Friday, January 1, 2010

10-01-01 US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, Office of the Clerk of the Court

UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT
Physical Address:
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
(212)857-8500
Mailing Address:
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
(212)857-8500
Dennis Jacobs, Chief Judge
Karen Greve Milton, Circuit Executive
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court





Clerk's Office
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

Tel: (212) 857-8500
Fax: (212) 857-8710


Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
Andrew M. Contreras, Chief Deputy Clerk
Lucille Carr, Chief Deputy of Operations
Oliva George, Deputy of Operations/Training Specialist
Richard Alcantara, Manager of Administration
Jeanine Cook, Executive Assistant
The Clerk’s Office serves the court by supervising court operations, maintaining court records, handling court monies, and performing other tasks that pertain to the court’s management and administration as mandated by statute or delegated by the court. The Clerk of Court acts as the chief administrative officer of the court.
The Clerk’s Office, among its many duties, ensures that correct and current dockets are maintained for each case, matters before the court are calendared as expeditiously as possible, general information and records are made readily available to the court and public, and statistical information regarding various case types and dispositions is kept accurately. The Clerk’s Office also bears responsibility for administering and enforcing the rules governing practice before the court.
Clerk's Office Links:
Clerk's Office Directory
Attorney Admission
Forms
Attorney Discipline
Judicial Conduct
CJA
Media Information
Court Calendars
Pro Bono Materials
Decisions
Rules
Dockets
______________________________________________

FRAP AND LOCAL RULES OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

FRAP and Local Rules (pdf format)
Local Rules (pdf format)
To view rules separately, click on the corresponding link from the detailed table of contents below.  Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are printed in blue; Local Rules and the Appendix following the rules are printed in green.
LOCAL RULES RELATING TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT
§0.11. Name
§0.12. Seal
§0.13. Terms
Interim §0.14. Quorum
§0.15. 
Disclosure of Interested Parties [Superceded by FRAP 26.1]
§0.16. Clerk
§0.17. Clerk's Fees
§0.18. Entry of Orders by the Clerk
§0.19. Process
§0.20. Opinions of the Court
§0.21. Library
§0.22. Judicial Conference of the Second Circuit
§0.23. Dispositions in Open Court or by Summary Order [Superceded by Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1]
§0.24. Complaints With Respect to Conduct of Judges
§0.25. Equal Access to Justice Act Fees
§0.26. Permissive Review After Appeal of a Magistrate's Judgment to the District Court
§0.27. Certification of Questions of State Law
§0.28. Death Penalty Cases
Interim §0.29. Non-Argument Calendar


FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
TITLE I. APPLICABILITY OF RULES

Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title


(a) Scope of Rules
(b) [Abrogated]
(c) Title

Rule 2. Suspension of Rules

TITLE II. APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT

Rule 3. Appeal as of Right — How Taken

(a) Filing the Notice of Appeal
(b) Joint or Consolidated Appeals
(c) Contents of the Notice of Appeal
(d) Serving the Notice of Appeal
(e) Payment of Fees
Rule 3.1. Appeal from a Judgment of a Magistrate Judge in a Civil Case [Abrogated]
Local Rule 3(d). Mailing of Notice of Appeal by Clerks of District Courts to Clerk of Court of Appeals

Rule 4. Appeal as of Right — When Taken

(a) Appeal in a Civil Case
(1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal
(2) Filing Before Entry of Judgment
(3) Multiple Appeals
(4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal
(5) Motion for Extension of Time
(6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal
(7) Entry Defined
(b) Appeal in a Criminal Case
(1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal
(2) Filing Before Entry of Judgment
(3) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal
(4) Motion for Extension of Time
(5) Jurisdiction
(6) Entry Defined
(c) Appeal by an Inmate Confined in an Institution
(d) Mistaken Filing in the Court of Appeals

Local Rule 4(b). Duties of all Retained Attorneys in Criminal Cases and all Criminal Justice Act-appointed Attorneys; Motions for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel on Appeal Where Retained in a Criminal Case or Appointed under Criminal Justice Act, Duties of Appellate Counsel in the Event of Affirmance

Rule 5. Appeal by Permission
(a) Petition for Permission to Appeal
(b) Contents of the Petition; Answer or Cross-Petition; Oral Argument
(c) Form of Papers; Number of Copies
(d) Grant of Permission; Fees; Cost Bond; Filing the Record

Rule 5.1. Appeal by Leave under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(5) [Abrogated December 1, 1998]
Rule 6. Appeal in a Bankruptcy Case from a Final Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

(a) Appeal From a Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court Exercising Original Jurisdiction in a Bankruptcy Case
(b) Appeal From a Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction in a Bankruptcy Case
(1) Applicability of Other Rules
(2) Additional Rules
(A) Motion for rehearing
(B) The record on appeal
(C) Forwarding the record
(D) Filing the record
Rule 7. Bond for Costs on Appeal in a Civil Case
Rule 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal
 (a) Motion for Stay
(1) Initial Motion in the District Court
(2) Motion in the Court of Appeals; Conditions on Relief
(b) Proceeding Against a Surety
(c) Stay in a Criminal Case
Rule 9. Release in a Criminal Case
(a) Release Before Judgment of Conviction
(b) Release After Judgment of Conviction
(c) Criteria for Release

