fine's jailing and the underlying secret payments to judges were also mentioned as diminishing the prospects of California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, one of the recipients, for nomination to the U.S.


Supreme Court. Embattled Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski, never commented on the unsigned order issued in his name in this case, which appeared inconsistent with his usual liberal, civil rights-sensitive, judicially-incisive reputation.[33] The fundamental judicial wrongdoing at the Los Angeles Superior Court, as alleged by those who consider the case false Imprisonment, should be viewed in perspective of the widespread false imprisonment instances of the Rampart scandal effected by that court. Such false imprisonments had been documented already a decade ago, as part of the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000), and were estimated by PBS Frontline at many thousands.[34] However,the latest official Rampart scandal report - by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel- titled Rampart Reconsidered (2006) - documented the Superior Court judges as key parties in the ongoing refusal to free the Rampart-FIPs over the past decade. The report recommended "external investigation" of the Los Angeles justice system, which was never instituted. It also singled out the Los Angeles Superior Court as requiring review.[35][36],[37] Substantial public interest across the US can be
documented by google search of Richard Fine's name. The general motive of such sites showed that Richard Fine assumed the role of focal point in demands for judicial reform.

References

1. ^ http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
2. ^ http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story
3. ^ http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
4. ^ http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/fine10307.htm
5. ^ http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/fine062508.htm
6. ^ http://www.metnews.com/endmoaugust08.html
7. ^ http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/fine021209.htm
8. ^ http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_home.jsp
9. ^ http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
10. ^ http://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.html
11. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/11/fight-against-illegal-judicial-benefits.html
12. ^ http://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.html
13. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-cal-ct-app-4th-sturgeon-v-la-county-08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-countyjudges-payments-not-permitted.pdf
14. ^ http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx2_11_bill_20090214_amended_sen_v98.html
15. ^ http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SBX2_11/
16. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/labels/SBX2%2011.html
17. ^ http://faceuptofred.com/wordpress/?p=104
18. ^ In several copies, separately stamped by the clerk and separately endorsed by Judge David Yaffe, the record was stamped as "FILED" at the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 4, 2009, but endorsed by Judge Yaffe as if on March 24, 2009
19. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-a-09-06-24-case-summary-s.pdf
20. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/71.php
21. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/68.php
22. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/local/me-contempt7
23. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/latimes-female-reporter-sneaks-into.html
24. ^ http://www.scribd.com/doc/17421132/Docket-USDC-Habeas-July-16-2009-
25. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/video-missing-documents-federal-court.html
26. ^ http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/03/judge-bohm-and-culture-of-incompetence.html
27. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-26-mj-woehrle-amended-r-n-r-09-06-12.pdf
28. ^ http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2938
29. ^ http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/12/16/09-56073.pdf
30. ^ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
31. ^ http://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fine-inmate-information-center-%20booking-details.pdf
32. ^ http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story
33. ^ http://reason.com/archives/2006/07/01/searching-for-alex-kozinski
34. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/later/outcome.html
35. ^ http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/rampart_reconsidered_executive_summary.pdf
36. ^ http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdf
37. ^ http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdf

Please cite:

Richard Isaac Fine - an overview

By Joseph Zernik, edited by PJM 12/24/2009

10-01-01 Refusal of FBI and US Court to allow Qui-Tam complaints against Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation

  

Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:01 -0800
To: "Ron " , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: The New ERA amendments to Qui-Tam Law

Hi Ron, Hi All:

The hyperactivity of US Congress, passing a plethora of new acts to fight financial institution fraud, is simply evidence of the failure of US Congress to have any impact at all on the progress of the current Financial/Integrity Crisis. US Congress is simply paying whatever the thugs ask it to pay. All the nicest acts in the code won't help when FBI, banking regulators, and the US judiciary created a unified front to prevent the enforcement of the law.

I tried to file twice complaints under Qui Tam against Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation, once in Los Angeles and once in Washington DC.  In both cases I was denied access to the courts through fraud in CM/ECF Kozinski Frauds.

