Sunday, March 27, 2011

11-03-28 Multiple Social Security numbers linked to President Obama - initial signs of Fraud in litigation in the US District, Washington DC // El fraude en el Tribunal de Justicia de EE.UU. en un caso sobre el presidente Obama // 在美国法院诈骗一案有关总统奥巴马

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, US District Court, Washington DC

Taitz v Astrue - pertaining to multiple Social Security numbers linked to President Obama -  initial signs of Fraud in litigation in the US District Court, Washington DC

The case is characterized by the relatively simple underlying facts and law.  The Chief Judge of the US District Court in Washington DC Royce Lamberth may proceed to dismiss the complaint under pretense of judicial review.  However, the practice of pretense litigation undermines any remaining credibility of the US justice system.

Los Angeles, March 28 -  Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, have published commencing  records and reports from litigation of Taitz v Astrue in the US District Court, Washington DC, claiming that the litigation has already been set up for Fraud on the Court -  as pretense litigation. [i,ii]

The complaint in Taitz v Astrue was filed by Dr Orly Taitz against the Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The complaint pertained to refusal of the Social Security Administration to release information, which was requested as part of efforts to ascertain the validity, or lack thereof, of various Social Security numbers linked to President Barack Obama.

The complaint includes as exhibits two affidavits by licensed Private Investigators:

  • Susan Elizabeth Daniels from Ohio, who located a total of nine (9) Social Security numbers linked to President Obama, and
  • Neil Sankey from California (former Detective Sergeant, New Scotland Yard), who located a total of thirty nine (39) Social Security numbers linked to President Obama.  
While the significance of these findings is at present unclear, Dr Zernik claims that treatment of the case by the US District Court in Washington DC is alarming.

Review of commencing records in the litigation shows that:

  • A civil docket was initiated in the case with invalid Civil Cover Sheet in disregard of the Civil Litigation Management Manual of the Judicial Conference of the United States; [iii]
  • Summons was issued by the Office of the Clerk, but was not docketed, in apparent violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
  • Since the Summons was not docketed, no electronic certificate of authentication/attestation (NEF  Notice of Electronic Filing) [iv,v] could possibly be issued for the Summons, which would therefore render the Summons an invalid court record;
  • Chief Judge of the US District Court, Washington DC Royce Lamberth is listed as Presiding Judge in the case, with no valid Assignment Order.
Combined, the records indicate that from the outset the litigation of Taitz v Astrue has been set up by the Office of Clerk Nancy Mayer-Whittington and Chief Judge Royce Lamberth as pretense litigation.

Pretense litigation is the practice of the US courts of conducting court cases, where all records are deemed void by the court itself, but are published in the online public access system in a misleading manner as valid court records.  Minutes, orders, and judgment are not entered, or entered with invalid electronic certificate of authentication/attestation by the clerks of the courts.  In other cases, the offices of the clerks of the courts deny access to the electronic certificate of authentication/attestation in alleged violation of First Amendment rights.  Therefore, the US courts leave the public unable to distinguish, whether the court records are valid or void.  

The conduct of pretense litigation has been documented in the US courts from coast to coast, including cases of high public policy significance. [vi,vii] Some of the cases were extensively covered by both US and international media, which failed to report the invalidity of the litigation records. The practice is facilitated by the electronic public access and case management systems of the US courts (PACER and CM/ECF). [viii]

The case at hand is characterized by the relatively simple underlying facts and law.  The Chief Judge of the US District Court in Washington DC Royce Lamberth may proceed to dismiss the complaint under pretense of judicial review.  However, the practice of pretense litigation undermines any remaining credibility of the US justice system.

i. 11-02-16 Taitz v Astrue (1:11-cv-00402) in the US District Court, Washington, DC - pertaining to refusal of Social Security Administration to release information regarding President Obama's Social Security data - Dkt #001: Complaint, Exhibits, Cover Sheet, and NEF
ii.  11-03-26 Taitz v Astrue (1:11-cv-00402)  Initial signs of Fraud in litigation in the US District, Washington DC-s
iii. 10-11-19 Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010) Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management 
iv. 08-02-00 US District Court Central District of California: General Order 08-02, Authorizing CM/ECF, Digital Authentication and Attestation in NEFs
v. 10-04-01 Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing - US District Court, Western District of Texas, Revised April 1, 2010
vi. Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States
vii, 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 
viii. 10-08-18 Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)