Local Rule 9. Release in Criminal Cases
Rule 10. The Record on Appeal
(a) Composition of the Record on Appeal
(b) The Transcript of Proceedings
(1) Appellant’s Duty to Order
(2) Unsupported Finding or Conclusion
(3) Partial Transcript
(4) Payment
(c) Statement of the Evidence When the Proceedings Were Not Recorded or When a Transcript Is Unavailable
(d) Agreed Statement as the Record on Appeal
(e) Correction or Modification of the Record
Rule 11. Forwarding the Record
(a) Appellant’s Duty
(b) Duties of Reporter and District Clerk
(1) Reporter’s Duty to Prepare and File a Transcript
(2) District Clerk’s Duty to Forward
(c) Retaining the Record Temporarily in the District Court for Use in Preparing the Appeal
(d) [Abrogated]
(e) Retaining the Record by Court Order
(f) Retaining Parts of the Record in the District Court by Stipulation of the Parties
(g) Record for a Preliminary Motion in the Court of Appeals


Local Rule 11. Exhibits
Rule 12. Docketing the Appeal; Filing a Representation Statement; Filing the Record


(a) Docketing the Appeal
(b) Filing a Representation Statement
(c) Filing the Record, Partial Record, or Certificate

Interim Local Rule 12.1. Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance in All Appeals
TITLE III. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Rule 13. Review of a Decision of the Tax Court

(a) How Obtained; Time for Filing Notice of Appeal
(b) Notice of Appeal; How Filed
(c) Contents of the Notice of Appeal; Service; Effect of Filing and Service
(d) The Record on Appeal; Forwarding; Filing


Rule 14. Applicability of Other Rules to the Review of a Tax Court Decision
TITLE IV. REVIEW OR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, BOARD, COMMISSION, OR OFFICER

Rule 15. Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order — How Obtained; Intervention
(a) Petition for Review; Joint Petition
(b) Application or Cross-Application to Enforce an Order; Answer; Default
(c) Service of the Petition or Application
(d) Intervention
(e) Payment of Fees

Local Rule 15. Application by National Labor Relations Board For Enforcement of Order
Rule 15.1. Briefs and Oral Argument in a National Labor Relations Board Proceeding
Rule 16. The Record on Review or Enforcement
(a) Composition of the Record
(b) Omissions From or Misstatements in the Record
Rule 17. Filing the Record
(a) Agency to File; Time for Filing; Notice of Filing
(b) Filing — What Constitutes
Rule 18. Stay Pending Review
(a) Motion for a Stay
(1) Initial Motion Before the Agency
(2) Motion in the Court of Appeals
(b) Bond
Rule 19. Settlement of a Judgment Enforcing an Agency Order in Part
Rule 20. Applicability of Rules to the Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order
TITLE V. EXTRAORDINARY WRITS

Rule 21. Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Other Extraordinary Writs
(a) Mandamus or Prohibition to a Court: Petition, Filing, Service, and Docketing
(b) Denial; Order Directing Answer; Briefs; Precedence
(c) Other Extraordinary Writs
(d) Form of Papers; Number of Copies
Local Rule 21. Petitions for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition

(a) Caption
(b) Number of Copies


TITLE VI. HABEAS CORPUS; PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Rule 22. Habeas Corpus and Section 2255 Proceedings
(a) Application for the Original Writ
(b) Certificate of Appealability

Local Rule 22. Certificate of Appealability    


(a) Prompt Application and Contents of Motion
(b) Time for Filing Appellant's Brief

Rule 23. Custody or Release of a Prisoner in a Habeas Corpus Proceeding
(a) Transfer of Custody Pending Review
(b) Detention or Release Pending Review of Decision Not to Release
(c) Release Pending Review of Decision Ordering Release
(d) Modification of the Initial Order on Custody
Rule 24. Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
(a) Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(1) Motion in the District Court
(2) Action on the Motion
(3) Prior Approval
(4) Notice of District Court’s Denial
(5) Motion in the Court of Appeals
(b) Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal or Review of an Administrative-Agency Proceeding
(c) Leave to Use Original Record
TITLE VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Rule 25. Filing and Service
(a) Filing
(1) Filing with the Clerk
(2) Filing: Method and Timeliness
(A) In general
(B) A brief or appendix
(C) Inmate filing
(D) Electronic filing
(3) Filing a Motion with a Judge
(4) Clerk’s Refusal of Documents
(5) Privacy Protection


(b) Service of All Papers Required
(c) Manner of Service
(d) Proof of Service
(e) Number of Copies

Interim Local Rule 25.1. Filing and Service


(a) Document in Digital Format
1. Documents Defined
2. Submission Requirement
3. Submission of Documents
4. Content
5. Time for Filing
6. Virus Protection
7. Corrections
8. Email Service
(b) Documents in Other Formats
1. Filing Requirement
Interim Local Rule 25.2. Appendix on CD-ROM