Therefore, I now routinely file copies of my evidence of fraud by US courts, US Banking Regulators, and US banking institutions with the Basel Accords Committee, in Basel Switzerland, as evidence that US government is NOT a good faith party to the Accords.  Kevin Bailey, Deputy Comptroller of the Currency is US representative to the Basel Committee, and I always copy him directly as well.  I have a complaint against Bank of America before the Comptroller of the Currency - for Fraud and Deceit, which Bank of America simply refuses to answer to. The US Comptroller of the Currency, on its part, is in no rush to ask BAC to respond either, although the standard 20 days response time was over months ago.  The very same Banking Regulators routinely appeared before US Congress and testified under oath that they "shored up" the system.

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 12:18 01/01/2010, Ron Gottschalk wrote:

          The New ERA amendments to Qui-Tam Law -

http://inproperinla.com/10-01-01-new-qui-tam-laws.pdf

"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.

10-01-01 Did Scott Huminski lose, as of this date, any "Reliance" claims relative to fraud in United States court in Vermont?

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:50:03 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com,"scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Scott - I wonder if you lost any claim of "reliance" after my
  repeated notices to you...

Hi Scott, Hi All:

I believe that following my repeated, detailed notices to you, regarding fraud perpetrated against you in various US Courts, you may not be able in good faith to claim reliance, as an element of fraud, after this date.

Therefore, if you continue to litigate in US District Court, Brattleboro, Vermont, it may no longer constitute fraud by the court and opposing counsel.

Truly,

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

"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.

10-01-01 US District Court, Los Angeles - patronizing alleged racketeering by the Los Angeles Superior Court - evidence against Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US Judge Virginia Phillips

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

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

10-01-01 Review of NEFs in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) as received from US District Court on December 29, 2009

Table 1. NEFs in Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550)

Complaint was filed March 6, 2008 against 10 judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law - 42 USC §1983.  It was further alleged that conduct of such judges and others, in collusion with Countrywide and Bank of America Home Loans amounted to violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) 18 USC § 1961–1968.  Access to NEFs was allowed only by December 29, 2009, and data from NEFs was compiled in the table below.

