10-01-02 Zernik v Connor et al - review of NEFs from papers served on Plaintiff Joseph Zernik by the US District Court, Los Angeles

10-01-02   Re: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

Review of NEFs as served on Plaintiff by the US District Court

Table 1: 

Complaint in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) was filed March 6, 2008 against 10 judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law - 42 USC 1983.  It was further alleged that conduct of such judges and others, in collusion with Countrywide and Bank of America Home Loans amounted to violation of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) 18 USC 19611968.  Data from papers served on Plaintiff Joseph Zernik by United States Court, Central District of California and their authentication, or lack thereof, was compiled in the table below.  It was alleged that the data shown below reflected large scale fraud in the design and operation of PACER & CM/ECF at the United States Courts.  Not a single one of the papers below was honest, valid, and effectual.

No	Dkt #	Date	Title	NEF [Y/N]	RSA- Digital Sig. [Y/N]
1.	14	3/21/08	Civil Minutes – by Judge Phillips Denying request for TRO, finding that: ·        there was no constitutional right for unbiased judge; ·        Judgment at the Superior Court was “awarded” (but not entered) ·        There was a requirement for exhaustion in 42 USC §1983	N	N/A
2.	27	3/21/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Ordering Plaintiff to serve invalid summons, adulterated by Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer.	N	N/A
3.	33	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (1st copy) RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
4.	33	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (2ndcopy) RE: Motions to dismiss	N	N/A
5.	37	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (1st copy) RE: Denying Pro Se access to CM/ECF	N	N/A
6.	37	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (2ndcopy) RE: Denying Pro Se access to CM/ECF	N	N/A
7.	48	4/24/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Finding request to continue moot	Y	N
8.	57	5/15/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Plaintiff ordered not to file anything in court	N	N/A
9.	63	6/6/09	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of 5/15/08 Minutes is moot.	N	N/A
10.	70	6/20/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
11.	72	6/30/08	RE: Unsigned Order received from US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit, that US District Court refusal to issue valid summonses did not amount to a case that justified intervention through the extreme measure of mandamus.	Y	N
12.	77	7/2/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
13.	80	7/9/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
14.	81	7/16/08	Notice of Discrepancy – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Plaintiff’s filing of request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s request for assistance by US Congress – to bring back Los Angeles County into the fold of the US Constitution.	Y	N
15.	84	7/17/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Denying Plaintiff’s request to compel LA Superior Court to allow Plaintiff access to his litigation records in the State Court pursuant to First Amendment rights, so that he may answer the motions to dismiss.	Y	N
16.	86	7/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Denying Plaintiff’s request Dkt#85 for honest docketing at the US District Court, and an end to dishonest manipulations of his filings.	Y	N
17.	93	7/31/08	Service of unrelated Civil Minutes from an unrelated case.	Y	N
18.	94	7/31/08	RE: Notice of Clerical Error Signed by Donna Thomas, who to the best of Joseph Zernik’s knowledge was not a Deputy Clek.	Y	N
19.	96	8/4/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
20.	97	8/5/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Denying Plaintiff’s requests for Statements on the record in re: Conflicts if any, pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics.	Y	N
21.	102	3/18/09	Order – by Judge Phillips (1st Copy) RE: Denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Woehrle for a cause – dishonest manipulations of Plaintiff’s papers filed in court, and eliminating papers from the docket with no record at all, based on no process or procedure, and refusal to file statement in re: conflicts if any.	Y	N
22.	102	3/18/09	Order – by Judge Phillips (2st Copy) RE: Denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Woehrle for a cause.	Y	N
23.	103	4/3/09	Report & Recommendation – by Magistrate Woehrle (1st copy) Recommending dismissal with prejudice.	Y	N
24.	104	4/3/09	Report & Recommendation – by Magistrate Woehrle (2nd t copy) Recommending dismissal with prejudice.	Y	N
25.	106	4/24/09	Order – by Judge Phillips RE: Order adopting Report & Recommendation.	Y	N
26.	107	4/24/09	Judgment – by Judge Phillips RE: Dismissal with prejudice.	Y	N

Notes:  

1.       In Zernik v Connor et al, Plaintiff Zernik filed a complaint at the US Court against 10 judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to 42 USC §1983 – Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law.

2.      Furthermore, Plaintiff claimed that conduct of these judges, in collusion with Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels – officers of Countrywide, and later – in collusion with Bank of America Home Loans, amounted to racketeering.

3.      US District Court refused to issue valid summons in this case.

4.      US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit refused to order US District Court to issue summons either – albeit – in an unsigned, unauthenticated order.

5.      US District Court – likewise – never issued a single honest, valid and effectual order in this case.  None of the papers served on Plaintiff included an honest valid and effectual NEF.

6.      In Sum: Both US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, covered up alleged racketeering by the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, through the alleged perversion of justice at the US Court – engaging Plaintiff in false and deliberately misleading sham court actions.

7.      Notice:  The conduct of the US Courts in this case is almost an exact copy of the conduct of the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit in the case of the jailed Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). However, in Zernik v Connor the US Court colluded with the Superior Court in alleged deprivation of property.  In Fine v Sheriff the US Court colluded with the Superior Court in alleged deprivation of liberty.