Rule 26. Computing and Extending Time

(a) Computing Time
(b) Extending Time
(c) Additional Time after Service

Rule 26.1. Corporate Disclosure Statement

(a) Who Must File
(b) Time for Filing; Supplemental Filing
(c) Number of Copies

Rule 27. Motions

(a) In General
(1) Application for Relief
(2) Contents of a Motion
(A) Grounds and relief sought
(B) Accompanying documents
(C) Documents barred or not required
(3) Response
(A) Time to file
(B) Request for affirmative relief
(4) Reply to Response
(b) Disposition of a Motion for a Procedural Order
(c) Power of a Single Judge to Entertain a Motion
(d) Form of Papers; Page Limits; and Number of Copies
(1) Format
(A) Reproduction
(B) Cover
(C) Binding
(D) Paper size, line spacing, and margins
(E) Typeface and Type Styles
(2) Page Limits
(3) Number of Copies


(e) Oral Argument



Local Rule 27. Motions


(a) Form of Notice of Motion and Supporting Papers for Motions and Opposition Statements

1) Form of Motion
2) Non-Compliance Sanctions


(b) Motions to Be Heard at Regular Sessions of the Court
(c) Motions to Be Heard by a Panel Which Has Rendered a Decision
(d) Pro Se Motions by Incarcerated Prisoners Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 and 2255
(e) Motions for Leave to Appeal
(f) Motions to Be Determined by a Single Judge
(g) Motions for Permission to File Briefs Exceeding Size Provided by Rule 28(g)
(h) Other Motions
(i) Suggestions for In Banc Consideration of a Motion
(j) Motions by Pro Se Appellant in Civil Appeals (including Habeas Corpus)





Rule 28. Briefs

(a) Appellant’s Brief
(b) Appellee’s Brief
(c) Reply Brief
(d) References to Parties
(e) References to the Record
(f) Reproduction of Statutes, Rules, Regulations, etc
(g) [Reserved]
(h) [Deleted]
(i) Briefs in a Case Involving Multiple Appellants or Appellees
(j) Citation of Supplemental Authorities




Local Rule 28. Briefs
Rule 28.1. Cross Appeal

(a) Applicability
(b) Designation of Appellant
(c) Briefs
(1) Appellant's Principal Brief
(2) Appellee's Principal and Response Brief
(3) Appellant's Response and Reply Brief
(4) Appellee's Reply Brief
(5) No Further Briefs
(d) Cover
(e) Length
(1) Page Limitation
(2) Type-Volume Limitation
(3) Certificate of Compliance

(f) Time to Serve and File a Brief


Rule 29. Brief of an Amicus Curiae

(a) When Permitted
(b) Motion for Leave to File
(c) Contents and Form
(d) Length
(e) Time for Filing
(f) Reply Brief
(g) Oral Argument

Interim Local Rule 29. Brief of an Amicus Curiae

Rule 30. Appendix to the Briefs

(a) Appellant’s Responsibility
(1) Contents of the Appendix
(2) Excluded Material
(3) Time to File; Number of Copies
(b) All Parties’ Responsibilities
(1) Determining the Contents of the Appendix
(2) Costs of Appendix
(c) Deferred Appendix
(1) Deferral Until After Briefs Are Filed
(2) References to the Record
(d) Format of the Appendix
(e) Reproduction of Exhibits
(f) Appeal on the Original Record Without an Appendix

Local Rule 30. Appendix

(a) Deferred Appendix
(b) Original Record
(c) Index for Exhibits
(d) Notice of Appeal

Rule 31. Serving and Filing Briefs

(a) Time to Serve and File a Brief
(b) Number of Copies
(c) Consequence of Failure to File

Local Rule 31. Number of Copies of Brief to be Filed with Clerk
Rule 32. Form of Briefs, Appendices, and Other Papers


(a) Form of Brief

(1) Reproduction
(2) Cover
(3) Binding
(4) Paper Size, Line Spacing, and Margins
(5) Typeface
(6) Type Styles
(7) Length
(A) Page limitation
(B) Type-volume limitation
(C) Certificate of Compliance
(b) Form of Appendix
(c) Form of Other Papers

(1) Motions
(2) Other Papers
(d) Signature
(e) Local Variation




Local Rule 32. Briefs and Appendix



(a) Form of Brief
(b) Form of Appendix
(c) Covers
(d) Special Appendix

(1) Contents of the Special Appendix
(2) Form of the Special Appendix

Rule 32.1. Citing Judicial Dispositions

          (a) Citation Permitted

          (b) Copies Required
Local Rule 32.1. Dispositions by Summary Order


(a) Use of Summary Orders
(b) Precedential Effect of Summary Order
(c) Citation of Summary Orders
(d) Legend

Rule 33. Appeal Conferences


Rule 34. Oral Argument

(a) In General
(1) Party’s Statement
(2) Standards
(b) Notice of Argument; Postponement
(c) Order and Contents of Argument
(d) Cross-Appeals and Separate Appeals
(e) Nonappearance of a Party
(f) Submission on Briefs
(g) Use of Physical Exhibits at Argument; Removal

