Wednesday, June 1, 2011

11-06-01 Fraud in the US Courts // Fraude en los EE.UU. Tribunales // 在美国法院欺诈

[]
Sharon Scarrella Anderson 
www.sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com

Correspondence with Sharon Anderson in RE: Complaint pertaining to fraud in PACER and CM/ECF and discrimination against non-lawyers (pro se filers) in the US courts

William Windsor introduced me to Sharon Anderson, who has been active in protesting the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF for some years.

I am seeking input on the issue of filing a petition by a group of pro se filers, against US Attorney General Eric Holder, "To Compel US Officer to Perform His Duties", relative to corruption of the US Courts in general, and in particular regarding the fraud in the public access (PACER) and electronic filing (CM/ECF) systems in the US courts by the Administrative Office of the US Courts and discrimination against pro se filers through denial of access to CM/ECF.
____

1) Joseph Zernik wrote:
I am fully aware of the futility of seeking remedies through the US courts.  Filing a complaint is intended as a form of protest, civil disobedience, and as an attempt to educate the people and gain media attention.  Moreover, filing complaints pertaining to the corruption of the US courts themselves, often leads the courts to engage in blatant misconduct, as seen, for example, in the case of Judge Richard Leon, below.

William Windsor is very effective in getting media attention to the issues, and I hope that such filing would provide an opportunity for media attention to the issues.

The corruption of the US courts affects not only the large-scale abuse of Human Rights, but also the failure of US banking regulation. [1]  The issue of failing US banking regulation has attracted substantial attention both in the US and abroad in recent years, since it caused a world-wide crisis.

International forums are used for highlighting the issues:  [2]
  • Filing with the United Nations Human Rights Council, which led to a report that stated: Corruption of the courts and the legal profession in California,
  • Publication in peer-reviewed, international computer science journal,
  • Presentations in the 16th World Criminology Congress.
  • Communication with foreign embassies and international central banks and banking regulators.
IN SUM:
The evidence shows that corruption of the US courts is at a level that has not been seen in a century or more.  The fraudulent electronic systems are claimed to be a key enabling factor.
  • The chances that filing a petition for a Writ of Mandate "to Compel a US Officer to Perform His Duties" will remedy the situation are slim.
  • Filing such complaint will provide further evidence of the corruption, and help to build the pressure on the US government.
  • Filing such complaint on the fundamental issue of fraud in PACER and CM/ECF will allow to get together a large group of complainants from around the country.
WHAT NEXT?
I suggest writing a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, requesting that he perform his duties, and restore the integrity of the US courts by addressing the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF and the discrimination against pro se filers.

REQUEST FOR INPUT:
Please offer suggestions regarding types of fraud that you have identified in PACER and CM/ECF. 

The issues that were identified so far, which enable the routine conduct of cases as Simulated Litigation are:

A. The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented fraudulent, invalid public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF) systems in the US courts with no legal authority at all.
1) Failure of the US courts to publish valid Rules of Courts, to establish the new court procedures, deemed effective by the US Courts following the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF.
1) Publication of simulated PACER dockets, which the clerks of the US courts refuse to certify
2) Failure to establish a legally valid and publicly recognized forms of digital signatures of judges and clerks.
3) Implementation of invalid, simulated authentication records (NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filing in the District Courts and NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity in the US Courts of Appeals), which replaced the Certificates of Service.
4) Elimination of the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs) from the PACER dockets, and thereby making it impossible for the public to distinguish between valid and void court records.
5) Routine failure of the US Courts to docket the summonses in the PACER docket, in apparent violation of the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and initiation of simulated litigation cases with no valid summonses issued or executed.
6) Publication in PACER dockets of simulated minutes, orders, and judgments, which are unsigned and/or unauthenticated.
7) Failure to establish valid authorities in CM/ECF, and thereby enabling the entry of minutes, orders, and judgments in the PACER dockets by unauthorized court personnel, who are not Deputy Clerks.
8) Enabling the appearance of attorneys, who are not Attorneys of Record, with "no communication with clients" clause.  The practice is rampant in cases involving large corporations and government officials.
9) Enabling the entry of papers in the PACER dockets by attorneys with no prior review by authorized Deputy Clerks.
10) Arbitrary and capricious denial of public access to critical court records in the various US courts (Summonses, papers filed by parties, Judgment Index, Calendars of the Courts, Corporate Parent Reports, etc)

B. Discrimination against pro se filers, related to denial of access to CM/ECF, amounts to abuse of the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the People.
1) Routine denial of access to CM/ECF, which established two separate and unequal classes in access to the courts and to court records.
2) The cost and time required to file on paper by far exceed the cost of electronic filing.
3) The denial of access to CM/ECF by pro se filers enables court personnel to eliminate undesirable papers, which were duly filed by pro se filers, from the PACER dockets.
4) The denial of access to CM/ECF enables the denial of access to critical court records, which appear only in CM/ECF, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.

C. Fraud in the Public Access and Electronic Filing systems of the US Supreme Court undermines the foundation of the Rule of Law [3]
1) Publication of invalid simulated dockets, journal, decision, judgments by the US Supreme Court has undermined the rule of law.
2) Unauthorized personnel issue US Supreme Court notices, decisions, judgments
3) Unauthorized personnel deny the right to file papers in the US Supreme Court.