8.      In both Zernik v Connor and Fine v Sheriff, dishonest conduct at the US District Court was primarily by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas – acting as if she were Deputy Clerk, and Pro Se Clerk – Chris Sawyer. Complaint filed with FBI against the three of them. Claim is that they colluded in both cases with racketeering by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles judges.

9.      Notice: Newspaper reports tied also the former Presiding Judge of the neighboring San Bernardino County to numerous real estate fraud cases. In short – most likely racketeering at the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino is routine as well.  However, in either counties, FBI and US Dept of Justice have not engaged in any enforcement action in the past 25 years, based on published reports of Public Integrity Section of the US Dept of Justice.

10.  Notice: The US District Court then denied Plaintiff access to court records at the US Court. Even to this date, only partial access was gained, on December 29, 2009, to printout of key NEFs, which confirmed that no order and judgment was issued with a valid NEF in this case.

Linked Records:

1. Minutes, orders, and judgment in Zernik v Connor et all, as served on Plaintiff by mail.

2. Request to access court records, and NEFs as received from Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock on December 29, 2009.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681508/09-12-29-Request-n-Response-Records-Us-Crt-La-s

3. Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re; visit to US District Court, Los Angeles on December 29, 2009 – to access court records to inspect and to copy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24680732/09-12-29-Declaration-in-re-Gaining-access-to-NEFs-Notices-of-Electgronic-Filings-United-States-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Zernik-v-Connor-et-al

4. Table summary of NEFs received on December 29, 2009.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681397/10-01-01-Table-Summary-of-Nefs-in-Zernik-v-Connor

II. The Usual

IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!

"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.  

10-01-02 Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)

Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)

Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) were and are those who were documented during the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) to have been falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to prison terms by the Superior Courts of California for the County of Los Angeles. PBS Frontline estimated their numbers at many thousands,[1] [2] almost exclusively African-Americans and/or Latinos. The 2006 Rampart scandal report -  Rampart Reconsidered - by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel documented their ongoing false imprisonment -hardly any were freed over the past decade, and senior police, prosecutors and judges were documented as refusing to allow their release.[3][4][5] The same report also documented that all investigations of the affair, their own included, were failures and fundamental facts in the matter were not yet known. From the perspective of a decade, review of the published materials, and additional evidence accumulated regrading the justice system in Los Angeles County, may allow better evaluation of the causes underlying the scandal. Regardless, the ongoing confinement of the Rampart-FIPs was concluded to be a human rights disgrace of historic proportions.[6][7]

Contents

1 Origins of the Rampart-FIPs

2 Current efforts to release the Rampart-FIPs

3 Perspectives

4 References

5 External links

Origins of the Rampart-FIPs

In describing the false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, notable legal scholars, not often given to hyperbole, used unprecedented language:

…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit. How could so many participants in the criminal justice system have failed eitFher to recognize or to instigate any meaningful scrutiny of such appalling and repeated perversions of justice? …we felt a particular obligation to ensure that no aspect of the Los Angeles criminal justice system, including the lawyers and judges, escaped scrutiny. A law school, with its concern for all aspects of the justice system, is the obvious place for such an examination.[8]

Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the

officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states. …and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.[9]

Unnerving the judges: Judicial responsibility for the Rampart scandal [10]

The statements above were written in 2000, most likely under the assumption that the victims would be soon released, which was not the case. The widespread corrupt prosecution and trial practices of the Rampart undercover narcotic officers, were uncovered in the plea bargain testimony of the central witness in the Rampart scandal investigation - Rafael Pérez  (police officer). Such practices included routine framing of evidence, and at times also torture of innocent victims, to extract false confessions.[11] The scandal rapidly expanded into a two-year, 200- investigator probe of a single division of the LAPD. Later, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel determined that the practices of the Rampart division were most likely widespread in other division as well - Metro, and Northeast were particularly mentioned in the report. The Panel determined that the investigation was deliberately curtailed to prevent the true scope of the scandal from being uncovered.

A bit more of the underlying circumstances was revealed in the statements of a deputy public defender - who described an environment in the criminal courts that was hostile to the defense, and heavily biased towards the prosecution. In addition, a NYT journalist's report, and an unparalleled PBS Frontline series - LAPD Blues- added much that was allegedly covered up in the investigation.[12] LAPD police officer, who had to be cleared to publish

his writings in national media, bemusing, dismissed the former as "passing the buck", and the latter as exploring "the murky, mysterious depths of the LAPD Rampart scandal".[13] [14]

Further details of 'murky depths' of the Los Angeles criminal courts were explored in litigations that started in 2000 and continued throughout most of the decade, including one, where the deputy public defender was named defendant.[15]

