.

page counter []
"...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* "Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy". KNBC (October 16, 2008) * "Innocent people remain in prison" LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * Los Angeles County is "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud." FBI (2004) * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000) * "Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008) * "Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión" LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006) * Condado de Los Angeles es "el epicentro de la epidemia de bienes raíces y el fraude de la hipoteca." FBI (2004) * "... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron." Prof. David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * "Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes." Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)

Thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain locked up more than a decade after official, expert, and media report documented that they were falsely prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in the largest court corruption sandal in the history of the United States...

Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/

Nuestro derecho a acceso los expedientes publicos, nuestra libertad y nuestros derechos humanos fundamentales están todos conectados en las caderas!

10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations

In summer 2010, the staff report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States, noticed and referenced the Human Rights Alert April 2010 submission, pertaining to "corruption of the courts, the legal profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

10-06-30 Was Sieberding v US Department of Justice litigated pursuant to US law? // Fue Sieberding v EE.UU. Departamento de Justicia litigado conforme a la ley de EE.UU.? // War Sieberding v US Department of Justice prozessiert nach US-Recht?

 U.S. District Court, D.C. District by Ken Lund. 
US District Court, District of Columbia_ _ _ _Chief Judge Royce Lamberth
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:40:25 +0300
To: david.rybicki@usdoj.gov, craig.lawrence@usdoj.gov
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC and Sieverding v USDOJ et  al (10-5149) at CCA DC
Cc: kaysieverding@aol.com, "Attention Chief Judge Lamberth" <1-202-354-3067@metrofax.com>, "Smith, Darcy \(USMS\)" , "Shell, Thomas\(USMS\)" , upr_info@state.gov

June 30, 2010

Attorneys David Rybicki and Craig Lawrence
US DOJ
Response is kindly requested within 10 days

RE: Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC and Sieverding v USDOJ et  al (10-5149) at CCA DC

Dear Attorneys Lawrence and Rybicki:

I am writing on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO).  I am not an attorney, not even by a long shot. Moreover, I have no legal education at all.  However, my analysis of conduct of the US courts, based on alleged fraud in operations of PACER and CM/ECF,
[1] was reviewed by now by two internationally renowned computer science scholars, who supported my findings. It was also the core of report filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) with the United Nations as part of the first ever  review (UPR) of human rights in the United States by the United Nations, scheduled for November 2010.

Upon review of PACER dockets of the two cases listed above, my preliminary impression is that they are of dubious nature at best. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could please provide your best opinions as attorneys and also on behalf of the US DOJ, and clarify the nature of these actions:

A. Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC:

1) Was litigation of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC conducted pursuant to the law of the United States?

2) Was the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC, a docket that was constructed pursuant to the authority of the Clerk of the Court, USDC DC?

3) Was the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC, a docket that was constructed pursuant to the law of the United States?

4) Was any dispositive Order or Judgment ever entered under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC in a manner that rendered such order or judgment one that required full faith and credit?  If so, what was the date of entry of such order or judgment?

B. Sieverding v USDOJ et  al (10-5149) at CCA DC:

1) Is the appeal in Sieverding v USDOJ et al (10-5149) at CCA DC conducted pursuant to the law of the United States?

2) Is the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (10-5149) at CCA DC, a docket that is constructed pursuant to the authority of the Clerk of the Court, CCA DC?

3) Is the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (10-5149) at CCA DC, a docket that is constructed pursuant to the law of the United States?

4) What was the dispositive Order or Judgment that the appeal was taken from?  If any, what was the date of entry of such order or judgment?

C. Conduct of Counsel:
1) Is your conduct under the two captions referenced above compliant with pertinent Codes of Conduct of counsel?

D. Request for Initiation of Corrective Actions:
This letter is also copied to the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the US District Court, DC, as a notice to reliably inform him of conduct under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562), and to request that he look into the case, and if appropriate, also initiate corrective actions, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/

LINKS:
[1]
10-06-24-Paper2-Data-Mining-of-Online-Records-of-the-Networked-US-Courts-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520631/

CC:
1) Royce C. Lamberth,Chief Judge, US District Court, DC
C/O
Nancy Mayer-Whittington, Clerk of the Court
Fax: 202-354-3067
2) US State Department, UPR Office
3) US Marshal Service
4) Kay Sieverding 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine