11-05-23 Fraud in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC // Fraude en el Tribunal de Distrito de EE.UU., Washington DC // 欺诈的美国地区法院，华盛顿特区
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in a case of Simulated Litigation
“It is a case of Simulated Litigation involving the Chief Judge of the US Court, Washington DC, in a landmark case – It has an invalid beginning, an invalid end, and an ‘off the record’ proceeding in between.”
Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge
US District Court, Washington DC
Los Angeles, May 23 – Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (08-205) is no doubt one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court. “[D]ecision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns… a stunning example of judicial activism…” [[i]] However, a valid and effectual copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment of the US Supreme Court in the case – a historic document – is yet to be discovered… [[ii],[iii]]
Today, Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), published review of the litigation records of Citizens United v FEC (1:07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, Washington DC, where the case originated.
Invalid records in litigation of Citizens United v FEC in the US District Court, DC
“It is a case of Simulated Litigation involving the Chief Judge of the US Court, Washington DC, in a landmark case…” says Dr Zernik, “It has an invalid beginning, an invalid end, and an ‘off the record’ proceeding in between.”
- Summons as executed – The record of the Summons as executed on Federal Election Commission (Dkt #15) is an invalid record, since it fails to show the Seal of Court, as required by US law. A repeat FOIA request was filed, in order to exclude the possibility that the Seal of the Court was missing as a result of photocopying or scanning. [[v]]
01/10/2008 Minute Entry Proceedings held before a Three Judge Panel of Circuit Judge A Raymond Randolph and United States District Judges Royce C. Lamberth and Richard W. Roberts : Preliminary Injunction held on 1/10/2008. (Court Reporter Wendy Ricard.) (rje) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
Figure 2: Invalid PACER docket notation of Minutes of the January 10, 2008 proceeding in Citizens United v FEC. No docket number was designated, and no record of the Minutes was linked to the docket notation.
- Minutes – No valid record at all exists for the January 10, 2008 proceeding, the only proceeding listed in the record of the case. Invalid notation was created in the docket, with no record linked to it at all. Effectively, it was an ‘off the record’ proceeding of the court.
Figure 3: Invalid, simulated record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US Supreme Court, as it appears in the PACER docket of the US District Court.
Figure 4: A fake, simulated bank check record.
- US Supreme Court Judgment – The Judgment record, as it appears in the docket of the US District Court, is unsigned, and fails to include authentication by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.
Judgment Index Report
U.S. District Court – – District of Columbia
Report Period: 01/01/2005 – 05/23/2011
Sorry – no data for the chosen selection criteria
Judgment Index Report Selection Criteria
Case number 1:07-cv-2240
Figure 5: The Citizens United v FEC entry in the Judgment Index of the US District Court, DC.
- Judgment Index – No Judgment at all is listed in the Court’s Judgment Index for the case, and the complaint is listed as never terminated in the Related Transactions Report.
Simulated litigation is today a common practice in both the state and US courts.
The practice of Simulated Litigation is the most common form of corruption of judges and clerks in both the state and US courts today. It is common in all levels of the US courts, in both obscure and high profile cases. [[vii],[viii]]
Invalid case management systems in the courts are the enabling tools of Simulated Litigation
The practice of Simulated Litigation is probably as old as the courts themselves. Over centuries, record keeping of the courts, the core of Due Process, evolved to prevent it. Implementation of computerized case management systems in the state and US courts, where the nature of signatures and authentication was left vague and ambiguous, is claimed to be central to the widespread practice of Simulated Litigation. [[ix]] Request for review of the evidence of fraud in the computerized records of the US District Courts and Courts of Appeals (PACER and CM/ECF) was previously forwarded to Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler, an expert on computers and the law. [[x]]
Needless to say, computer technology could have had the opposite effect, enhancing court transparency and integrity, if correctly implemented.
Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience over the past decade in examination of computerized records in large corporate and government systems. His opinions in such matters have been supported by those of highly reputed fraud and computer science experts. Papers he authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in a computer-science journal and presented in international computer-science and criminology conferences. [[xi]]
Report, authored by Dr Zernik, and based in part on analysis of computerized court records, was incorporated into the official 2010 Staff Report of the United Nations Human Rights Council, as part of the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, with a reference note stating:
- Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California. [[xii]]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
[i] 0-01-21 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) at the Supreme Court of the United States – opinion of Prof Chemerinsky and Wikipedia overview
[ii] 11-05-17 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US Supreme Court – so far only a simulated Judgment record has been discovered…
[iii] 11-05-23 RE: Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, FEC FOIA No. 2011-46:2nd Zernik�s Reply on FEC�s 2nd FOIA Response
[iv] 11-05-23 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC � invalid court records in a Simulated Litigation
[v] 11-05-23 RE: Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, FEC FOIA No. 2011-46:2nd Zernik�s Reply on FEC�s 2nd FOIA Response s
[vi] Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code – Section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
� 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
(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.
[vii] 11-02-09 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense Judgment of the US District Court
[viii] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation – Simulated Litigation and Simulated Banking Regulation in the United States
[ix] 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)
[x] 11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud in the US courts
[xi] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
[xii] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with reference to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession”.
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
Flag Counter: 119
Total Reads: 430,060
Total Item Views: 341,338
WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?
* “…a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences.”
Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.”
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
* “Innocent people remain in prison”
* “…the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of…”
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
* “…corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
* “On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations.”
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?
* “More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning “mandatory and enforceable” ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by “recent media reports,” the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others.”
More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011)
WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* “The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition…”
Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)
WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” on the US Department of Justice.
Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)