Wednesday, August 24, 2011

11-08-23 FBI Organizes Almost All Terror Plots In the US // FBI Organiza Casi todos los complots terroristas en los EE.UU. // 联邦调查局在美国举办,几乎所有的恐怖阴谋

By Russia Today

Agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could potentially carry out "lone wolf" attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so.

11-08-23 Wikileaks // Wikileaks // 维基解密

PATRIOT Act order unsealed
US Espionage Investigation Against WikiLeaks
By Wikileaks

August 23, 2011 "
Information Clearing House--  Further proof has emerged of the United States secret Grand Jury investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Further information has been demanded on the organization and its founder for the US courts, this time under the PATRIOT Act. The Grand Jury has been meeting in Alexandria, Washington DC trying to work up an espionage case against the organization’s founder Julian Assange. The latest information demanded is anything held by WikiLeaks DNS host, Dynadot in California, regarding, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
WikiLeaks have just received a copy of the recently unsealed court Order from the United States, signed by a US magistrate judge on the 4th of January 2011. Using the terms of the PATRIOT Act the Order was issued to Dynadot, the domain registrars for, for all information they hold on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and
The Order demands Dynadot handover the following information for the time period November 1st 2009 to present, within three days of the date of the Order:
1. Subscriber names, user names, screen names, or other identities; 2. mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, e-mail addresses, and other contact information; 3. connection records, or record of session times and durations; 4. length of service (including start date) and typos of service utilized; 5. telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity; including any temporarily assigned network address; and 6. means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.
1. records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account 2. non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s), such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses. 3. Correspondence and notes of records related to the account
WikiLeaks do not know what, if any, information Dynodot provided the US courts with. This demand follows a subpoena earlier this year to Twitter for the information it holds on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and some of his associates. 
For further information please read the full Dynadot court Order here.
Help support WikiLeaks through these attacks.

11-08-25 Am I Stupid? // ¿Soy estúpido? // 我愚蠢吗?

Fwd: Re: Citizen’s right to stop illegal conduct by public official

Q: My sheriff is poaching... My judge is corrupt… 
    Is there anything I could do to stop it? 
A: Not much, really... Am I stupid?

 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 03:55:50 +0300
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: citizen’s right to stop illegal conduct by public official

Back to the question itself: How to stop illegal conduct by a government official  -

Some laws, which were specifically enacted during the Reconstruction Era, following the Civil War to stop unlawful conduct by public officials are:
·         Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, 42 USC 1983  
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

·         Corresponding jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. 1343
·         Corresponding criminal statues  18 USC 242

However, as described previously, the US courts do not observe this section.   For example, in Zernik v Connor et al (08-cv-01550) I duly filed under this section a complaint under 1983 against some 10 California judges in the US Distinct Court, Central District of California, for conduct amounting to racketeering.

In response:
·         The clerk of the court refused to issue summonses, and
·         The court went on conducting a simulated litigation under this caption, months after I refused to oppose a motion for dismissal...

For review of the true legal interpretation of the law you may read:
·         Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983 Litigation

This law pertains to unlawful conduct relative to deprivation of rights, poaching is unlikely to be addressed by this law.


P.S. Standard Disclaimer:
1) The writer is not an attorney, and has no legal education.
2) The older I get the more I realize how clueless I am!
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:36:38 +0300
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Citizens' right to stop illegal conduct by judges?

Here are some explanations regarding the de facto law of United States:

1) My understanding is that you might appeal only a valid appealable order or judgment of a US courts, not any hand-written piece of paper written by anybody, even if that person is represented as a US judge. 

2) In a similar situation in the US District Court, Central District of California, the Clerk of the Court refused to issue summonses.  When I petitioned the refusal to issue summonses to the 9th Circuit, the petition was denied, albeit, with an unsigned, unauthenticated order.  The lower courts would not engage in such unlawful conduct, unless they knew that they were fully supported by the US courts of appeals.

3) In a similar situation -  the simulated habeas corpus of Richard Fine -  a simulated appeal was conducted by the 9th circuit court of appeals, and then a simulated petition in the US Supreme Court. 
I lawfully filed evidence to the Supreme Court of the simulated nature of the proceedings in the US District Court, Central District of California and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.  Surprise, surprise, the papers were "returned" by SCOTUS court counsel Danny Bickell (neither a Deputy Clerk, nor a Justice of SCOTUS), after being stamped "Received".  In short, SCOTUS as well supports the practice. [1]

4) In the US Court, Central District of California, I was even told directly by the Deputy Clerk in the Intake Department - the "Pro Se Clerk". - that any paper which included evidence against California judges would be denied filing. [2]

5) The experience is not only mine, William Windsor experienced the same in the US District Court, DC [3], and Richard Fine experience the same in the US District Court, Central District of California.

6) The practice can be summarized as a Federal Rule of Court:
Any papers, which include valid evidence of judicial corruption are exempt from First Amendment rights, and must be denied filing in the US Courts. [4]

I suggest that you read the links below, and update yourself regarding the de facto law of the United States.

[1] 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell for Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
[2] 09-04-09 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #105: Compiled Records of Perverted Discrepancy Notices
[3] 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court,DC  master of the Leave to file denied
[4] 10-10-20 The US Courts Established a Policy Excluding Any Papers Pertaining to Judicial Corruption from the First Amendment Right to File Petitions
At 04:39 AM 8/24/2011, W wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand, Dr. Jose.  One does not require leave to file a petition such as you mention, if indeed, that is what it was.

Sooo, it sounds like under the guise of "leave to file denied" the judge dismissed your petition without hearing.  And that is the appeala ble issue.


Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:02:45 +0300
Subject: Re: citizen right to stop illegal conduct by public official

Not exactly addressing your question... but close...

I have sued in US District Court, Washington DC US DOJ, FBI and others, under "Petition to Compel US Officer to Perform his Duties." (Zernik v Melson et al - same Melson who later became infamous as Gun Walker)

By then, I had no surprise, when the outcome was simulated litigation, where my papers were returned to me, with hand inscription by US Judge Richard Leon "Leave to File Denied"...


[1] 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court,DC  master of the Leave to file denied

At 03:05 AM 8/24/2011, JP wrote:
this is the core question

On Tue, 8/23/11, DE wrote:
From: DE
Subject: citizen right to stop illegal conduct by public official
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 3:14 PM
i have info here in idaho that our local sheriff is poaching elk and deer. i have one eyewitness and possibly a second who is in alaska working at the moment. i sent in a public records request to see if the sheriff had any license to hunt the elk he was seen cleaning. the local fish and game state the info is confidential and exempt from disclosure.
 is there any statutes either federal or local that address whether a private citizen can sue to stop illegal conduct by an elected official?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

11-08-25 Welcome Ecuador! // Bienvenido Ecuador! // 欢迎厄瓜多尔!

Last New Visitor

Visited August 25, 2011