Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • 10-07-26 Human Rights Alert's Request For Representation by Dean Minow at US Supreme Court - Relative To Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records S

    Hochgeladen von

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    181 Ansichten5 Seiten
    Martha Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicited for Representation in re: Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records Los Angeles, July 27 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, solicited Martha Minow, Harvard Law School Dean, for representation in original action in the Supreme Court of the United States, pertaining to alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records and misprision by William Suter, Clerk of the Court. [1] Human Rights Alert claimed fraud in notices issued by Court Counsel Danny Bickell pertaining to Applications in Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), which claimed denial by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively, and in the corresponding online dockets of the Court. The notices were claimed to be false on their faces and issued with no authority at all by Counsel Danny Bickell. [2] [3] Moreover, notice in Fine v Baca was shown to have no foundation in records of the Court file. Both cases pertained to penalties imposed on attorneys who represented clients in causes, which were not favored by government. Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges. He has been imprisoned in solitary confinement for the past 17 months in Los Angeles, California, with no warrant ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing ever entered. Attorney Orly Taitz represented clients in cases questioning the native, born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were imposed on her. The alleged abuse represented intimidation of counsel who stood for the rights of the people, and collusion of the courts at all levels in creating false public perception that such conduct was reviewed by the courts and was found in compliance with the law. The courts transitioned to internet based publication of records and dockets - albeit with no validation of such systems and with no Local Rules of Courts to govern such practices. The courts published unverified online records, which the courts themselves never deemed valid court records, but which media and the public at large falsely assumed were true and valid court records. In parallel, the courts restricted access to true court records. The request forwarded to Dean Minow detailed such conduct relative to the imprisonment of Richard Fine: 1) The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case. 2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine. 3) The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court. 4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal. 5) The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, which was not supported by the Court records in the case. Access to true court dockets of the Supreme Court's case management system was yet to be permitted. Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert in the context of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States as part of the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations

    Originaltitel

    10-07-26 Human Rights Alert's Request for Representation by Dean Minow at US Supreme Court - Relative to Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records s

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    Martha Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicited for Representation in re: Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records Los Angeles, July 27 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, solicited Martha Minow, Harvard Law School Dean, for representation in original action in the Supreme Court of the United States, pertaining to alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records and misprision by William Suter, Clerk of the Court. [1] Human Rights Alert claimed fraud in notices issued by Court Counsel Danny Bickell pertaining to Applications in Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), which claimed denial by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively, and in the corresponding online dockets of the Court. The notices were claimed to be false on their faces and issued with no authority at all by Counsel Danny Bickell. [2] [3] Moreover, notice in Fine v Baca was shown to have no foundation in records of the Court file. Both cases pertained to penalties imposed on attorneys who represented clients in causes, which were not favored by government. Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges. He has been imprisoned in solitary confinement for the past 17 months in Los Angeles, California, with no warrant ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing ever entered. Attorney Orly Taitz represented clients in cases questioning the native, born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were imposed on her. The alleged abuse represented intimidation of counsel who stood for the rights of the people, and collusion of the courts at all levels in creating false public perception that such conduct was reviewed by the courts and was found in compliance with the law. The courts transitioned to internet based publication of records and dockets - albeit with no validation of such systems and with no Local Rules of Courts to govern such practices. The courts published unverified online records, which the courts themselves never deemed valid court records, but which media and the public at large falsely assumed were true and valid court records. In parallel, the courts restricted access to true court records. The request forwarded to Dean Minow detailed such conduct relative to the imprisonment of Richard Fine: 1) The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case. 2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine. 3) The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court. 4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal. 5) The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, which was not supported by the Court records in the case. Access to true court dockets of the Supreme Court's case management system was yet to be permitted. Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert in the context of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States as part of the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    181 Ansichten5 Seiten

    10-07-26 Human Rights Alert's Request For Representation by Dean Minow at US Supreme Court - Relative To Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records S

    Hochgeladen von

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    Martha Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicited for Representation in re: Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records Los Angeles, July 27 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, solicited Martha Minow, Harvard Law School Dean, for representation in original action in the Supreme Court of the United States, pertaining to alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records and misprision by William Suter, Clerk of the Court. [1] Human Rights Alert claimed fraud in notices issued by Court Counsel Danny Bickell pertaining to Applications in Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), which claimed denial by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively, and in the corresponding online dockets of the Court. The notices were claimed to be false on their faces and issued with no authority at all by Counsel Danny Bickell. [2] [3] Moreover, notice in Fine v Baca was shown to have no foundation in records of the Court file. Both cases pertained to penalties imposed on attorneys who represented clients in causes, which were not favored by government. Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges. He has been imprisoned in solitary confinement for the past 17 months in Los Angeles, California, with no warrant ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing ever entered. Attorney Orly Taitz represented clients in cases questioning the native, born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were imposed on her. The alleged abuse represented intimidation of counsel who stood for the rights of the people, and collusion of the courts at all levels in creating false public perception that such conduct was reviewed by the courts and was found in compliance with the law. The courts transitioned to internet based publication of records and dockets - albeit with no validation of such systems and with no Local Rules of Courts to govern such practices. The courts published unverified online records, which the courts themselves never deemed valid court records, but which media and the public at large falsely assumed were true and valid court records. In parallel, the courts restricted access to true court records. The request forwarded to Dean Minow detailed such conduct relative to the imprisonment of Richard Fine: 1) The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case. 2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine. 3) The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court. 4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal. 5) The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, which was not supported by the Court records in the case. Access to true court dockets of the Supreme Court's case management system was yet to be permitted. Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert in the context of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States as part of the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 5

    Digitally signed

    by Joseph Zernik
    Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
    Zernik, o, ou,
    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
    Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
    Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.27
    20:27:44 +03'00'
    Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

    10-07-26 Solicitation of Representation by Harvard Law School Dean, Martha Minow, in action
    at the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:11:11 +0300


    To: "Martha Minow" <minow@law.harvard.edu>
    From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Request for counsel representation in Re: William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court
    Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz

    Martha Minow, Dean


    Harvard Law School
    By email

    RE: Request for counsel representation in Re: William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court
    Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz

    Dear Prof Minow:

    I am writing to ask whether you would consider representing me in original action at the US Supreme
    Court, in case (which is likely) that Clerk William Suter denies access to records of the US Supreme
    Court, which appear to include evidence of misprision of clerk in actions related to the former US
    prosecutor Richard Fine.

    Richard Fine has been imprisoned in solitary confinement for the past 17 months in Los Angeles,
    California, with no warrant ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing ever entered, after he
    exposed widespread corruption of California judges. The case must be deemed serious violation of
    Human Rights. The abuse is not only of Richard Fine himself, but what it stands for - intimidation of
    counsel who stood for the rights of the people, and collusion of the courts at all levels in creating false
    public representations that his imprisonment was reviewed by the courts and was found in compliance
    with the law.

    The issues raised by the case fall squarely in your field of expertise - Human Rights in societies in
    transition. The courts transitioned to internet based publication of dockets - albeit with no validation of
    such systems and with no Local Rules of Courts to govern such practices. The courts publish online
    records, which the courts themselves never deemed valid court records, but which media and the
    public at large falsely assume are true and valid court records. In parallel, the courts are restricting
    access to true court records. In the process, precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts has been
    observed, and through it - serious abuses of Human Rights.

    Richard Fine is probably the poster child for the abuse inherent in the current compromised integrity of
    electronic judicial records in at all levels involved in his case:

    1) The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but is denying access
    to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the
    case.

    2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate
    Information Center", but is denying access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate
    Richard Fine.

    3) The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but is denying
    access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper
    z Page 2/5 July 27, 2010

    record, which is Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was
    allegedly adulterated.

    4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but is denying
    access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records
    filed by respondents in the appeal.

    5) The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting denial by Justice Kennedy, which
    was not supported by the true records in the case, and denial by a conference of the US Supreme
    Court, which is yet to be verified. Access to true court dockets of the Supreme Court's case
    management system is yet to be permitted.

    Detailed documentation is available of correspondence with all agencies listed above, as part of failed
    attempts to access court records.

    Review of such conduct by the courts is particularly important in the context of the pending review of
    Human Rights in the United States as part of the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human
    Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.

    In case you are unable to undertake such representation, I would be grateful if you could recommend
    another suitable counsel.

    Truly,

    Joseph Zernik, PhD


    Human Rights Alert (HRA), 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. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case
    management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United
    States.

    http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
    http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
    http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
    http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
    http://droitsdelhommealertelosangele.blogspot.com/
    http://inproperinla.com/
    http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
    http://ireport.cnn.com/people/HumanRightsA?numResults=10&view=documents
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
    z Page 3/5 July 27, 2010

    WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
    CALIFORNIA?
    * "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) [i]
    * "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
    Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
    * "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 (2000) [iii]
    [i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
    [ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
    [iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339

    At 06:55 PM 7/25/2010, you wrote:

    Your message

    To: joseph zernik


    Cc: Smith, Darcy (USMS); Shell, Thomas(USMS)
    Subject: William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court
    Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly
    Taitz
    Sent: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:43:54 -0400

    was read on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:55:50 -0400

    Final-Recipient: RFC822; minow@law.harvard.edu


    Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
    X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: iOHEHYXnxUuKy1faAfqd1g==
    _________

    William Suter
    Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States
    William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re:
    Richard Fine, Orly Taitz
    Los Angeles, July 25 Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William
    Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to certify the online dockets of Applications
    pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the
    dockets from the Courts own case management system. [1]
    Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of
    executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively.
    z Page 4/5 July 27, 2010

    Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that
    were not favored by government.
    In the former Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles
    Superior Court judges of not permitted payments (bribes), which necessitated the signing by the
    California governor of retroactive immunities (pardons) for all such judges. Richard Fine was arrested
    on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. However, no warrant was ever
    issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California
    Code to make it effectual for any purpose.
    In the latter Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack
    Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her.
    In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel
    Danny Bickell. However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding
    contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the online dockets and the respective letters by Danny
    Bickell.
    Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and
    ambiguous in both design and operation.
    Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010
    review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid
    online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. Responses
    by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations
    review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
    LINKS
    [1] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-
    Dockets-by-William-Suter-Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/
    [2] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-in-Application-s
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
    [3] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-Records-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-s
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/

    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. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case
    management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United
    States.

    http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
    http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
    http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
    http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
    http://droitsdelhommealertelosangele.blogspot.com/
    http://inproperinla.com/
    http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
    http://ireport.cnn.com/people/HumanRightsA?numResults=10&view=documents
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
    WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
    CALIFORNIA?
    z Page 5/5 July 27, 2010

    * "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) [i]
    * "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
    Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
    * "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 (2000) [iii]
    [i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
    [ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
    [iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen