Tuesday, May 24, 2011

11-05-24 FEC is asked to disregard Citizens United v Federal Election Commission // Fraude en los EE.UU. Corte Suprema de Justicia // 欺诈在美国最高法院

The FEC has never been served with a valid, signed, authenticated record of the US Supreme Court Judgment, and such record has never been discovered yet.  The records of US District Court in Washington DC, in which the case originated, start with an invalid Summons, end with a Judgment that was not recorded in the Judgment Index of the Court, with an 'off the record' proceeding in between.

Chair Cynthia L. Bauerly Federal Election Commission, United States of America (logo). Link to FEC Home Page

Cynthia L. Bauerly
FEC Chair

Los Angeles, May 24 - in a letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Cynthia Bauerly, the Commissioners, the Acting General Counsel, Acting Staff Director, and the Inspector General, the FEC was asked:
Why would the FEC not disregard the cases of Citizens United v FEC in the US District Court, DC, (1-07-cv-2240) and in the US Supreme Court, (08-805), as matters that have never been litigated and decided pursuant to the law of the United States? [[i]]
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (08-205) was reported as one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court.

"[D]ecision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns... a stunning example of judicial activism." [[ii]] 

However, based on review of US Supreme Court, US District Court, Washington DC, and FEC and US Solicitor General FOIA-response records, the request opined that Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805) in the US Supreme Court and Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC, were cases of Simulated Litigation. [[iii]]

  • No valid summons was ever issued or served on the FEC in the case in the US District Court, DC
  • No Judgment is listed as entered in the Judgment Index of the case in the US District Court, DC
  • No valid, duly signed and authenticated record of the Judgment of the US Supreme Court has been discovered so far.
  • There is no record to show that the Judgment of the US Supreme Court has ever been served by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court on the FEC.
The requester, Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), has gained substantial experience in examination of computerized records in large corporate and government systems.  His opinions in such matters have been supported by highly reputed fraud and computer science experts.  Papers he has authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in a computer-science journal and presented in international computer-science and criminology conferences. [[iv]]

Report, authored by him, and based in part on analysis of computerized court records, was incorporated into the official 2010 Staff Report of the United Nations Human Rights Council, as part of the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, with a reference note stating:

Corruption of the courts and the legal profession... [[v]]
The request was copied to Senator Dianne Feinstein.
[i] 11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC s
[ii] 0-01-21 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) at the Supreme Court of the United States - opinion of Prof Chemerinsky and Wikipedia overview
[iii] Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code; section 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. 
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
        (1)  induce payment of a claim from another person;  or                      
        (2)  cause another to:                                                       
            (A)  submit to the putative authority of the document;  or                
            (B)  take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b)  Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
[iv] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch
[v] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council  for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession".
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert - NGO 
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
Locations of visitors to this page
Flag Counter: 119
Total Reads: 431,060
Followers: 626
http ://twitter.com/inproperinla
Total Item Views: 342,338