11-02-09 US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal // Corte de Apelaciones de EE.UU., 9 º Circuito Insiste en la realización de un Recurso pretenciones // 美国上诉法院第九巡回坚持开展的幌子上诉

                  
9th Circuit Judges: William Canby, Jr_ _Edward Leavy 
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' - the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense Judgment of the US District Court

The Motion to Intervene took no position on the controversial 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy itself.  Instead, the Motion to Intervene was filed as a protest of the pattern of conduct of the US courts - publication of false and deliberately misleading dockets of proceedings that are clearly never held valid court proceedings by the US courts themselves.

Los Angeles, February 17  the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit has posted an unsigned order, bearing the names of Circuit Judges Canby and Leavy, denying Dr Joseph Zernik's Motion to Intervene. 
The Motion to Intervene pointed out the invalidity of the October 2010 purported Judgment from the US District Court, Central District of California, in which the appeal had originated.  The Motion to Intervene called upon the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
 
The October 2010 Judgment of the US District Court could not possibly be deemed a valid judgment pursuant to the law of the United States:

• The Clerk of the US District Court has refused to certify the docket of the litigation in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425), and also refused to permit access to the electronic certification of the purported October 2010 Judgment, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.  The US Court of Appeals holds jurisdiction to conduct appeals only from valid and effectual, certified judgments, not from void ones.

Although no access has been permitted to the certification records, the Motion to Intervene claimed that sufficient evidence is found in the PACER docket of the US District Court to conclude that none of the judicial and clerical records posted in it are valid and effectual:

• US Judges George Schiavelli and Virginia Phillips appeared as Presiding Judges in the case, both with no Assignment Orders. Absent Assignment Order in a specific case, a US judge has no authority to adjudicate in the matter.
• In 2004 Judge Schiavelli issued a purported  judgment in the case, in favor of the United States. The judgment was listed in the PACER docket as "entered", and was listed in the Judgment Index of the Court.
• Consequently, the case was deemed "closed" by court staff.  However, access to the certification of the 2004 judgment is denied.
• The 2004 Judge Schiavelli purported Judgment was never overturned through an appeal, or any other judicial proceeding.
• In 2010 Judge Phillips appeared in the case and issued the opposing purported judgment, in favor of the Log Cabin Republicans. The 2010 judgment was again listed in the PACER docket as "entered", but was not listed in the Judgment Index of the Court. Access to the certification of the 2004 judgment is denied as well.

The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has also denied a Dr Zernik's request for a statement on the record by Clerk Molly Dwyer, pertaining to the validity of the records in the appeal itself. 


The records in the appeal could not possibly be deemed valid records of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:

• A docket was opened for the appeal from an uncertified judgment.  The Clerk of the US Court of Appeals should have refused to open a docket from an uncertified judgment of the US District Court.
• The purported orders by the Circuit Judges in the Appeal are all unsigned records.

The Motion to Intervene took no position on the question of the controversial 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy itself.  Instead, the Motion to Intervene was filed as a protest of the pattern of conduct of the US courts from coast to coast, from the US district courts through the US courts of appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States - publication of false and deliberately misleading PACER dockets of proceedings that are clearly never held valid court proceedings by the US courts themselves.


The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, continues this pattern in the appeal under Log Cabin Republicans v US et al, insisting on conducting a pretense appeal from a pretense judgment of the US District Court, Central District of California.


LINKS:
[1]10-12-09 Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425) - Request for Copies of Attestations by the Clerk of the Court s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44963186/
[2]10-12-09 Press Release: Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425) 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' - Clerk of the US Court asked to provide attestation records, certify the docket
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44975019/
[3]10-12-12 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit: Notice of Intent to Intervene and Request to Confer s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45138727/
[4] 10-12-12 Press Release: Log Cabin Republicans v USA  'Don't Ask Don't Tell' - Notice of Intent to Intervene Given to Parties in the Appeal s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45149290/
[5] 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
[6] 11-01-08 Press Release: 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' - Motion to Intervene, Requesting the US Court of Appeals to Dismiss the Appeals from an Uncertified Judgment, was Posted in the Docket, is Now Pending before the Court-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46528428/
[7] 11-01-21 Press Release: Log Cabin Republicans Oppose Challenge to Validity of the Judgment in the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Litigation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47323956/
[8] 11-01-21 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634, 10-56813) - Log Cabin Republicans Oppose Challenge to Validity of the Judgment in the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Litigation: Opposition (Dkt #49), and Order (Dkt #52)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47323178/
[9] 11-01-23 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634, 10-56813) Zernik's Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene as filed and served
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47400611/
[10] 11-01-23 Press Release: 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Litigation  reply claims Log Cabin Republicans' opposition to intervention amounted to "hand-waving arguments".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47402283/
[11] 11-01-23 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634, 10-56813): Zernik's Request for Statement on the Record by Clerk Molly C Dwyer in re: Dockets of the Appeals
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47400826/
[12]11-01-27 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-(10-56634) - Dkt 054-056: Zernik's a) Reply in support of Motion to Intervene, b) Request for Statement by Clerk Dwyer, as posted in the PACER docket s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47983546/
[13] Press Release: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit: Request for Verification of the Dockets Validity by Clerk Molly Dwyer is Posted by the Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47992867/
[14] 11-02-09 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634,10-56813) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit  Unsigned Order Denying the Motion to Intervene
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49068718/