Thursday, August 29, 2013

13-08-29 US - Misc News of the Abuse: The Shocking Tales of 12 of the Most Over the Top US Police Paramilitary Raids and the Innocent People They Victimized

The Shocking Tales of 12 of the Most Over the Top US Police Paramilitary Raids and the Innocent People They Victimized

The proliferation of SWAT tactics has resulted in wildly disproportionate responses to suspected crimes. 

13-08-29 Large-scale Fraud on the People in the US courts - a hallmark of the Medieval-Digital Era!

Below is a long but informative string from an online discussion group.
Fraud upon the Court
Here is a good link re some law/legal citations about fraud upon the court judicial officer(s) hearing or presiding over, the matter before the court.

Particularly see the case of Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).

Caveat.  When going to court, it is always about the integrity of forum you are in.  You can have a great case with a mountain of evidence (even a mountain range of evidence), but if the judicial officer or arbiter, is not independent, not impartial and not honest, it simply does not matter what your proof is.  Because the judge will allow you to present much or your case, if any of it.

Moreover, where the judge is dishonest and commits judicial misconduct in court, most of the time that judge's misconduct is accompanied by attorney misconduct.  Here is the link to a very good paper on the topic -
The Long Term View (Massachusetts School of Law), article by Elena Ruth SassowerVol. 4, No. 1, Summer 1997
Particularly see the first page of the paper (the 3rd page of the link), and most notably, "Why would a judge be intellectually dishonest?", and the concluding paragraph of that page that talks about the judge favoring one side and disfavoring the other; the last sentence reads, "In extreme cases, a judicial process predicated on standards, elementary legal principles, rules of evidence, simply ceases to exist." 

Thanks goes to Gene F., where I got the citation for Bulloch and to Elena S., for writing and getting published WITHOUT MERIT.  GLZ.
Thanks, Gary. Good links.

As you may well know, decades ago, folks facing foreclosure or prosecuting consumer complaints used to move cases to federal court, where they hoped for a higher quality of justice and judicial independence. Now banks and business do that, counting on federal courts to be "business-friendly." 

For decades I've been telling anyone who would listen, about the insidious and pervasive influence of The Federalist Society on law, the justice system, our judges and social policy since its inception in the early '80s. 

Now a book has just come out tracking and detailing this phenomenon. The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back From Liberals

I bought and am reading the book. 

The Federalist Society has 4 of its members on SCOTUS (the
 ones with the sponsor decals on their robes), gave us
 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION, ALEC and all the legislative and
 judicial activism that marks our "interesting

Here follows a Letter to The Editor responding to the book review above:
 Law and PoliticsPublished: May 23, 2013
 To the Editor:
 Jeffrey Rosen’s review of “The Federalist
 Society” (May 12) fails to state clearly what the
 book’s authors, Presidents Reagan and both
 Bushes, and Edwin Meese all clearly understood — that law
 is just politics by a different name, and that most Supreme
 Court justices are result-oriented and choose legal theories
 (originalism, judicial activism and the like) as window
 dressing while they get where they want to go.
 Although these illusory labels can be treated as serious
 methodologies and may be of interest to law professors,
 Meese called the American legal system the way he saw it:
 just another part of the government, neither higher nor
 lower than the other two branches, and one that must be
 The Federalist Society, contrary to the claims of
 Rosen and the book’s authors, did not change the law. The
 Supreme Court justices and the conservative lower-court
 appointees did. Contrary to Rosen, liberals did not lose out
 because of the paucity of their ideas. Presidents Clinton
 and Obama lost their court fights because they have been
 reluctant to be politically candid in their talk and
 aggressive in their appointments, underestimating their
 importance and putting them low on their agendas.
 The conservatives, seizing on the backlash to the Warren court,
 have, except with rare exceptions (the defeat of Robert
 Bork), won by default. That default, the authors correctly
 point out, continues today.
 New York 
 The writer, a constitutional trial lawyer, is the author
 of several books on the Supreme Court.
Given the intellectual dishonesty that motivates states where the G.O.P. has taken over to enact ALEC templated voting suppression because voter fraud is "rampant but hard to detect," why would you expect any difference in judicial ethics? If a judge consistently rules FOR business or commerce (as a member of The Federalist Society) how do you determine or even form an expectation that he is capable of independence? As the letter states, justices are result-oriented and choose legal theories (originalism, judicial activism and the like) as window dressing while they get where they want to go.

I can easily imagine a justice instructing his loyal sworn-to-secrecy law clerk, to research case-law that will enable him to deliver a ruling that will allow him to ignore probative evidence to reach the outcome he predetermined and favor the business over the consumer. Would we expect Justice Clarence Thomas to weigh in on civil rights cases the same way Justice Thurgood Marshall might? Could it be conservatives don't take the need to be independent as seriously as we would hope?

We all decry judicial activism, and it takes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to point out that her SCOTUS is the most activist ever!

In the below e-mail, in the paragraph, 

Caveat.  When going to court, it is always about the integrity of forum you are in.  You can have a great case with a mountain of evidence (even a mountain range of evidence), but if the judicial officer or arbiter, is not independent, not impartial and not honest, it simply does not matter what your proof is.  Because the judge will allow you to present much or your case, if any of it.
please note that in the last sentence, there should be the word "not" between will and allow, and the word "or" should be changed to "of", so that the corrected sentence should read,

Because the judge will not allow you to present much of your case, if any of it.

Sorry for the mistakes.  My oversight.  Please note the correction.  GLZ.

That the court would not allow you to present the evidene is obvious:

See below [1] a series of Perverted Discrepany Notices from the US Disctrict Court in LA in Zernik v Connor et al, where I sued some dozen California judges for what amounts to racketeering.  The office of the clerk eventually informed me, that Magisrate Carla Woehrle instructed them not to permit the filing of any evidence of judicial corruption (e.g., Fraud Expert Opinion by James Wedick, the most decorated FBI veteran alive... ) 

The same conduct was documented by both Bill Windsor and by me in the US District Court in Washington DC.

But beyond that, the court - both California and US courts all the way to SCOTUS, would likely conduct on you simulated litigation (what Dear Mr Wolfgram calls "immunity"), which in fact is Fraud on the Court.  None of the judicial records would be valid, entered court records, by the rules of the respective courts themselves.

Detailed description of how that works in both the California and US courts was provided in the Motion to Intervene in Richard Fine's case in SCOTUS.

In short, the US has established a simulated justice system, where justice is dripped at times, to create the appearance of civil society, but denied in most cases of abuse of rights.

[1] 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

[2] 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik, with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s

10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s

10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer s

10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records s

10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference s

10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Dr Zernik's Motion to Intervene 5 Amended Appendices s

10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendix IX b: Zernik's Declaration in re: April 16, 2010 search for records in the Courts microfilm judgments archive s

10-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - Dr Zernik's Declaration RE: Court Counsel Danny Bickell and Filing at US Supreme Court
Forgot to add one of the cutest points of Fraud on the Court through simulated iitigation:

The higher courts have authority only to run appeals from entered judgments, not from simulated judgments.

Therefore, if you try to run an appeal from a simulated judgment, the most you can get is simulated appeal.

That is exactly what happened in the the habeas corpus of Richard Fine, in Log Cabin Republicans, and in numerous other cases.

You are sick, JZ.  Another shoe string feel good analogy.  If a court of appeal recognized that judgment was not entered, it would remand for entry of judgment, or order it while retaining jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.  It might dismiss the appeal, but not with prejudice but with instructions to enter or obtain the entry of judgment.

But the shoe string is that you determine, all by yourself, when a judgement is officially made and if it does not meet your requirements, then it can't be "entered" and thus not appealed from.

To make that kind of error once in a while is, well, explainable, maybe.  But to make it so consistently and then to assume it is so correct as to render judgments unappealable is, well, a self imposed sickness of the mind.

Well, JZ, the phrase that you created "simulated litigation" could in the context that you describe, have meaning.  Your remedy to being forbidden to file "evidence of corruption" could be taken up on a writ of mandamus to order that order set aside (or other review).  But normally, evidence is not filed in court except for motions for or oppositions to summary judgments, or upon admission at trial.  In any event, the Court of Appeal may or may not support the order, but apparently, you never tested that.  In fact, you haven't said anything below that would lead a person reasonably failure with the rules of evidence and of admissibility to believe that the order was either unconstitutional or non reviewable. 

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to apply your created clause, "simulated litigation" to you.  You engaged in simulated litigation because, like your role in the fine case, you didn't know what you were doing, or why you were doing it.  You were just in court hemming and hawing and pushing papers as if they had legal meaning when they didn't.  And you still don't know what "litigation" is.
It may be true that all courts are corrupt, but in your case, they didn't have to be corrupt to get rid of you.  You want to cheat.  It takes years of study and then more years of litigation experience and learning to effectively prosecute cases, but here come you, MR. BIG EGO, telling em they are all wrong.  You are SMART, and that means that you should be able to effectively litigate by the seat of your pants and any judge that doesn't recognize that is, uhhh, "corrupt".


Could you provide a single documented case of such remand by a US court of appeals?
I could provide you detailed documented examples to the contrary from the cases of the Habeas Corpus of Richard Fine and Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al.
But then again, you never read the records, and you ignore the facts, while relying soly on your elaborate nonsensical legal theories, which have no basis in the effective US justice system today.
It´s called living in denial...
And yet, there is an interesting theoretical point for you here....

In your response below, you in fact acknowledged that there is such thing as "Entry of Judgment".

Therefore, since you are an expert in theory, could you please explain, how one determines whether a judgment was in fact entered in a US district court today?

Yes, JZ, the clerk sends out notice of entry of judgment which is supposed to be done within a lawfully specified time.  So, the clerk SHALL enter judgment within that time. If the Clerk does not, then appeal rights are extended for another lawful period of time.   Otherwise you can always look at the docket to determine whether and when entry of judgment occurred.

But to be meaningful, you have to understand the purpose of entry of judgment.   The trial court retains jurisdiction until judgment is entered (probably within 30 days) or for a legally stated period (like 90 or 120 days) if judgment is not entered.   Then appellate rights begin to run from the earliest of those dates, and the appeals time period is only 30 or 60 days.  Thus, if you appeal before judgment is entered you have in effect appealed during the time that the district court still has jurisdiction ... meaning during the time that the district court can still change its judgment and during that time you can still ask the district court to correct its judgment, or even to reconsider it.  A motion to reconsider made prior to entry of judgment extends the period in which to appeal to the same number of days after the motion is ruled on as you would have otherwise, from the entry of judgment.  So, basically, entry of judgment is only materially relevant to the period of time over which you may appeal.  While it makes the judgment "final", the judgment will become "final" after another period, like 120 days, if entry of judgment is never made.

But of course, if you don't understand the purpose of the "entry of judgment", you wouldn't understand any of the procedure surrounding it.

As to Richard Find, you NEVER understood that case, and your attempts to "help" him only made him look as legally incompetent as you.  You for instance, had not the foggiest notion of the difference between criminal and civil contempt or that Richard was held on civil contempt and as for him being in solitary confinement, that is a function of the law that requires segregation of civil from criminal prisoners, and the fact that there are not many civil prisoners.  Actually, he was probably the only one for long term stay in LA at the time.  While it is probably true that the trial judge was as corrupt as they come and acted corruptly in Fine's case, his corruption by and large preceded the contempt and imprisonment procedures.  That all had to do with Fine's refusal to pay sanctions and refusal to disclose financial information ordered to be disclosed.   Irrespective of the corruption going in, the judiciary as a whole has a big interest in enforcing its orders and contempt powers is one of the few mechanisms that it has.

The point about Fine's imprisonment that you did not understand is that he had the key to his own release ... disclosure of the financial information; and that key was separate from the corruption that gave his opponents the right to have that information.  The issue as far as the judiciary was concerned was simply financial to Fine and disobedience of a lawful order to disclose financial information as to the judiciary.  And as to you, you were just an inter-meddler into judicial business that you had no notion of the meaning of or reasons for.

Of course, if you didn't know any of this, and you didn't, albeit, I did try to tell you, you go running off in all directions yelling "The British are Coming ..." ERR, I mean, "Corruption, Corruption, Corruption in the Judiciary" and on that you imagine that you are such a fearsome tilter at windmills that you have to flee the country to save your freedom or maybe even your life and leave all of us poor Americans struggling to understand why all of our government is out to get poor little you, when actually, the people that were "after" you simply had the same doubts as to whether you were a danger to yourself and others that I entertain.

Any other questions, JZ?
So, like I inadvertently point out in the preceding e-mail, generally speaking, it is better for me not to read information that I already know the meaning of, then for you to read information that you have no understanding of; and you have no understanding of the law or legal process. 

Res Ipsa Loquitur: Your own ignorance of the law and process is the cause of your paranoia.  You fled the US and renounced citizenship, and are now fleeing from Israel to Germany, all out of ignorance: You read, but do not comprehend, Ky No Sabe.  And that is why you are "The Lone Ranger" without a country.