	Dkt # - Requested NEFs	Rec'd [Y/N]	RSA Digital Sig [Y/N]	Parties & Counsel listed as recipients of NEF by email	Notes
1.	Dkt #01- March 6, 2008 Verified Complaint	Y	Y	None	1.      RSA Sig – incomplete 2.      Requesting clarification by office of the clerk
2.	Dkt # Unnumbered – March 5, 2008 Issuance of Summonses	Y	N	None	1.      Therefore – no valid and effectual summonses were issued in this case
3.	Dkt #04 – March 5, 2008 Notice of Reference to magistrate	Y	N	None	1.  Therefore – No Magistrate had honest, valid and effectual authority in the case
4.	Dkt #05 – March 6, 2008 Plaintiff Ex pate Application for TRO	Y	Y	None	1.      RSA Sig – incomplete 2.      Requesting clarification by office of the clerk
5.	Dkt #09 – March 6, 2008 Reassignment	Y	N	None	1.  Therefore – recusal of Judge Letts was invalid and ineffectual
6.	Dkt #10 – March 7, 2008 Reassignment	Y	N	None	1.  Therefore- Recusal of Magistrate Nagle was invalid and ineffectual
7.	Dkt #14 – March 21, 2008 Minutes by Judge Virginia Phillips	Y	N	1. John W Patton  -            jwp@paslaw.com	1.  March 21, 2008 Minutes by Judge Virginia Phillips – denying the TRO were dishonest, invalid and ineffectual.
8.	Dkt #27 – March 31, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com 2.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtel!@buchalter.com   3.        Sarah L Overton  soverton@cmda-law.com	1.  March 31, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, ordering Plaintiff to execute Summonses were dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual
9.	Dkt #33 – April 18, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com   2.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com   3.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com	1.   April 18, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in re: Motion to Dismiss were dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
10.	Dkt #43 – POS for Summonses Returned Executed	Y	Y	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com    2.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com      3.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com	1.      RSA Sig – incomplete 2.      Requesting clarification by office of the clerk 3.      Notice that such entry was in re: Summonses that were never effectually issued. 4.      Notice that such entry was in re: Summonses that were adulterated by Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer.
11.	Dkt #57 – May 15, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com   2.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com     3.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com	1.   May 15, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in re: Ordering Plaintiff not to file anything in court were dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
12.	Dkt #59 – May 22, 2008 Reply on Motion to Dismiss	Y	Y	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com   2.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com    3.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com	1.      RSA Sig – incomplete 2.      Requesting clarification by office of the clerk
13.	Dkt #62 – First Amended Complaint	Y	Y	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com   2.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com    3.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com	1.      RSA Sig – incomplete 2.      Requesting clarification by office of the clerk
14.	Dkt #63 – June 6, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com   2.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com    3.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com	1.   June 6, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in re: Finding Moot Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration of June 6, 2008 Order not to file anything in court were dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
15.	Dkt #68 – Motion to dismiss First Amended Complaint.	Y	Y	1.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com   2.        Sarah L Overton SQverton@cmda-law.com    3.        John W Patton Jr jwp@paslaw.com   4.        Michael L wachtell mwaGhtell@buchalter.com	1.      RSA Sig – incomplete 2.      Requesting clarification by office of the clerk
	Dkt #69 – Motion to dismiss	Y	Y	1.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com   2.        Sarah L Overton SQverton@cmda-law.com    3.        John W Patton Jr jwp@paslaw.com   4.        Michael L wachtell mwaGhtell@buchalter.com	1.      RSA Sig – incomplete 2.      Requesting clarification by office of the clerk
	Dkt #70 – June 6, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com   2.        Sarah L Overton SQverton@cmda-law.com    3.        John W Patton Jr jwp@paslaw.com   4.        Michael L wachtell mwaGhtell@buchalter.com	1.   June 6, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in re: Motions to Dismiss were dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
	Dkt #77 – June 6, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        John W Patton                  jwp@paslaw.com  2.        Michael L wachtell                   mwachtell@buchalter.com   3.        Sarah L Overton                  soverton@cmda-law.com 4.      Jenna  Moldawsky             Jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com       5.        Kathryn E DiCarlo                   kcticarlo@cmda-law.com	1.   June 6, 2008 Minutes by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in re: Motions to Dismiss were dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
	Dkt #102 – March 18, 2009 Order by Judge Virginia Phillips	Y	N	1.        John W Pat ton          jwp@pa.slaw.com 2.        David J  Pasternak djp@paslaw.com  3.        Michael L wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com 4.        Sarah L Overton soverton@Cmda-law.com 5.        Jenna Moldawsky j enna. moldawsky@bryancave com 6.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com	1.  March 18, 2009 Order by Judge Virginia Phillips, denying Plaintiff’s Request to Disqualify Magistrate Carla Woehrle for a cause was dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
	Dkt #103- March 31, 2009 Notice by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        John W Patton          jwp@paslaw.com 2.        David J Pasternak         djp@paslaw.com 3.        Michael L wachtel] mwachtell@buchalter.com 4.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com 5.        Jenna Moldawsky jemna.moidawsky@bryancave.com  6.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com	1.  March 31, 2009 Notice by Magistrate Carla Woehrle of Filing R & R was dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
	Dkt #104 – March 31, 2009 R & R by Magistrate Carla Woehrle	Y	N	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw.com 2.        David J Pasternak djp@paslaw.com 3.        Michael L Wachtell mwachtel@buchalter.com    4.        Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com 5.        Jenna Moldawsky jenna. moldawsky@bryancave.com 6.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com	1.  March 31, 2009 R & R by Magistrate Carla Woehrle to Grant Motions to Dismiss was dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
	Dkt #105 – April 9, 2009 Plaintiff’s Requests	Y	Y	7.        David J Pasternak djp@paslaw.com   8.        Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com    9.        John W Patton Jr jwp@paslaw.comı  10.     Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda·law.com  11.     Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com   12.     Sarah L Overton          soverton@cmda-Iaw.com	1.   April 9, 2009 Plaintiff’s Requests for Judicial Notice of Perverted Discrepancy Procedures.
	Dkt #106 – April 24, 2009 Order by Judge Virginia Phillips	Y	N	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw.com   2.        David J Pasternak cljp@paslaw.com 3.        Michael L wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com  Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-Iaw.com 4.        Jeru1a Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com 5.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-Iaw.com	1.  April 24, 2009 Order by Judge Virginia Phillips, Adopting R & R was dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.
	Dkt #107 - April 24, 2009 Judgment by Judge Virginia Phillips	Y	N	1.        John W Patton jwp@paslaw.com   2.        David J Pasternak cljp@paslaw.com 3.        Michael L wachtel) mwachtell@buchalter.com  Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com 4.        Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com 5.        Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com	1.      April 24, 2009 Judgment by Judge Virginia Phillips, was dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual.