Interim Local Rule 34. Oral Argument


(a) Party's Statement and Submission on Briefs

(1) Request for Oral Argument
(2) Counseled Appeals
(3) Pro Se Appeals

(b) Determination by Court Not to Hear Oral Argument
(c) Number of Counsel
(d) Time Allotments
(e) Postponement of Argument




Rule 35. En Banc Determination

(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered
(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc
(c) Time for Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc
(d) Number of Copies
(e) Response
(f) Call for a Vote

Interim Local Rule 35. En Banc Procedure
          (a) Copy of Opinion or Summary Order Required
          (b) Judges Eligible to Request an En Banc Poll
          (c) Determination of Majority for Ordering En Banc Consideration
          (d) Procedure After Amendment of Court Ruling



Rule 36. Entry of Judgment; Notice
(a) Entry
(b) Notice




Rule 37. Interest on Judgment
(a) When the Court Affirms
(b) When the Court Reverses
Rule 38. Frivolous Appeal — Damages and Costs

Local Rule 38. Other Sanctions for Delay

Rule 39. Costs
(a) Against Whom Assessed
(b) Costs For and Against the United States
(c) Costs of Copies
(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate
(e) Costs on Appeal Taxable in the District Court

Local Rule 39. Costs

Rule 40. Petition for Panel Rehearing
(a) Time to File; Contents; Answer; Action by the Court if Granted
(1) Time
(2) Contents
(3) Answer
(4) Action by the Court
(b) Form of Petition; Length

Interim Local Rule 40. Panel Rehearing Procedure
          (a) Copy of Opinion or Summary Order Required
          (b) Procedure After Amendment of Court Ruling
          (c) Sanctions


Rule 41. Mandate: Contents; Issuance and Effective Date; Stay


(a) Contents
(b) When Issued
(c) Effective Date
(d) Staying the Mandate
(1) On Petition for Rehearing or Motion
(2) Pending Petition for Certiorari

Local Rule 41. Issuance of Mandate

Rule 42. Voluntary Dismissal
(a) Dismissal in the District Court
(b) Dismissal in the Court of Appeals
Rule 43. Substitution of Parties
(a) Death of a Party
(1) After Notice of Appeal Is Filed
(2) Before Notice of Appeal Is Filed — Potential Appellant
(3) Before Notice of Appeal Is Filed — Potential Appellee
(b) Substitution for a Reason Other Than Death
(c) Public Officer: Identification; Substitution
(1) Identification of Party
(2) Automatic Substitution of Officeholder
Rule 44. Case Involving a Constitutional Question When the United States or the Relevant State Is Not a Party
(a) Constitutional Challenge to Federal Statute
(b) Constitutional Challenge to State Statute
Rule 45. Clerk’s Duties
(a) General Provisions
(1) Qualifications
(2) When Court Is Open
(b) Records
(1) The Docket
(2) Calendar
(3) Other Records
(c) Notice of an Order or Judgment
(d) Custody of Records and Papers
Rule 46. Attorneys
(a) Admission to the Bar
(1) Eligibility
(2) Application
(3) Admission Procedures
(b) Suspension or Disbarment
(1) Standard
(2) Procedure
(3) Order
(c) Discipline

 Interim Local Rule 46.1.  Attorney Admission and Discipline

(a) Admission Requirements; Procedures
(b) Change in Contact Information
(c) Fees
(d) Pro Hac Vice Admission
(e) Appearance and Argument by Eligible Law Students
(f) Suspension or Disbarment
(g) Attorneys Convicted of Crime
(h) Committee on Admissions and Grievances


Rule 47. Local Rules by Courts of Appeals

(a) Local Rules
(b) Procedure When There Is No Controlling Law

Rule 48. Masters

(a) Appointment; Powers
(b) Compensation

APPENDIX
PART A.
AMENDED PLAN TO SUPPLEMENT THE PLANS ADOPTED BY THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS WITHIN THE CIRCUIT, AS REQUIRED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, AS AMENDED
PART B.
REVISED SECOND CIRCUIT PLAN TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESSING OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
PART C.
CIVIL APPEALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
PART D.
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCT OF PRE-ARGUMENT CONFERENCE UNDER THE CIVIL APPEALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
PART E.
RULES OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT GOVERNING COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)
PART F.
SECOND CIRCUIT GUIDELINES CONCERNING CAMERAS IN THE COURT

_____________________________________
Both the FRAP and the Local Rules were searched for "NEF" and "NDA" as whole words, using Acrobat Professional software version 8.0. Neither query word was ever found in either of the two files linked below.

Linked Records:
1) FRAP and Local Rules in PDF as downloaded from 2nd Circuit site (141 pages)

http://inproperinla.com/10-01-01-2nd-circuit-rules-frap_lr-s.pdf
2) Whole site of FRAP and Local Rules of US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, as downloaded (1525 page)
http://inproperinla.com/10-01-01-http___www.ca2.uscourts.gov_Rules-s.pdf






Thursday, December 31, 2009

09-12-31 New year resolution for 2010 - let's reconnect with reality



Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:59:22 -0800
To: scott huminski, lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik

Subject: The bliss of ignorance... living in denial, and proposed new year resolution for 2010 - Let's re-connect with reality

Hi Scott:
I hate to kill your bliss, but if not for you, your case could be critically helpful for many others across the US, who may choose to connect with reality in 2010.
Happy New Year!
Joe Schmo

The outline:

1) SCOTT X WAS DECEIVED AT THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA - THROUGH CROSS THE FINGERS BEHIND THE BACK LITIGATION -
Where the U.S. Magistrate and U.S. Judge crossed their fingers behind their backs. They did so to protect the corrupt local state judges and others.  Scott never realized that he had been dragged for years at the US District Court, Montana, through a cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back procedures.  He was in fact still participating to this date in some procedures of that sort.  He was positive that he was participating in a litigation of a true national tribunal, in compliance with ratified international law.  National tribunals that routinely crossed their fingers behind their backs in select litigations, were likely to be deemed serious violation of ratified International Law - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2) SCOTT X WAS DECEIVED AT THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA - THROUGH CROSS THE FINGERS BEHIND THE BACK JUDGMENT -
Which was finally issued after dragging Scott X for years in that court.

3) SCOTT X FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA JUDGEMENT AT THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON -  
Scott  did not realize that he had no way to appeal the US District Court Montana Judgment, because he had no US District Court, Montana Judgment in the first place.  The Montana Judgment was not an honest valid and effectual judgment that required "full faith and credit". Therefore it was not an appealable judgment either.

4) THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, DECEIVED SCOTT X BY NEVER INFORMING SCOTT X THAT THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE JUDGMENT -
And that the US Court of Appeal, Oregon, had no authority and no jurisdiction over cross the fingers behind the back judgments.  Instead, the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, as was its custom in such cases, followed in suit - it too crossed its fingers behind its back, for a cross the fingers behind the back appeal at the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, from a cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back Judgment from US District Court, Montana. 

5) SCOTT WENT ON TO PAY FEES, TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY, TIME, AND EFFORT - ON THAT CROSS-THE-FINGERS-BEHIND-THE-BACK APPEAL IN OREGON.

6) THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, FINALLY DECEIVED SCOTT X BY ISSUING A CROSS-THE-FINGERS- BEHIND-THE-BACK SUMMARY ORDER AND JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE CROSS-THE-FINGERS-BEHIND-THE- BACK JUDGMENT OF THE US DISTRICT COURT, MONTANA -
There was no other way for the US District Court, Oregon to issue any papers in that appeal - since the US District Court, Oregon has no jurisdiction in such case.  There also was no possible other outcome to the Cross-the-Fingers-behind-the-Back appeal. The US Court of Appeal had no authority to reverse and remand, or do anything else on that Cross the Fingers behind the Back Judgment from Montana, except issue a void, not voidable papers on it.  Therefore, it was not a case where Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor could easily fix the situation by now signing her name on that Summary Order of that appeal.  She never signed it for a good reason in the first place.  It was a Summary Order that she could never, ever sign. She had no authority to sign it.

7) FIVE YEARS LATER, OUT OF THE BLUE CAME JOE SCHMO, A NOBODY -
And told Scott X about the new unpublished rules of court -- about crossing your fingers behind the back procedures, based in the critical NEY documents, and about denial of access to NEY court papers - all over the US.

8) SCOTT X FIRST TOLD JOE SCHMO THAT JOE WAS CLUELESS -
Scott X never heard about such thing as NEY papers. Moreover, such denial of access to NEY papers could not possibly be -  Scott X said it would violate the First Amendment. After all, Scott X was a brand name in the First Amendment biz.

9) JOE SCHMO THEN CALLED THE CLERK OF US COURT OF APPEAL, OREGON - 
And demonstrated to Scott x - First - that NEY papers did exist in Scott's case, and Second - that the denial of access to NEY papers was in fact in place in Oregon - as predicted - like in any other US court that Joe Schmo tested.

10) JOE SHMOE URGED SCOTT X TO CALL THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, AND ASK TO FINALLY BE SERVED WITH THE ONE PAGE NEY PAPER OF THE SUMMARY ORDER -
Integral part of the Summary Order, which the US Court of Appeals, Oregon, had failed to serve Scott X in the first place, and which would show whether or not Sotomayor crossed her fingers behind the back or not. 

11) SCOTT X CALLED THE COURT OF APPEALS IN OREGON AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE NO NEY PAPERS AT THE US COURT OF APPEALS, OREGON, ONLY NEZ PAPERS, AND IT WOULD COST $26 TO BE SERVED WITH HIS OWN NEZ PAPER -
And Scott X - an experienced litigator and First Amendment brand name, just accepted it as business as usual, and never asked any question about where all of this came from...

12) JOE SHMOE URGED SCOTT X TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS AND DOCUMENT THE EXCHANGE -
Joe Schmo claimed that Scott x was entitled to the NEY/NEZ paper for free, and that at minimum, Scott X should ask the Court for the Rules of Court defining that whole NEY/NEZ secret business.

13) SCOTT X TOLD JOE SCHMO THAT IT REALLY DID NOT MATTER ANYWAY -
Scott preferred to go on engaging in the cross the fingers behind the back litigations at US Courts. He had been doing it for years, it was very convenient, and he would just like to go on doing business the way he was used to. He explained to Joe Schmo that it really did not matter if he had been designated by the US District Court, Montana, to cross-the-fingers-behind-the-back tribunal procedures on anything that he may ever file there.  It was all the same anyway.

14) JOE SCHMO TOLD SCOTT X IT WAS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME AS DENYING HIM ACCESS TO THAT COURT FOR LIFE -
The type of order that Scott X considered illegal on its face, and which he spent years to fight.


  
Living in Denial

At 16:34 31/12/2009, you wrote:

I paid the $26 for the cd of the hearing i obtained.  Seems like a standard fee. -- scott



Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:56 -0800
To: s_huminski@live.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FW: You may want to talk by phone

Hi Scott:
I would be grateful if you could write a short declaration, who you spoke with, what you asked, and what they answered.

This does not make sense at all:
1) There must be a Rule of Court for them to chareg what they ask for.
2) Please also note in the letter, that I stated that you never received it in the first place.  Anywhere you look in CM/ECF manuals, the first copy of any paper is for free for parties in the case. You clearly never saw an NEF in your life.
3) Could you please ask them what is NDA, and where in Rule of Court it was defined?

If you still don't get it, I have no interest in the hearing itself - it was most likely null and void to start out... It could be whatever. Tt is all about the crossing the fingers behind the back, then trying to hide the fact that they were crossing their fingers behind their backs.  What they said when they crossed their fingers behind their backs makes not difference at all. 
All I am trying to do, is gain access to the information - did they or didn't they cross their fingers behind their backs.

Happy New Year,
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,

To be added soon- deep house music!


At 13:47 31/12/2009, you wrote:

Joe didn't you get this earlier.

From: s_huminski@live.com
To: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: You may want to talk by phone
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:02:43 -0500
Hi Joe, Spoke to the court.  They say they use something called a NDA and havn't started using NEF's yet.  In either case, you can draft a letter with my name requesting a NEF or NDA for the summary order include a check made out to the court for $26.00 and we can see what happens.  Mail it to me and i'll sign it and mail it to the court.  Apparently, the fee is the same for 1 or 100 pages, so look at the docket to see if you want anything else.  I have an audio copy of the hearing before sotomayor. -- scott
 
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:45:21 -0800
> To: s_huminski@live.com
> From: jz12345@earthlink.net
> Subject: You may want to talk by phone
>
> Hi Scott:
>
> There were various aspects to the fraud perpetrated on you by the
> courts, base on my experience with other cases:
> a) It is a chain reaction. The first court - e.g. a state court,
> starts with a sham court action (e.g. - off the record, whatever you
> want to call it), and then all the rest follow suit - state court of
> appeal, US district Court, Us Court of appeals, etc.
> b) Often the counsel is not counsel of record at the US Court. You
> can figure it out if you read carefully the rules of court, where it
> says what the rules are for first appearance by counsel. Either they
> have to file "Notice of Appearance' or Certificate of Appearance, or
> something of the sort. If they failed to do it, then they were also
> fake counsel, or sham counsel, or what ever you want to call it.
> c) Then you have to check the assignment orders to judges and
> magistrates, etc etc.
>
> That is what I consider my specialty.. I don't look at the legal
> issues, only the clerical. That was the reason from the beginning I
> had no interest in the issue of disqualification, immunity and such
> nonsense. The fraud in a different area altogether.
>
> There is a method to this madness, that is what is so sleazy about
> it. It is carefully executed fraud on pro se filers, or filers
> represented where it is individual against a large corporation or
> against government.
>
> It is serious abuse of Human Rights of the American people by its own
> government. jz
>
See full size image
"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.

09-12-31 Kozinski Fraud, Kozinski Culture, Flimflam, and Confidence Tricks...

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:55:49 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com, "scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik  
Subject: RE: Request for help - please get your NEFs, please provide me a copy.

[] CM/ECF Logo Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts: PACER Service Center

Hi Scott:

That is what you think!

What the judges think is that it was OK to cheat and lie, as long as they were crossing their fingers behind their back, while they were doing whatever they were doing. That is what I call the
Kozinski Culture. In the past 10 years or so, judges across the US secretly developed this novel doctrine in the theory of law, that it was ok for judges to lie and defraud from the bench or from chambers, as long as they crossing their fingers behind their backs.

They just forgot to tell the American people about it.

Moreover, in violation of First Amendment and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), they insisted that the people were not allowed to see whether or not they were crossing their fingers behind their back while they were writing those false and fraudulent orders and judgments. That is what I call the
Old Flimflam - Shell Game Fraud.