Could you provide a single documented case of such remand by a US court of appeals?
You continue to spout made up theoretical nonsense, but refuse to provide any factual example.  This just the latest case... 
"the clerk sends out notice of entry of judgment which is supposed to be done within a lawfully specified time."
OOOPS, he is out of touch with reality again, spouting theoretical nonsense with no factual basis...
Could you provide a SINGLE example of "NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT" by the clerk on any US district court over the past 15 years?
You see, Dear Mr Wolfgram, you just make up nonsensical theories, while I did the homework through extensive data mining of the records of the US courts from coast to coast...
If we accepted your theoretical nonsense, then ALL judgments of the US District Courts over the past 15 years are no more than simulated judgments (which is pretty close to reality), and a simulated justice system was imposed on the United States, concomitantly with the unlawful implementation of PACER and CM/ECF by the judiciary (with no lawful authority) through the Office of Administration of the Courts...

You are simply clueless, and I am doing you the favor of providing you a wake up call...
Lets pass a law about immunity...

And now perhaps you|d comprehend (and I greatly doubt it), why I focus on the duties and responsibilities, appointment records. and oath of office of the clerks, both in the US and Israel, following the implementation of the latest generation of electronic record systems in the courts.  jz 
WIlliam Suter - Chierf Clerk of the US Supreme Court, and Sarah Lifschitz - "Chief Clerk" of the Israeli Supreme Court (albeit, with no appointment record), embody the large-scale fraud in the US and Israeli justice system associated with the implementation of the latest generation of IT systems in the courts of either nations.
Therefore, for example, in the US:
[1] 11-10-10 Inspector General for the US Judiciary? Congress needs to start impeachments instead!
[2] 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER s

And in Israel:
[1] 12-04-16 Criminal fraud complaint (158921/2012) against SARAH LIFSCHITZ of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, filed with Israel Police, with certificate of complaint by the Fraud Division of the Jerusalem Police.

There was always corruption in the courts, ever since the concept of a court was invented.  In particular, corruption of the courts was notorious during the medieval period. However, typically corruption was sporadic and local in nature.  The amazing phenomenon seen in the US and Israel in conjunction with the implementation of the latest generation of IT systems, is corruption and large-scale Fraud on the People, implemented from the top to bottom, through the respective offices of Administration of the Courts!  With it, both nations are now under simualtd justice systems!

This phenomenon is one of the hallmarks of what I call the Medieval Digital Era. Through the implementation of digital systems, civil societies were brought back hundreds of years back, to medieval period.  And it happened in amazingly short period, over less than a decade in either the US or Israel...  The Israeli judiciary, obviously simply copied the corrupt systems, which were invented in the US, and were assisted in the process by large US-based corporations IBM and EDS...

Wide-scale digital surveillance, as made notorious through Snowden's leaking is another hallmark of the same phonomenon. 
Dear Mr Wolfgram:
With this, I hope that you would quit your nonsense about authentication and "Self Authentication" of judicial records.  Since the "Notice of Entry of Judgment", for example, IS the authentication of the judgment record.  With such notice, evidently, the record is "self-authenticated", without the "Notice of Entry of Judgment", the judgment record is unauthenticated, simulated judicial record!
Let's talk a bit more about immunity... :)
One should not conclude this discussion without giving credit where credit is due:


Ronald George, former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, and Sustain Technologies, originators of the large-scale fraud on the People through IT systems of the courts.
Following intensive research in this area, I believe that the brains behind this phenomenal Fraud on the People is Ronald George, who served in leadership positions in the LA Superior Court around 1984, when Sustain - the fraudulent IT system of that court was first implemented.
According to Sustain Technologies, Inc, the system is by now implemented in "Two Provinces. Eleven States. Three Countries."  The California courts were also unique, since through a series of decisions of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, the Entry of Judgment, and Notice of Entry of Judgment, fundamentals of Due Process, were simply eliminated, although the California Civil Code explicitly requires the Entry of Judgment, to make a Judgment "effectual for any purpose".
As previously mentioned, the only division of the LA Superior Court, where Entry of Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment are still practiced is the family court division, relative to marriages, divorces, adoptions and name changes...  The California judiciary decided to spare us generations of mixed up families...
As to the control of Sustain Technologies, Inc, the matter remains a mystery.  The company itself refuses to divulge any details in that regard.  Unverified information suggests control by the California Bar Association, and/or by Warren Buffet!

13-08-29 Hello world!

8/29 @ 12:28 : Mountain View, California, US
8/29 @ 11:53 : Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
8/29 @ 7:38 : Kowloon, HK
8/29 @ 4:39 : Mountain View, California, US
8/29 @ 4:07 : Sunnyvale, California, US
8/29 @ 12:31 : Cerritos, California, US
8/29 @ 12:09 : Shanghai, CN
8/28 @ 11:45 : Tallahassee, Florida, US
8/28 @ 11:13 : Simi Valley, California, US
8/28 @ 10:57 : Berlin, DE