In the immediate aftermath of the discoveries - intensive efforts were initiated to free the Rampart-FIPs. However, unusual events surrounding the First Rampart Trial (2000), led to their premature termination. The litigation of the First Rampart Trial ended in an unprecedented ruling by Judge Jacqueline Connor, where jury verdicts, which convicted three out of four police Defendants were reversed, on Friday evening, December 22, 2000 in ruling announced by the judge from home. The ruling claimed that errors in jury instructions by the judge herself "fatally biased" the jury, and required the voiding of the convictions. The language used was seen as negatively affecting attempts "to 'fix' the Rampart scandal"[16]. Consequently, such efforts to came to an end. Whereas media and various reports mentioned a list of between 50 and 100 police who were routinely involved in framing and false convictions, no additional criminal prosecutions were attempted.[17] The drama around Christmas 2000 led to divergent responses by then then LAPD Chief, Bernard Parks, [18] by mainstream,[19] and by fringe news media, [20][21], and it continued to reverberate through the halls of justice, successive committee reports, and the operation of a Office of Overseer for Civil Rights and LAPD's Consent Decree Bureau, for most of the following decade.[22]

During review of the appeal - originating from Judge Connor's Ruling, filed by the Los Angeles District Attorney (2004), the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, raised to the surface the inexplicably missing explanation for the core question, which was allegedly covered up in the investigation:

[Justice] Hastings said it was clear to him that since the result of the alleged conspiracy [by Rampart police officers] was the filing of criminal charges against the suspected gang members, an instruction explaining what conduct might have justified those charges was necessary. He was mystified, he said, by the fact none

was given. [23]

The California Court of Appeals upheld Judge Connor's December 22, 2000 Ruling.[24] The same question and similar issues were the basis for the conclusions by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006), that all investigations into the matter, including their own, were entirely failures. Even by the time that the Panel's report was filed, the basic facts were still entirely unknown, the Panel stated. Accordingly, it recommended an "external investigation". 

Such investigation was never instituted. The failure to institute external investigation right from the outset, or anytime afterwards through a succession of reports and investigations, must be deemed a failure of federal law enforcement agencies to perform their duties. The corruption and dysfunction of the Los Angeles County justice system was already proven in the initial Rafael Perez testimony in 1998.

Current efforts to release the Rampart-FIPs

Minimal efforts to bring about the release of the Rampart-FIPs have been documented in recent years.[25] The latest notable effort was in the publication of the LAPD commissioned report Rampart Reconsidered (2006), authored by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel, chaired by Los Angeles black attorney, civil rights activist Connie Rice.

The panel was originally commissioned in 2003 to generate the inexplicably missing final report of the Rampart scandal investigation. The panel was distinguished in its conduct. It produced a report, but it refused to produce the report that it was commissioned to generate. Instead, it concluded that the concept of Los Angeles County investigating itself, on the background of a justice system, which the Panel described as "tolerated routine abuse

and criminality by a significant subcult in its ranks."[26] The Panel called for an external, independent investigation, instead.[27] However, such external review was never instituted. Regarding the Rampart-FIPs, similarly, the Panel refused to make any clear conclusions, except than the primary conclusions, which was known all along - "innocent people remain in prison".[28] The unique contribution of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report was in documenting almost a decade after the Rampart scandal eruption, the reasons provided by various leaders of the Los Angeles justice system for refusing to free the Rampart-FIPs.

Perspectives Events that led to the false imprisonments of the Rampart FIPs were defined as unprecedented a decade ago, by a leading constitutional scholar.[29][30] 

In attempting to place the Rampart-FIPs in perspective of U.S. history, only few events can be considered: First- the Japanese American internment during World War II- over half-a-century prior to eruption of the [Rampart scandal]. The number of persons interned exceeded 100,000, including entire families, which were relocated into camps. The detentions started in 1942 and ended with the conclusion of the war, and therefore at most were 3-4 years long. All those interned were denied of liberty, however, most were housed in camps, not prisons. In 1988, the United States Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed

legislation apologizing for the detentions - as founded in "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" - and substantial reparations were disbursed to survivors.

Second: During the still ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which started following the September 11 attacks in 2001, detention camps were established in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - GITMO. While the U.S. government never released full statistics of such detentions, the overall number of those detained, most likely never exceeded 1,000, and at present was believed to be well under 500. However, concerns of Human rights violations

were raised regarding the GITMO detentions, and were also recorded, and under the Bush administration, an Overseer for Civil rights was appointed [31]. Following election of President Barack Obama, the U.S. Government stated its commitment to close end the detentions at GITMO [32], however, such statement was yet to be acted upon [33]. Third: During the military operations in Iraq, thousands of local residents were detained under U.S. forces control. In some cases, notable human rights violations were recorded, such as in Abu-Ghraib. [34]

Therefore, the internment of Japanese Americans remained separated by over half-a century from detentions in GITMO and Iraq, and false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, and the latter three cases were contemporaneous. In two of the latter three cases - detentions at GITMO, and the Rampart FIPs in Los Angeles - accounts of human rights violations were addressed by appointments of overseers for civil rights, and two of the three latter cases took place outside the territory of the United States, leaving the Rampart-FIPs as the only known

case of this type in the past half century.