In the theory of fraud, Shell Game Fraud falls under the category of
Confidence Tricks. Your responses are a perfect example of that.  You were and are confident that you understand well enough how the courts work. But they secretly changed it all on you.  You yourself stated that you were not aware of the look and meaning of NEF.  It is not by chance, because the whole system of PACER & CM/ECF was installed with no authority at all. They just forgot to update the Rules of Court, or Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. The former, would have been judicial responsibility, the latter - legislative.  However, the changes were implemented in this case by the judiciary, not by the legislative. Therefore, I hold that it was judicial responsibility to update the Rules of Court.

Happy New Year!

Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

At 13:59 31/12/2009, Scott Huminski wrote:
If the computerized filing was to your specifications or if the whole thing reverted back to paper only,

You still would have judges who willfully ignore the facts.
You still would have judges who ignore the law.
You would still have a justice system totally unacountable.
You would still have immunity protecting all the government actors.

-- scott

09-12-31 Anybody propagating US court papers without the respective NEF, in this day and age, must be questioned for motive...

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:31 -0800
To: "Ron " , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik

Subject: Re: Dr Z: see the right hand corner of this BK court order signed by Judge Morgan -The Sonic Blue BK reogranization was crooked & she disallowed fees from 3 major BK lawfirms.

Hi Attorney Gottschalk:
For your convenience, and for the convinience of others like you, I added a figure in the wikipedia entry at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_of_Electronic_Filing
You can see there an example of what I deem a valid NEF, and what I deem an invalid (possibly foundation for fraud by the court) NEF. By clicking on the figures, you can enlarge them.
Anybody who propagates online in this day and age any court paper without the respective NEF must be questioned for his/her motives.
Happy New Year!
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

___________________
To Attorney Ron Gottschalk
Dear Attorney Gottschalk:
I cannot figure out why you forwarded this paper to me.
  • Who prepared this paper?
  • Why is the signature of the judge on front page and not at the end, as is usual and customary?
  • Why is there no hand endorsement by the clerk?
  • Why is there no certificate of mailing/service?
  • Why is there no NEF?
In its totality it is most likely an invalid, ineffectual court paper, void not voidable on its face.  I am no attorney, I never read any of the content of this paper, I based my opinion only on matters appearing on the face of the paper.

Dated: December 31, 2009                
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California             Joseph H Zernik 
                                                                []
                                                                
By: ______________
                                                        
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                        PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                        Fax: 801 998 0917
                                                        Email
                                                        Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/


At 05:34 31/12/2009, Ron Gottschalk wrote:  
Dr Z: see the right hand corner of this BK court order signed by Judge Morgan -The Sonic Blue BK reogranization was crooked & she disallowed fees from 3 major BK lawfirms.


09-12-31 Request for help in re: Alleged large scale fraud in operation of computers at the courts.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:50:57 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Request for help - please get your NEFs, please provide me a copy.

Hi All:
My allegation pertain to the operation of case management systems at the courts - computer systems such as PACER & CM/ECR, and a large scale fraud on the American people in the past decade or so, which was the backdrop, and most likely also the foundation for the observed widespread corruption at the courts.
The basic claim is that such systems, in both state and federal court were installed with no authorization.  It was further claimed that the introduction of such systems amounted to a sea change in the mode of operation of the courts.  Therefore, such system were new Local Rules of Courts, and should have been subjected to federal and/or Rulemaking Enabling Acts.
Finally, it is claimed that the only solution for the large-scale alleged fraud now seen in the operation of such systems in setting process and procedure for publicly accountable validation of the systems - certified funcational logic verification.
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

Attached: See drafts in next posting

09-12-31 How to get copies of court papers - a request for help

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; fax: 801 998-0917; email: jz12345@earthlink.net

Request for Help - Please obtain your pertinent court papers and provide me a copy:

1)      As in any business transaction, it is recommended that you keep a copy of the letter you forward to others, for your files:
a.       In cases when I hand delivered a letter, I brought a second copy, which I asked to be stamped or inscribed “Received”, dated, and hand signed. 
b.      In cases when I sent by mail – I sent registered with request for return receipt, restricted delivery – the Clerk of the Court .
2)      In cases when you deliver the request in person at the Office of the Clerk, Records Department, you should expect to get the copies (unless a voluminous request) on the spot without unreasonable delays.
3)      In any case when any papers were received in response to such requests:
a.       Please do not discard any papers, no matter how trivial they look to you.
b.      Please do not change the order of the papers.
c.       In case papers were received by mail – keep the envelope with the postal stamp.
d.      Please fax/email to me images of all the above ASAP.
4)      In cases when it was agreed upon in writing in advance, I may be willing to participate in the cost of obtaining the papers.

 Thank you for your help in this important matter!

 Truly,


These drafts were prepared by Joseph H Zernik, PhD. The writer is not an attorney, not even by a long shot.  Therefore, this writing is not legal advice, only the writing of a lay person, assisting in typing of a letter.  Please consult an attorney if you have any further questions in this regard.
The primary intent in making these requests is in collecting evidence for alleged fraud in operation of case management (computer) systems at the courts.
No attempt would be made to analyze or understand the true underlying legal matters. -JZ.

___________


DRAFT #1 (for use in United States Courts)

Notice: NEF is one page per document. Therefore, even if charges were to be applied, the cost is not prohibitive.