LINKS:
[1] Regarding the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF and banking regulation, see for example the fraud in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York:
a) 10-12-08 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation(1:09-cv-06829)  Request No 1 for Investigation, Impeachment of RUBY KRAJICK, Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern District of New York
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44908376/
b) Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States (filed in support of Request No 1 for impeachment of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/
c) 10-12-19 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - Addendum to Request No 1 for Investigation-impeachment of Judge Rakoff and Clerk Krajick
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45644678/
[2] Regarding international publication, presentations, see:
a) 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/
[3] Regarding fraud in the public access and electronic filing systems of the US Supreme Court, see:
a) 11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC  invalid court records in a Simulated Litigation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56106686/
b) 11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56145482/
c) 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47539382/
d) 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell for Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/


2) At 12:43 PM 6/1/2011, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Sharons%20mn-ecf&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=e33c593d9c150181&biw=758&bih=339&pf=p&pdl=3000

Sometimes its an exercise in futility access to the Courts.  www.sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com 
 

3) In a message dated 6/1/2011 5:39:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jz12345@earthlink.net writes:

Copied below is a note I sent to Mr Windsor in this regard.  Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated:
Another option to consider:
Filing together a Petition for a Writ of Mandate in the US District Court, DC, against US DOJ, "To Compel US Officer to Perform His Duties".  It is what I basically did last time: I claimed that USDOJ knowingly refuses to protect the People against judicial corruption.
My complaint was about California, but the issues you and others raised in Georgia, Vermont, Colorado, are the same.
In general, if we decide to go this way, I would suggest that we focus on:
a) The fraud in the PACER dockets, which permits to show invalid records (e.g. the series of certificates in your case), which effectively is denial of Access to the Court and Denial of Equal Protection.
b) The denial of FIRST AMENDMENT access to court records (e.g. - in your case, the refusal to permit you access to the certificates which had no Dkt #)
c) The denial of FIRST AMENDMENT right to file papers in court - e.g., in Judge Richard Leon's court. 
Papers, which provided direct documentary evidence of judicial corruption were "denied the right to file". I had the same experience in:
i. US District Court, Los Angeles
ii.  US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
iii. US Supreme Court.
The advantages of framing the issues this way are:
a) That they are universal, for all US courts, and very simple, I believe.  If we take this route, we do not get into the details of the individual cases, yours, or mine, although we can incorporate them by reference to the previous complaints.
b) That there would be much more interest in the legal community in the US and abroad in such complaint, rather than a complaint that deals with the corruption and details of the corruption in this case or that with this judge or that.  PACER and CM/ECF were universally installed by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, and in my opinion it is historically unheard of - organized fraud on the people by the judiciary branch.
c) We could try to introduce expert reports on the matter, which would be much easier than introducing expert reports on the individual cases. (Although in my case in California, I had an Expert Report from an FBI veteran, who is likely the most decorated alive, and Judge Leon "denied the leave to file" the report.)  If they "deny the leave to file" reports on fraud in PACER and CM/ECF, it would be newsworthy, I believe.
4) At 12:15 PM 6/1/2011, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com wrote:
                             YES  At least the e-mail is getting thro  www.lying-lawyers.blogspot.com
 
5) In a message dated 6/1/2011 5:10:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jz12345@earthlink.net writes:
Dear Ms Anderson:
Mr William Windsor informed me of your actions regarding electronic filing.
You may be interested in reading:
Short review regarding the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) - a core instrument of fraud in the US Courts systems (PACER and CM/ECF) [1]
Filing in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, on this matter [2]
Documentation of abuse against non-attorney filers by Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC, in Civil Rights Matters. [3]
Joseph Zernik Bio [4]
Combined, the the papers claim:
1) Discrimination - two classes, separate and unequal - have been established relative to access to the courts.
2) The US courts electronic systems (PACER and CM/ECF) are routinely used to defraud non-attorney filers, particularly in civil rights matters, through the conduct of Simulated Litigation.
The same problem is found in the state courts, but I believe that addressing the large-scale fraud in the US courts is the higher priority.
Would you or others, copied on this message, be interested in joining a filing in the US District Court, DC, for a Writ of Mandate "to compel US Officer to Perform His Duties" against US DOJ in this matter?
Please let me know.
Truly,
[]  
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
___
LINKS:
[1] 11-05-20 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55862403/
[2] 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/
[3] 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court,DC � master of the �Leave toe to file denied�
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56612919/
[4] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/
____
Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC - master of the 'Leave to File Denied'
See under:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56612919/
Posted by at No comments:

11-06-01 Welcome Belgium! // Bienvenido Bélgica! // 欢迎比利时！

Last New Visitor

Belgium 
Visited June 1, 2011
Posted by at No comments:

11-06-01 Abolish the Death Penalty in California! // Abolición de la Pena de Muerte en California! // 在加利福尼亚州废除死刑！

Bill Ong Hing

California’s Unusually Cruel Punishment

Professor Bill Ong Hing, who served on the California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice(CCFAJ), argued recently that California’s death penalty should be abolished because of its intractable problems:
The death penalty is too costly, the possibility is high that a person who has been wrongfully convicted will be put to death, capital punishment inordinately affects communities of color, the imposition of the death penalty varies greatly from county to county within the same state, a low income defendant faces a troubling disadvantage when charged with a capital offense, the death penalty forecloses any possibility of healing and redemption, and the death qualification juror requirement inherently and unjustly biases the process against the defendant.
READ THE FULL STORY:
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)