Notes:

1.      On December 29, 2009, upon appearance in person at the Office of the Clerk, Records Department, Records, request was filed for access to only 24 out of over 100 records in Zernik v Connor et al.

2.      On December 29, 2009, upon appearance in person at the Office of the Clerk, Records Department, Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock provided printouts for 24 out of 24 NEFs, which were requested in writing on that date.

3.      None of the requested NEFs contained a complete RSA-encrypted digital signature.

4.      Of the 24 requested NEFs, only 8 were found to include truncated RSA-encrypted digital signatures, and requests for clarifications were filed with the Clerk of the Court.

5.      NEFs for the following critical records included no RSA-encrypted digital signatures at all:

a.       Issuance of Summonses

b.      Assignments and Reassignments to Judges

c.       Assignments and Reassignments to Magistrates

d.      All Minutes which were examined.

e.       Order Denying Disqualification for a Cause

f.        Notice and Report and Recommendation by Magistrate.

g.       Order Adopting Report and Recommendation by Judge

h.       Judgment by Judge.

6.      It was likely that upon investigation the same results would be found in:

a.       Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) – habeas corpus petition of jailed Richard Fine - also treated by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, albeit – with Judge John Walter. Access to NEFs was requested on both September 18, 2009 and December 29, 2009, but was denied both times.

b.      In re: Fine (2:09-mc-00129) – disciplinary procedure against jailed Richard Fine – by Presiding Judge Audrey Collins. Access to NEFs was requested on December 29, 2009, but was denied .

7.      It was alleged that findings summarized in the table above documented the alleged fraud and deceit in operation of PACER & CM/ECF.

8.      It was further alleged that installation, with no authority, of alleged fraudulent docketing, access, and case management systems in the US courts, during the first decade of the 21^st century, amounted to serious large-scale abuse of the Human Rights of all those who live in the United States by the judiciary branch of the United States government – through denial of fair and impartial hearings.

9.      It was further alleged that conditions prevailing in the United States Courts as a result of the installation of PACER & CM/ECF amounted to serious violation by US Government of ratified International Law – failure to maintain competent National Tribunals for protection of Human Rights and rights pursuant to the Constitution of this country.

10.  Complaint will be filed with FBI Director Robert Mueller III, January 1, 2010, and copied to House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

Linked Records:

1. NEFs in Zernik v Connor et al, as received from office of the Clerk of the Court.

http://inproperinla.com/09-12-29-nefs-in-zernik-v-connor.pdf

2. Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: Visit to the US District Court, LA, office of the Clerk of the Court on December 29, 2009.

http://inproperinla.com/09-12-31-declaration-req-for-us-crt-la-records-n-response-nefs-s.pdf

I. The Usual

IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!

"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.