A counter example was most recently recorded in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, where two State of Pennsylvania judges were found to have routinely engaged in false sentencing of juveniles to confinement terms.[35] Although that scandal was still evolving, corrective actions were expediently initiated by the local judiciary - to review all sentences issued by these judges and to reverse those sentences that were deemed corrupt. [36] In parallel, federal authorities initiated prosecution of the offending judges for racketeering. [37].

The ongoing false imprisonments of many thousands of innocent persons in Los Angeles County, California, with no corrective actions by either State of California or U.S. agencies, therefore remained inexplicable, especially under President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who were all self-identified as black and/or latinos. It remained to be seen, how the case would evolve, and how

history would judge the case of the Rampart-FIPs.

References

1. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf

2. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/later/outcome.html

3. ^ http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/rampart_reconsidered_executive_summary.pdf

4. ^ http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdf

5. ^ http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdf

6. ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin, "The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County" (2000).  Duke Law Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1421.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1421

7. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/bare.html

8. ^ David W. Burcham, and Catherine L. Fisk,34 Loy LA Law Rev 767 2001 Rampart Symposium

9. ^ Erwin Chemerinsky 57 Guild Prac 121 2000

10. ^ Laurie L. Levenson, Loyola Law Review 34, 2000: http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v34-issue2/levenson.pdf

11. ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin, "The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County" (2000).

Duke Law Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1421. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1421

12. ^ http://truthinjustice.org/20001001mag-lapd.html

13. ^ http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment100300g.shtml

14. ^ http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint103000a.html

15. ^ http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1201186304.84/ovan012208.htm

16. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-the-judge-s-decision-los-angeles-times.pdf

17. ^ Blue Ribbon review Panel Report (2006) "Rampart Reconsidered" http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restorejustice-in-l-a 

18. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/24/news/mn-4249

19. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=94614

20. ^ http://revcom.us/a/v22/1070-79/1079/ramprt.htm

21. ^ http://rwor.org/a/v22/1080-89/1088/ramparts.htm

22. ^ June 15, 2001 Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-usdist-

ct-la-us-v-city-of-la_01-06-15-executed-but-no-pos-doc-123_consent_decree.pdf

23. ^ May 14, 2004 Metropolitan News - Convictions of Three in Rampart Case Not Tainted by Instructional Error

Judge Admitted, C.A. Told http://www.metnews.com/articles/2004/orti051404.htm

17/12/2009 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Perso…

24. ^ http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf

25. ^ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a

26. ^ Rampart Reconsidered (2006), by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel p47, also see p6,9,10,32,33.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a

27. ^ Rampart Reconsidered (2006), by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel p78 et seq.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a

28. ^ Rampart Reconsidered (2006), by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel p60 et seq.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a

29. ^ http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Erwin_Chemerinsky

30. ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin, "The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County" (2000).

Duke Law Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1421. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1421

31. ^ January 14, 2009 Military tortured Guantanamo detainees tribunal overseer says, by Bob Woodward for the Washington Post. 

http://inproperinla.com/09-01-14-us-military-tortured-guantanamo-detainees-tribunal-overseersays.pdf

32. ^ January 21, 2009 President Obama issues a directive to shut down detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://inproperinla.com/09-01-21-obama-issues-directive-to-shut-down-gitmo.pdf

33. ^ December 16, 20009 Council on Foreign Affairs, Top of the Agenda: Obama Order on Guantanamo Detainees.

http://inproperinla.com/09-12-16-council-on-foreign-relations-obama-order-on-guantanamo.pdf

34. ^ August 2005 The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu-Ghraib. 

http://inproperinla.com/05-08-01-tortue-papers-theroad-to-abu-ghraib.pdf

35. ^ http://inproperinla.com/09-02-11-two-pennsylavnia-judges_indicted.pdf

36. ^ March 26, 2009 Order by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District http://inproperinla.com/09-03-26-penn-court-corrective-action-s.pdf 

37. ^ September 10, 2009 PA Judges in Corruption Scandal Indicted for Racketeering. http://inproperinla.com/09-09-10-pennsylvania-state-judges-indicted-on-racketeering-law.com.pdf

10-01-01 Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) at the United States Court

Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
 


Notice of Electronic Filing (N
EF) is part of the system established by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts through the dual docketing and access systems of PACER & CM/ECF.[1] The NEF provides the authentication of the service of an electronically-filed pleading or other filing by parties, or of service of the electronically-filed orders and judgments of the courts, upon attorneys in the case who have been permitted by the court  to participate in electronic filing in CM/ECF. Therefore, for such parties, the NEF replaced the traditional certificate of service or proof of service. Likewise, the graphic hand-signatures in traditional certificates of service were replaced in NEFs by digital signatures, which visibly appear as RSA encrypted alphanumeric strings. Therefore, an NEF bearing a valid RSA-encryption is today the critical instrument, which provides the authentication of court papers as such that should be given "full faith and credit".[2] Albeit, access to this critical instrument is restricted only to those permitted access to CM/ECF in a given case, in a given district court.

Figure 1: NEF including a digital signature, encrypted as an RSA alphanumeric string (in red rectangle), U.S. Court, Eastern District of California, 2004

Figure 2: NEF with no RSA encrypted digital signature, U.S. District Court, Alabama, 2008


Figure 3: Traditional Certificate of Service, by a pro se filer, US District Court, Vermont, 2009



Contents
1 Sources of information
2 Authority in implementation
3 Perspectives
4 References
5 External links

Sources of information
The central source for information regarding NEFs remains in CM/ECF manuals.[3][4][5][6] For example, the most explicit definition of the power and effect of NEF in the Central District of California, one of the most populous in the U.S., including Los Angeles County, remained in the "Unofficial Manual" of CM/ECF as follows (Rev 07, 2008, page 13):[3]

L. The
otice of Electronic Filing
The system will present you with a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) screen and will also e-mail you a copy of the NEF. The Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) is your proof that the document has been E-Filed. You should print the screen to a piece of paper or a PDF (or both) before proceeding, because you will need to attach the NEF as the last page of the courtesy copy that you submit to the Court. The NEF includes a “document number” and a link. Be sure to note that document number, as you will need it if you need to email a proposed order to the Court. The NEF also includes an “Electronic Document Stamp” which is a string of letters and numbers which Court staff can use to verify the authenticity of the NEF. The NEF also contains the path and file name of the document you uploaded and any attachments.

The other source of information regarding the NEF at the Central District of California was in General Order 08-02, which was posted on the U.S. District Court's web site, albeit - an unsigned order, with no name of its author,  and with no authentication.[7]

Such order stated (page 6):

I. Authorization. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(d)(2)(3) and 83, the court hereby authorizes and establishes operating rules for the electronic filing of pleadings and papers.

However, operating rules of the court required establishment pursuant to Rule Making Enabling Act, not a General Order.

Critical definitions were provided in such order (page 7):

II. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to these rules regarding electronic filing: A. “CM/ECF System” refers to the automated Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system implemented by the court. The CM/ECF system stores case files in a database, and documents are filed electronically, to the extent possible. The CM/ECF system is available at https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov. B. “CM/ECF Website” refers to the court’s CM/ECF website that provides pertinent information regarding the CM/ECF system. The CM/ECF website is available at www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf. C. “CM/ECF Registration” refers to registering with the United States District Court, Central District of California, to file documents electronically through the CM/ECF system. Registration is completed on-line through the CM/ECF website. Upon the completion of CM/ECF Registration, a CM/ECF login and password is provided. D. “CM/ECF User” is a person who is registered to file in the CM/ECF system. E. “Electronic Filing” refers to the process of logging on the CM/ECF system and completing a transaction that includes the uploading of the document(s) to be filed. Sending a document by e-mail does not constitute an electronic filing. F. “Electronic Signature” refers to the signature of an electronically filed document based on: (1) the CM/ECF User’s login and password and (2) the person’s representative signature, “/S/ – Name,” or a digitized personalized signature or facsimile signature on the signature line of the document. used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the  transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the 
custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and  correct copy of the original filed with the court.

Authority in implementation

The authority for implementation of CM/ECF is often cited as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which allow Local Rules of Courts. However the implementation, as shown above, was not via Local Rules of Courts, which would have been established pursuant to the federal Rule-Making Enabling Act28 USC 2071 2077, which required any new rules established by the court to be posted for a reasonable opportunity for public comment and challenge, prior to such published rules taking effect. For example, the detailed rules pertaining to the implementation of PACER & CM/ECF at the Central District of California were provided only in an "Unofficial Manual",[3], which stated, that at some future time it was expected that such rules would be incorporated into Rules of Court.

Perspectives

There was no doubt that the change from paper administration of the courts to digital administration was a must.  However, such transition amounted, by necessity, to a sea change in the mode of operations. The NEF represented a core issue in this regard, since it held the key to any validity and effect of court papers. However, the authority of the NEF, in and of itself, was never adequately established by either law or by rules of court, and so far has been hardly documented in valid court records in various U.S. court districts that were examined. The primary source of information, albeit no valid source of authority, remained in CM/ECF User Manuals. Moreover, at times even access to the manuals was restricted. In contrast, no mention of the NEF was made in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures[8] or respective Rules of Criminal Procedures.[9] Neither was the power and effect of the NEF clearly defined in General Orders in the local rules of the various courts.

Through the duality of PACER and CM/ECF, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts established in fact conditions in digital ("electronic") court records, that were substantially different than those that prevailed for hundreds of years in paper court files in the U.S., and even before that - in the English-speaking legal system, where a common law right was established for public access to court records to inspect and to copy, which included all paper court file records (unless sealed, for example). The common law public right to access court records to inspect and to copy was re-affirmed in the U.S. by the Supreme Court in its landmark Nixon v Warner Communication, Inc (1978) decision. In that decision the U.S. Supreme Court found that the common law right was critical for allowing the public to "keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies"[10] - in fact - such "public agencies" included the courts themselves - the judicial branch of government. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court found that such common law right, in its various manifestations was also embedded in the First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The dual digital systems diverged from such tradition considerably, since the NEFs were never included so far in PACER -which was accessible to all. Instead, the NEFs were included so far only in CM/ECF, where access was only by court permission. The outcome was that the public was denied the access to critical court records, which were the only source of authority and validity of court orders and judgments, and which determine which court papers required "full faith and credit" and which ones did not.