TO CLERK OF THE COURT, US Court of Appeals, 2nd District, by

RE:     Huminski v Town of Bennington et al (No. 03-7036)

Request to access court records – to inspect and to copy.


My name is Scott Huminski. I was party to case captioned Huminski v Town of Bennington et al (No. 03-7036) at your court.  I am writing to request access to court record(s) – to inspect and to copy – in the same case - pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). 

Request is for a copy of the NEF (Notices of Electronic Filings) of the following record:
1) November 5, 2004, Summary Order, Dkt # < >.

I do not believe that I ever received the NEF for the record listed above by mail with the service of the Summary Order. Therefore I request that no charges would be applied.  In case charges were to be applied, please let me know the exact sum, so that I may immediately pay.

Respectfully submitted,


Dated:               
Town, County, State                            Scott Huminski
                                                                


                                                            By: ______________
                                                            Scott Huminski

                                                            Address
                                                            Phone, Fax, Email


___________

DRAFT #2 (for use in United States Courts)

Notice: NEF is one page per document. Therefore, even if charges were to be applied, the cost is not prohibitive. Listed below are the NEFs for the records that are typically of the highest interest for the type of investigation I am engaged in.

TO CLERK OF THE COURT, US Court. District of < >, by

RE:     Smith v Jones et al (2:09-cv-123456)

Request to access court records – to inspect and to copy.

 
My name is John Smith. I am/was party to case captioned Smith v Jones et al (2:09-cv-123456) at your court.  I am writing to request access to court record(s) – to inspect and to copy – in the same case - pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). 

Request is for a copy of the NEF (Notices of Electronic Filings) of the following record:
1)       November 5, 2004 Complaint,  # < >.
2)       Summons as issued by clerk, # < >.
3)       Notice of Assignment to Judge, # < >.
4)       Notice of Referral to Magistrate, # < >.
5)       Notice of Recusal and Return to Clerk for Reassignment, # < >.
6)       Notice of Reassignment, # < >.
7)       Notice of Appearance by Counsel, # < >.
8)       Notice of Interested Parties, # < >.
9)       Summons returned executed, # < >.
10)   Answer, # < >.
11)   Motion to dismiss, # < >.
12)   Order, # < >.
13)   Other important records of your choice, # < >.
14)   Report & Recommendation, # < >.
15)   Order adopting R & R, # < >.
16)   Judgment, # < >.

I do not believe that I ever received the NEF for the record listed above by mail with the service of the Summary Order. Therefore I request that no charges would be applied.  In case charges were to be applied, please let me know the exact sum, so that I may immediately pay.


Respectfully submitted,

Dated:               
Town, County, State                            George McDermott                                                        


                                                            By: ______________
                                                            George McDermott

                                                            Address
                                                            Phone, Fax, Email


___________

DRAFT #3 (for use at Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles)

Notice: Register of Action may be dozen of pages, and they may charge $0.50 per page, regardless of the fact that you had no chance to inspect it.  I truly believe it is a worthwhile investment for anybody who has business with that court.

TO CLERK OF THE COURT, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, John A Clarke, by

RE:     Smith v Jones (No. AB012345)

Request to access court records – to inspect and to copy.


My name is Diane Nezgoda. I was party to case captioned Smith v Jones (No. AB012345) at your court.  I am writing to request access to court record(s) – to inspect and to copy – in the same case - pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). 

Request is for a copy of the:
Register of Actions in Sustain  (Case History Report)
(not the online Case Summary, not the online List of Available Document Images).

I was never able to access the record listed above, so far. Therefore I request that no charges would be applied.  In case charges were to be applied, please let me know the exact sum, so that I would immediately pay.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated:               
Town, County, State                            Diane Nezgoda
                                                                


                                                            By: ______________
                                                            Diane Dezgoda

                                                            Address
                                                            Phone. Fax, Email



09-12-31 More evidence for fraud in operation of PACER & CM/ECF at US District Court, Los Angeles

[]CM/ECF LogoAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts: PACER Service Center

X-BeenThere: lawsters@googlegroups.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:09:19 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com,"scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Posted declaration, request for records, and records received
  in response at US Dist Crt, Dec 29, 2009.


Hi Scott, Hi All:

Posted declaration, request for records, and records received in response at US Dist Crt, Dec 29, 2009, at:
http://inproperinla.com/09-12-31-declaration-req-for-us-crt-la-records-n-response-nefs-s.pdf

I will post another part, including analysis in comparison to the docket in the case (Zernik v Connor), purported NEFs that were served by mail with the same orders, etc.

The issues that can be gleaned already from what I posted are:
1) Many or most purported NEFs, which I was provided by the clerk on Dec 29, 2009, were missing the RSA digital signatures.
2) The list of parties and counsel was different from what showed in other papers.

Happy New Year!
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!


Did you call by chance the US Court, 2nd District?

__________________
Additional Notes:
Fraud type: Fundamental,
(additional Fraud Type: Shell Games/Confidence Tricks)
Subtype: PACER & CM/ECF.