11-03-28 Restricting Trade Unions // La restricción de los sindicatos // 限制工会

Lawless Wisconsin GOPers Defy Court Order Against Anti-Union Law

Last week, a Wisconsin judge issued an order“restrain[ing] and enjoin[ing] the further implementation” of Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) anti-worker law until she has time to fully consider a lawsuit claiming that the law was not validly enacted. Yet, despite this clear and unambiguous order, Walker and his allies have decided that they are not bound by the law:
In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker’s legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge’s hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday. [...]
“It’s published,” [Senate Majority Leader Scott] Fitzgerald said. “It’s law. That’s what I contend.” [...]
Walker’s top cabinet official, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, gave only a brief statement reacting to Friday’s news.
“Today the administration was notified that the LRB published the budget-repair bill as required by law,” he said. “The administration will carry out the law as required.”
Under Wisconsin law, someone who intentionally defies a court order is in contempt of court, and can be fined up to $2,000 for each day that they disobey the court or imprisoned for up to six months.

Ohio GOP Revises Union Bill

Lawmakers, Fearing Legal Fights and a Voter Backlash, Soften Some Provisions

COLUMBUS, Ohio—The most ambitious attempt by a state this year to restrict union rights is being scaled back to reflect some Republicans' concerns that it is vulnerable to legal challenges and would spark a backlash.
The leader of the effort to downsize Ohio Senate Bill 5 is Sen. Bill Seitz, a conservative who was behind the state law banning same-sex marriages and rules limiting damages in civil lawsuits. Mr. Seitz and five other Republican state senators voted against the bill and are pressing for revisions in the state House, which is considering the bill now.
The back-and-forth among Ohio Republicans ... - KABC Los Angeles News
Thousands of union supporters march through downtown LA
Saturday, March 26, 2011

Some 10,000 people marched through downtown Los Angeles supporting union workers in Wisconsin in what protesters have dubbed, "Solidarity Saturday."

Wisconsin passed a law stripping public employee unions of collective bargaining rights and local protesters say it could happen in Southern California.
Union members and their allies gathered at the Los Angeles Convention Center and marched onward to Pershing Square in hopes of sending out a message that collective bargaining rights cannot be taken away from unions.
A controversial bill in Wisconsin has pitted Democrats and Republicans against each other, limiting collective bargaining rights of government employees.
The bill was signed into law by Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Legislators and governors in several other states are seeking to adopt similar laws, citing budget problems.

The bill was blocked by a judge but published online on Friday by the state's Legislative Reference Bureau, which essentially means it would go into effect.
Ultimately, though, the state Supreme Court will likely decide the law's fate. A state appeals court earlier in the week asked the Supreme Court to take up one of several lawsuits challenging its approval of the bill.
The president of Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin came to California for Saturday's rally, and though firefighters and law enforcement officials are exempt from the bill, Mahlon Mitchell said he came to support all workers and protect the rights of the middle class.
"I think the future of unions are in trouble. They're in danger. But this is not just about unions. This is about the middle class. It's about a movement that the middle class has to stand up for themselves, because if we don't stand up now, we'll continue to have more attacks later," said Mitchell.
Marchers were making their way through downtown before reaching Pershing Square, where a rally was planned with music and speakers.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

(Copyright ©2011 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

11-03-27 Crooked Los Angeles Judges // Crooked Los Angeles Jueces // 克鲁克特洛杉矶法官

Welcome to

Crooked L.A. Judges Try to Slide Marina Del Rey Project By: Residents Await Courts To Stop Developers From "Sprucing"