References

1. ^ PACER is a public-access system, to which access is permitted to any person, albeit for pay and after
registration. CM/ECF is the Case Management/Electronic Court Filing system, available only to those permitted by a particular U.S. District or U.S. Court of Appeals.

2. ^ The U.S.Constitution, Article IV, §1, declares:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every
other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The Act of May 26, 1790, states:

That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by havig the seal of their
respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be
proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal
of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding
magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial
proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within
the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records
are, or shall be taken.

The Act of March 27, 1804, states:

That, from and after the passage of this act, all records and exemplifications of office books, which are or
may be kept in any public office of any state, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any
other court or office in any other state, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the
seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the
court of the county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept or of the
governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or the keeper of the great seal of the state, that the said
attestation is in due form, and by the proper officer and the said certificate, if given by the presiding justice
of a court, shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify,
under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified;
or if the said certificate be given by the; governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the
great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the state in which the said certificate is made. And the said
proceedings of the said court.

3. ^ a b c Anderson's Unofficial Manual for e-filing at the Central district of California. No Official Manual existed. (http://efile.andersonlaw.net/)

4. ^ Official Manual of the Eastern District of California
(http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caed/DOCUMENTS/CMECF/UserManual.pdf)

5. ^ Official Manual of the Southern District of California
(http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf/pdf/SDCA_Users_manual.pdf)

6. ^ Compilations of Local Rules of U.S. District Courts (http://docs.google.com/viewer?
a=v&q=cache:MxhAitN1ZekJ:west.thomson.com/store/filingandshelvingdownload.aspx%3Ffile%3D12942_2008329_135333.pdf+northern+district+of+illinois+cm/ecf+manual&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESibX6mf-QKkbkmvQ7DB6JN3qCYs2lLHODLLTNo4BxdpajoFAJ4sFax8rb0NHzGP05V3fNLFfyGvmFHuvcitHdh-1QjKVTY5NcpAMURpIQqWywiJDJaF5vujqLnPPiKCRP_28W-k&sig=AHIEtbTeIuioblVZauGwfFnvZHdjeAxVZQ)

7. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-pacer-cm-ecf-us-dist-ct-cacd-general-orders-08-02-authorizingcm-ecf-digital-verification-of-attestation-in-nef.pdf

8. ^ Portal for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/)

9. ^ Portal for Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/)

10. ^ "The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E. 535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L.332, 336-339 (1879)" Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978),(pp 434-5)


Please cite:
Joseph Zernik, 12/17/2009

10-01-01 Richard Isaac Fine - an overview

Richard Isaac Fine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _      

Richard Isaac Fine (born 1940) is an American taxpayers' advocate, anti-trust attorney, and former U.S. prosecutor. Fine investigated the Los Angeles, California City government under the Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, then founded the first Anti-Trust Department for Los Angeles County. The State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007 for "moral turpitude" - construed as the filing of
complaints in US Courts against corruption of California state judges. Since 2001 he was central to exposing, advertising and denouncing then secret payments to all judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court by Los Angeles County. In October 2008 such payments were ruled "not permitted". On February 20, 2009, such payments required the signing of pardons to all recipient judges by the Governor of California.

On March 4, 2009, less than two weeks after the signing of the pardons, Fine was arrested in open court, albeit - with no warrant. He has been jailed in solitary "coercive confinement" ever since, under coerced hospitalization with no medical justification. His various petitions and appeals to the courts, challenging his arrest were so far all denied.

Contents
1 Childhood, education, government employment
2 Private practice
3 Disbarment
4 Exposé of unconstitutional payments
5 Arrest and jail
6 Petition for habeas corpus and emergency petition
7 Public response and perspectives
8 References

Childhood, education, government employment

Fine was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a middle-class family. He earned his baccalaureate degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, his law degree from the University of Chicago, and a doctorate from the London School of Economics. Fine served at the U.S. Department of Justice (1968-72) in the Anti Trust Division. Later he served the City of Los Angeles (1973-74) in anti-trust capacities.[1]

Private practice

In private practice, Fine was successful as an anti-trust attorney in pursuing taxpayers' cases against the County of Los Angeles and the State of California.[2] His resume shows his efforts have returned approximately $1 billion dollars to California taxpayers.[3]

Disbarment


Fine's disbarment in October 2007 was the outcome of administrative procedure of the State Bar of California, where he was charged with "moral turpitude" for filing complaints against judges who had received illegal supplemental payments from Los Angeles County while ruling favorably in cases in which the County was a party.[4] Fine alleged violations of his First Amendment rights in response.[5] Fine's petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied, allowing the disbarment to stand. Fine was listed as being "involuntarily inactive" beginning 10/17/2007 and disbarred as of 3/13/2009.[6][7][8]

