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):


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, October 26, 2011

11-10-26 Voting machines litigation in the US Court in New York – vague and ambiguous court records suggest conduct of simulated litigation and fraud on the court // Las máquinas de votación y el fraude en los tribunales de los EE.UU.// 在法庭上,在美国的投票机器和欺诈

In Schulz et al v State of New York et al, the plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were violated by the use of electronic voting machines that are not open, verifiable, and transparent.  At the conclusion of the 4-year litigation, US Judge Kahn found that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction.  However, the litigation was commenced with invalid summons issued by the clerk of the court, numerous papers were filed by defendants as “Letter Motions”, resulting in “Order[s] on Letter Motion[s]”, no minutes were entered in the entire litigation, and the July 2011 Judgment is signed by neither a judge nor a deputy clerk and is not listed in the Judgment Index of the court.  The case may be unique in showing the offices of the 50 state attorney generals colluding in the conduct of simulated litigation and fraud on the court. 
[] [] 

Los Angeles, October 26 - Some of the US top computer and civil rights experts have repeatedly objected to electronic voting machines, as currently implemented, for being insecure and prone to voting fraud. [i]

In Schulz et al v State of New York et al (07-cv-00943), the plaintiffs (representing themselves) alleged that electronic voting machines that are not open, verifiable and transparent violate their voting rights.

The case, which was dismissed on July 7, 2011, purportedly for “lack of subject matter jurisdiction”, was commenced in 2007 by plaintiffs from all 50 states against the election of commissions of all states.  In 2008, US Judge Kahn dismissed the complaints against all states but New York, concluding, “each of the Plaintiffs’ standing is limited so as to only have standing against the Individual Defendants in the Plaintiff’s own state.”

In the July 2011, Judge Kahn also dismissed the remaining complaint by the New York plaintiffs against the New York defendants “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”, stating that “Plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable injury in this case, the Court finds that they lack standing to bring this case.” [ii]

However, review of the litigation record raises serious concerns that the case as a whole was conducted by the court and defendants’ attorneys as simulated litigation: [iii]

    • The litigation was commenced with invalid summons, bearing no seal of the court, [iv] and a civil cover sheet that failed to adequately list the plaintiffs and defendants. [v]
    • Numerous papers were filed by the defendants in an invalid manner, as “Letter Motion”, or “Letter Brief”, and resulted in “Order[s] on Letter Motion[s]”;
    • No minutes were entered in the entire litigation, invalid notes were listed in the docket instead, with no corresponding minute records;
    • The July 2011 “Judgment” was signed by neither the judge, nor by an authorized deputy-clerk, and is not listed in the Judgment Index of the court, either. 
Like the electronic voting machines, the electronic record systems of the US courts (PACER and CM/ECF) have been repeatedly shown to be insecure and prone to fraud. [vi]

Moreover, according to Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), there is no way for the public to verify the validity of any of the records displayed in the online record systems.  Ever since the implementation of the electronic record systems, the US courts have been hiding the clerk’s electronic authentication records (NEFs  Notices of Electronic Filing) from the public, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. [vii]

In recent years evidence has been amassed of fraud in the US courts from coast to coast through the practice of simulated litigation, enabled by the electronic record systems of the US courts.  “It’s a common charade. Any case in the US courts, involving banks or civil rights, is a suspect,” says Dr Zernik. [viii]

The fundamental problem is the same in the electronic voting machines and the electronic record systems of the courts.  Paper systems, which were not infallible, but have evolved over centuries as open, verifiable and transparent, were replaced by obscure, unverified and nontransparent electronic systems.

“The tools are out there for creating open, verified and transparent systems for both the electronic voting machines and the electronic systems of the courts,” says Dr Zernik, “However, the US government has chosen to implement systems that fail to meet basic integrity standards in these two critical areas.  Moreover, in both cases, the US government persists in its refusal to fix these systems, even in the face of indisputable evidence of large-scale fraud on the People.”
  [i] [1] 10-08-28 Common Cause: Voting Machines Report - Malfunction and Malfeasancehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36565560/ 
[2] 10-04-19 Brennan Center for Justice Notice in Re: Unprecleared Voting Machines - violation of the voting act
[3] 05-00-00 Validating Voting Machine Software
[4] 05-05-19 MIT-Caltech: Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting
[5] 10-10-06 US Electronic Voting Machines - Made to Defraud - Wired Magazine
[ii] July 7, 2011 Memorandum-Decision and Order (Dkt #383); in 11-10-26 Schulz et al v State of NY et al (07-cv-00943) in the US Court, Northern District of New York  compiled litigation recordshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/70431433/ 
[iii]    Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. 
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
        (1)  induce payment of a claim from another person;  or                      
        (2)  cause another to:                                                       
            (A)  submit to the putative authority of the document;  or                
            (B)  take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b)  Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
The practice is widespread in both the state and US courts at all levels.
[iv] 8 USC 1691 says: "All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof."[v] October 10, 2007 Summons and Civil Cover Sheet; in 11-10-26 Schulz et al v State of NY et al (07-cv-00943) in the US Court, Northern District of New York  compiled litigation recordshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/70431433/ [vi] [1] Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/ 
[2] 11-08-01 Zernik, J: Fraud and corruption in the US courts is tightly linked to failing banking regulation and the financial crisis, 16th World Criminology Congress presentation
[3] 11-07-06 Request filed by Windsor and Zernik with US Attorney General Eric Holder for Review of Integrity of Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts
[4] 10-10-11 Linzer, D. “In GITMO Opinion, Two Versions of Reality,” The National Law Journal, October 11, 2010
[vii] 11-05-20 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)http://www.scribd.com/doc/55862403/[viii] [1] 11-01-10 Request No 1 for investigation/impeachment proceedings, in re: US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, Conduct of Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) http://www.scribd.com/doc/46616530/   
[2] 10-12-19 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - Addendum to Request No 1 for Investigation-impeachment of Judge Rakoff and Clerk Krajick
[3] 11-02-05 Request No 2 for Impeachment of Judge JED RAKOFF Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in Re Conduct of Lindner v Amex (1:10-cv-02228) s
[5] 10-12-07 Request for Investigation and if Appropriate - Impeachment Proceedings - against TERRY NAFISI - Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California s
[6] 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER
[7] 10-04-07 Sieverding et al v. United States Government (1:09-cv-00562) in the US District Court, Washington DC  in re: Arrest and Imprisonment by Federal Agencies - Alleged Impeachable Misconduct by US Judge John D Bates
[8] 10-12-30 Lewis et al v Gleason et al (1:10-cv-01850) in the US District Court, Colorado  Opinion Regarding PACER Docket and Court Records in a Civil Rights Matter
[9] 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC  master of the “Leave to file denied”
[10] 11-06-20 Requests for Investigation and Impeachment of Judge John Walter, Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Clerk Terry Nafisi, and others in the US District Court, Central District of California, in re: Fine v State Bar (2:10-cv-00048) 
[11] 11-07-02 Request for Impeachments US Judge O’Tool, Clerk Thornton, Both of the US District Court, Massachusetts
[12] 10-12-06 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (2:04-cv-08425) at the US District Court, Central District of California: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell  Evidence of Another Pretense Litigation by Judge Virginia Phillips
[13] 11-07-02 Request for Impeachments US Judge O’Tool, Clerk Thornton, Both of the US District Court, Massachusetts s

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 -