Categories: Above the Law
Thumbnail image for Videoblog_95_sm.png
As reported yesterday through very rose colored glasses by the L.A. Times, Marina Del Rey is in a process of "renewal." "Leaseholder Jerry Epstein will raze his 202-unit Del Rey Shores apartment community on Via Marina and replace it with a 544-unit complex in fewer, taller buildings, that will be called simply Shores."
The Times forgot to mention this detail: The residents of Marina Del Rey vehemently oppose this method of "sprucing up." And they fought it in court - only to have the attorney representing them taken down by a judge being bribed by the County - the County is partner with the marina developer.
Now L.A. judges (who have all accepted illegal bonuses from the County) are throwing around the follow up case like a hot potato:
State Superior Court Judges in L.A. County have been accepting massive illegal bonuses from the county since the 80s. The law states that judges cannot accept money other than from their employer - which in this case, is the state.
The people of Marina Del Rey sought former U.S. Prosecutor Richard Fine to represent them against the developer behind "sprucing up" their neighborhood in a way very unwelcomed by the community:
Fine pointed out that the judge overseeing the case, Judge David Yaffe, had accepted $850,000 in illegal bonus money from L.A. County. And the county is a partner of Del Rey Shores.
Fine found himself behind bars, in solitary coercive confinement, for 18 months. Yaffe's method to get him there? He slapped a $46,000 fine on Fine for filing a notice to the court one day late. Although the fine is legal, it actually isn't:
Fine had miscalculated the days, due to a holiday: Forgiveness for unintended error is the law. But the court used this as an opportunity to smear Fine - posing him as a debtor.
Fine refused to pay the sum, refused to disclose his personal assets and was told he was in contempt of court.
Fine had been disbarred during this process -- while the developer's attorney was serving as president of the State Bar Association.
Full Disclosure got wind of the incident and was able to interview Fine at the courthouse, before he went to jail. This gave much needed exposure to what was going on.
The very judge that had been responsible for locking Fine up, Judge Yaffe, ultimately was the one who released Fine.
Back in 2008 during Fine's contempt trial, Judge Yaffe testified in court -- in a very unusual situation: while he was sitting on the bench and testifying as a witness at the same time. He testified that he accepted payments from L.A. County, is not under contract with L.A. County and is not employed by L.A. County in any way.
In his release order to free Fine, he made a rather astonishing admittance:
"By keeping him [Fine] incarcerated for 18 months, the court has deterred others from defying its orders ..."
Yaffe then resigned from office before his term was over.
"I did disqualify him," Fine says of Yaffe. "And he didn't get off the bench. He stayed on even though he was disqualified, so he broke the law. That means everything he did in that case was void and null."
Which means there should legally be no "sprucing up" by Del Rey Shores quite yet in Marina Del Rey.
March 10, Dr. Fine headed back to court to continue his struggle to nullify and void all of Judge Yaffey's rulings. Other L.A. County Judges are afraid to touch it, as they are all guilty of the same bribe taking. The case is being handed off like a hot potato - five judges have refused to give him a hearing.
They are all afraid to meet the fate that Yaffe did.
Contact Mars Melnicoff at / follow @marsmelnicoff
To the Editors:

Crooked LA Judges?  Your title is a gross understatement!
The case of Richard Fine documented a crooked justice system all the way from the Los Angeles Sheriff to the Supreme Court of the United States:
1) The Sheriff arrested Richard Fine with no warrant and no valid conviction or sentencing, and held him in solitary confinement for 18 months under fraudulent records, stating that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of the non-existent "Municipal Court of San Pedro".
2) The US District Court, Central District of California conducted an invalid litigation of the habeas corpus petition, where the judgment was never certified by the Clerk of the Court, and a fraudulent docket was published online.
3) The California Judicial Council retained Attorney Kevin McCormick to fraudulently appear, under false case caption, on behalf of Judge David Yaffe, while not authorized as Attorney of Record.  Attorney McCormick then filed false records and a fraudulent declaration to affect the continued false imprisonment of Richard Fine.
4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit published fraudulent dockets for the Petition and the Appeal, where none of the court orders were signed by a judge and none was served with attestation by a Clerk.
5) The Supreme Court of the United States conducted pretense review of the Application and Petition, where no valid record were ever discovered.
For detailed review of the case of Richard Fine and the various levels of fraudulent legal records in the various justice system agencies involved in the case, please see links below.
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
[1] April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court
* "...a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences."
Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."    
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
"Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
"...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
"On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations."
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010)
"More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning "mandatory and enforceable" ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by "recent media reports," the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others."
More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011)
"The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition..."
Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)
* In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" on the US Department of Justice.
Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)


11-03-27 Welcome Uganda! // Bienvenido Uganda! // 乌干达欢迎您!

Last New Visitor

Visited March 27, 2011