Exposé of unconstitutional payments

Fine was the first to disclose that unconstitutional payments were being made to Los Angeles County judges. In August 2001, Fine's opening brief in the appeal of Silva v. Garcetti, revealed that payments of over $46,000 per judge, per year were being made by Los Angeles County to all (~430) Los Angeles County judges (and ~140 Commissioners).[9] The payments, now some $57,000 per judge per year, have been made since the late 1980s, costing taxpayers over $300 million to date, and figuring prominently in County's "budget crisis".[10][11] Fine also revealed that it had become practically impossible to win a case against the County at the Superior Court.[12]

Litigation, which originated from taxpayer objections to such payments, and where plaintiff Harold Sturgeon was represented by Judicial Watch (Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles (BC351286)) resulted in a October 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeal,4th District (San Diego) that the payments were constitutionally "not permitted" as judges were to be paid only by their employers, the State of California.[13] To counter potential civil and criminal liabilities to all California judges, and the county supervisors who approved the payments, a bill was passed and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009, providing retroactive immunity to all involved.[14][15][16][17]

Arrest and jail

Two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff's  Department, at the end of a proceeding, represented as "Sentencing" - in the presence of media - by Judge David Yaffe, whom Richard Fine was attempting to disqualify. The basis for affidavits of disqualification for a cause was Judge David Yaffe's accepting of such payments from a party to the litigation then at bar - Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles (BS109420).
The entire proceeding later failed to appear in the publicly available litigation docket published online by the court.


Likewise, the court record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, including what was represented as sentencing, which was widely reported by media present on March 4, 2009 in court, was later discovered to be invalid on its face.[18] The record also lacked authentication.[19]


Fine has been held ever since at the Men's Central Jail facility in Los Angeles - part of the Twin Towers Jail
complex, under unusual, possibly unprecedented conditions.[20][21] He has been held under continuous solitary confinement, in a hospital room in the jail, even though no disease or disability has been claimed by jail authorities.


In the first few months of his jailing, he was denied access to pen and paper, and such conditions undermined his ability to file habeas corpus and related petitions. Jail authorities also explicitly attempted in the initial period to deprive him of the right to represent himself in pro se, and to coerce him to accept representation by counsel, which Fine declined.


On June 7, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published report by journalist Victoria Kim, who managed to enter the Men's Jail, interview Fine, and emerge from the jail unnoticed, at a time that the Sheriff's Department and the court banned interviews with Fine.[22][23]

Petition for habeas corpus and emergency petition

Fine's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Fine v Sheriff Department of the County of Los Angeles (2:09-cv-01914)[24] was dictated by phone to a friend, and was filed on behalf of Fine at the U.S. Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), but without his hand signature, and without review of the filed document by him. Key documents were later claimed missing from the docket.[25] The case was unusual in that the Sheriff, named as  respondent, refused to respond.


Eventually, a response was filed by the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe. However, such response was filed by attorney Kevin McCormick, who failed to file the required certifications indicating that he was indeed engaged as Counsel of Record in the case by his clients, and therefore authorized to file and appear in the case on their behalf. In Attorney McCormick's response there was no evidence that he had ever communicated with his clients. Similarly, the records which he filed were all derived from the Sheriff's Department, not from the Court, including a copy of the invalid March 4, 2009 Judgement and Order for Contempt, with no authentication.


McCormick's filings included a short declaration by counsel - not a competent fact witness in this case, not by Judge David Yaffe or any officer of the Los Angeles Superior courts. A scheme, involving representation by counsel - albeit not counsel of record - with "not communications with client" clause, had been previously discovered and rebuked in an unrelated case in Texas, in March 2008, and a 72-page Memorandum Opinion provided the details of such schemes.[26]


A June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendation issued by Magistrate Carla Woehrle concluded by recommending denial with prejudice.[27]. District Court Judge John Walter[28] accepted the recommendation and dismissed the action on June 29, 2009. Subsequent appeals were denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, most recently on December 16, 2009.[29]


The circumstances surrounding these denials remain unclear, since Fine has been held at the time of this writing (November 2009) for seven months with no warrant at all.[30] The information provided by the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County in this matter on its Inmate Information Center was incorrect, [31] and possibly misleading. The arrest and booking were listed as if they had taken place at Municipal Division 86 at the San Pedro Courthouse. However, no such agency existed. In fact - no municipal courts existed in Los Angeles for almost a decade.


Public response and perspectives

Fine's jailing was perceived by many as false imprisonment, and became the center point for demands for reform of the judiciary. Small rallies took place outside the Men's Central Jail, and fundraisers were organized to help sponsor his legal expenses.[32] Fine's jailing and the underlying secret payments to judges were also mentioned as diminishing the prospects of California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, one of the recipients, for nomination to the U.S.


Supreme Court. Embattled Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski, never commented on the unsigned order issued in his name in this case, which appeared inconsistent with his usual liberal, civil rights-sensitive, judicially-incisive reputation.[33] The fundamental judicial wrongdoing at the Los Angeles Superior Court, as alleged by those who consider the case false Imprisonment, should be viewed in perspective of the widespread false imprisonment instances of the Rampart scandal effected by that court. Such false imprisonments had been documented already a decade ago, as part of the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000), and were estimated by PBS Frontline at many thousands.[34] However,the latest official Rampart scandal report - by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel- titled Rampart Reconsidered (2006) - documented the Superior Court judges as key parties in the ongoing refusal to free the Rampart-FIPs over the past decade. The report recommended "external investigation" of the Los Angeles justice system, which was never instituted. It also singled out the Los Angeles Superior Court as requiring review.[35][36],[37] Substantial public interest across the US can be
documented by google search of Richard Fine's name. The general motive of such sites showed that Richard Fine assumed the role of focal point in demands for judicial reform.

References

1. ^ http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
2. ^ http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story
3. ^ http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
4. ^ http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/fine10307.htm
5. ^ http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/fine062508.htm
6. ^ http://www.metnews.com/endmoaugust08.html
7. ^ http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/fine021209.htm
8. ^ http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_home.jsp
9. ^ http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
10. ^ http://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.html
11. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/11/fight-against-illegal-judicial-benefits.html
12. ^ http://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.html
13. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-cal-ct-app-4th-sturgeon-v-la-county-08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-countyjudges-payments-not-permitted.pdf
14. ^ http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx2_11_bill_20090214_amended_sen_v98.html
15. ^ http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SBX2_11/
16. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/labels/SBX2%2011.html
17. ^ http://faceuptofred.com/wordpress/?p=104
18. ^ In several copies, separately stamped by the clerk and separately endorsed by Judge David Yaffe, the record was stamped as "FILED" at the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 4, 2009, but endorsed by Judge Yaffe as if on March 24, 2009
19. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-a-09-06-24-case-summary-s.pdf
20. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/71.php
21. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/68.php
22. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/local/me-contempt7
23. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/latimes-female-reporter-sneaks-into.html
24. ^ http://www.scribd.com/doc/17421132/Docket-USDC-Habeas-July-16-2009-
25. ^ http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/video-missing-documents-federal-court.html
26. ^ http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/03/judge-bohm-and-culture-of-incompetence.html
27. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-26-mj-woehrle-amended-r-n-r-09-06-12.pdf
28. ^ http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2938
29. ^ http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/12/16/09-56073.pdf
30. ^ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
31. ^ http://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fine-inmate-information-center-%20booking-details.pdf
32. ^ http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story
33. ^ http://reason.com/archives/2006/07/01/searching-for-alex-kozinski
34. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/later/outcome.html
35. ^ http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/rampart_reconsidered_executive_summary.pdf
36. ^ http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdf
37. ^ http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdf

Please cite:

Richard Isaac Fine - an overview

By Joseph Zernik, edited by PJM 12/24/2009

10-01-01 Refusal of FBI and US Court to allow Qui-Tam complaints against Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation

  

Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:01 -0800
To: "Ron " , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: The New ERA amendments to Qui-Tam Law

Hi Ron, Hi All:

The hyperactivity of US Congress, passing a plethora of new acts to fight financial institution fraud, is simply evidence of the failure of US Congress to have any impact at all on the progress of the current Financial/Integrity Crisis. US Congress is simply paying whatever the thugs ask it to pay. All the nicest acts in the code won't help when FBI, banking regulators, and the US judiciary created a unified front to prevent the enforcement of the law.

I tried to file twice complaints under Qui Tam against Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation, once in Los Angeles and once in Washington DC.  In both cases I was denied access to the courts through fraud in CM/ECF Kozinski Frauds.

Therefore, I now routinely file copies of my evidence of fraud by US courts, US Banking Regulators, and US banking institutions with the Basel Accords Committee, in Basel Switzerland, as evidence that US government is NOT a good faith party to the Accords.  Kevin Bailey, Deputy Comptroller of the Currency is US representative to the Basel Committee, and I always copy him directly as well.  I have a complaint against Bank of America before the Comptroller of the Currency - for Fraud and Deceit, which Bank of America simply refuses to answer to. The US Comptroller of the Currency, on its part, is in no rush to ask BAC to respond either, although the standard 20 days response time was over months ago.  The very same Banking Regulators routinely appeared before US Congress and testified under oath that they "shored up" the system.

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 12:18 01/01/2010, Ron Gottschalk wrote:

          The New ERA amendments to Qui-Tam Law -

http://inproperinla.com/10-01-01-new-qui-tam-laws.pdf

"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.

10-01-01 Did Scott Huminski lose, as of this date, any "Reliance" claims relative to fraud in United States court in Vermont?

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:50:03 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com,"scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Scott - I wonder if you lost any claim of "reliance" after my
  repeated notices to you...

Hi Scott, Hi All:

I believe that following my repeated, detailed notices to you, regarding fraud perpetrated against you in various US Courts, you may not be able in good faith to claim reliance, as an element of fraud, after this date.

Therefore, if you continue to litigate in US District Court, Brattleboro, Vermont, it may no longer constitute fraud by the court and opposing counsel.

Truly,

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

"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.