Some corrupt US judges: Jed Rakoff, Virginia Phillips, Alex Kozinski
View as PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76855163/
As a first step: I adopted the habit of adding at the end of any Request, Motion, etc, a standard statement, along the following lines:
- Request for Access to the US Courts and safeguard of Federal Due Process rights
- The undersigned asks that instant Request/Motion, duly filed, be duly entered, and duly adjudicated by a US Judge(s), holding all required credentials, and that a decision on instant Request/Motion, signed by such Judge(s), be duly served and noticed and authenticated by a Clerk/Deputy Clerk holding all required credentials.
If I receive an unsigned / unauthenticated judicial record on my first paper, there simply is no sense in going on, and I just walk away from the charade.
As a second step: I ask for a certified copy of any decision, order, judgment. If the clerk of the court refuses to provide such certified judicial records, the court is certified corrupt.
I find no sense in subjecting myself to the abuse by any court of my own free will.
Additional steps: Boycott the Vote, Secede!
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
1. As demonstrated by Judge Virginia Phillips, walking away from a case and failing to oppose a Motion to Dismiss is no guarantee that the case would be dismissed either. Corrupt judges like to prolong the abuse of the People for as long as possible and maximize the income of corrupt attorneys.
2. Media, who honestly perform their duties, should not report on any decision, judgment, decree of any US court, unless they are provided with a certified copy of the judicial record.
Boycott the vote! It only legitimizes the illegitimate…
11-12-10 Where Should #Occupy Go Next? Civil Disobedience in the Footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi!
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
The 2010 submission of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was reviewed by the HRC professional staff and incorporated in the official HRC Professional Staff Report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
Flag Counter: 128
Total Reads: 686,060
Total Item Views: 585,338
WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?
* Foreclosure fraud: The homeowner nightmares continue
CNN (April 7, 2011)
* About 3 million homes have been repossessed since the housing boom ended in 2006… That number could balloon to about 6 million by 2013
Bloomberg (January 2011)
* “…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 CONDITIONS IN THE PRISON IN MONROE COUNTY, TENESSEE?
* “What goes on there is more like gulags of centuries ago.”
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)
As part of efforts for the preservation of our civilization for future generations:
A call for proposals, ending January 10, 2012.
#Occupy Jerusalem-AlQuds – The Party!
Late August 2012
At 05:59 PM 12/31/2011, JG wrote:
What can we all do to help?
This must be stopped.
The federal courts around the country are dishonest and way out of control.
On My Way To Get Justice, I Just Got Mugged!
By Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
REQUEST FOR EN BANC DETERMINATION
Docket Number 11-56857
D.C. No.: 2:11-cv-00565-ODW-JEM
Question Presented To The Ninth Circuit For Determination En Banc:
Is Appellant Required to Present His Questions on Appeal
at the Time of Filing His Notice of Appeal?
This appeal arises out of a federal suit involving fraud engaged in by the underlying state court, County of Los Angeles, wherein a 11/24/2009 Minute Order was fraudulently created alleging Plaintiff was present and arraigned on criminal charges, a fact contradicted by declaration of the very court reporter noted within the 11/24/2009 Minute Order, which declaration is entered into evidence in this federal action, and unopposed by all Defendants within this case!
This fraud question passed through the hands of four federal judges who recused themselves from the case, and was passed on to a fifth federal judge who dismissed the case 10/17/2011 without dealing with the issue of fraud within the complaint or fraud within the state court system, County of Los Angeles.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, and paid the $455 fee three days later on 10/20/2011, EXHIBIT A. On 10/25/2011, five days later, Appellant was sent a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal, stating â€œA review of the record demonstrates that this appeal may be appropriate for summary disposition because the questions on which the decision in the appeal depends may be so insubstantial as not to justify further proceedings,â€ EXHIBIT B. This was followed up by a second notice informing Appellate that the appeal was dismissed dated 12/8/2011, EXHIBIT C.ARGUMENT RE QUESTION: Is Appellant Required to Present His Questions on Appeal
at the Time of Filing His Notice of Appeal?
All that had been filed in the appeal was a Notice of Appeal. Immediately thereafter, Appellant received an Order of intent to dismiss the appeal due to â€œinsubstantialâ€ questions presented in the appeal. The Order cites 9th Cir. Rule 3-6, but such rule cannot apply by virtue of its own wording, as the only time it can only apply, if applicable at all, is prior to the conclusion of a briefing, not before briefing begins. It is impossible to conclude what has not started. In fulfillment of the Order stating intent to dismiss, Appellant received an Order of Dismissal dated 12/8/2011 citing United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (1982), which is in apropos. The Hooton case states, â€œAlthough it is difficult to formulate a precise standard, not every case in which appellant files an unimpressive opening brief is appropriate for summary affirmance. Motions to affirm should be confined to appeals obviously controlled by precedent and cases in which insubstantiality is manifest from the face of appellantâ€™s brief.â€ Twice the Hooton case states to its determination as based upon the questions presented in an opening brief. But here there is no â€œopening brief,â€ only the filing of a Notice of Appeal.
It is manifest that the intent is to dismiss this appeal at the Notice stage before the appeal started. Since the standard set forth in the Order is case precedent, the question is whether there exists case precedent within the Ninth Circuit, or any of the U.S. Circuit, to dismiss an appeal upon the filing of a Notice.
The appropriate standard to be applied here is Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3(c)(4), to wit, â€œAn appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.â€ The filing of a Notice of Appeal is jurisdictional, and Rule 3(c)(1) states the minimum required. â€œThe notice of appeal must: (A) specify the party or parties taking the appeal by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice… (B) designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed; and (C) name the court to which the appeal is taken.â€ Appellant followed the prescribed form articulately as provided within the Rules. Having so provided all the necessary information in the Notice of Appeal, â€œAn appeal must not be dismissedâ€ based upon reaching inadequacy. The Order of 12/8/2011 finds the â€œquestions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district courtâ€™s order of dismissal. AFFIRMED.â€ The logical question is, what questions are we talking about? There are no questions presented in this appeal, either insubstantial, or otherwise, only a Notice of Appeal!CONCLUSION
<!–[if !supportLists]–>1.) <!–[endif]–>The Order of Dismissal dated 12/8/2011, EXHIBIT C, runs contrary to opinion of United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982).
<!–[if !supportLists]–>2.) <!–[endif]–>The Order of 12/8/2011 runs afoul of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 governing appeals as a matter of Right, and treats this appeal as permissive under Title 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1292(b), which statute is limited only to bankruptcy and interlocutory appeals.
<!–[if !supportLists]–>3.) <!–[endif]–>The Order of 12/8/2011 is in conflict with Title 28 U.S.C., Sec 1291, which statute, passed by Congress, governs the right of appeal, and the jurisdiction of this Ninth Circuit.
<!–[if !supportLists]–>4.) <!–[endif]–>This Order of 12/8/2011, being in violation of the Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, is in conflict with every other Circuit within this nation subject to Rule 3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
<!–[if !supportLists]–>5.) <!–[endif]–>Lastly, the Order of 12/8/2011, EXHIBIT C, presents a major shift from basic due process of the First Amendment right â€œto petition government for a redress of grievances,â€ and requires a faithful en banc determination by this Circuit as to whether substantial appellate questions must attend with, or immediately thereafter, the filing of all Notices of Appeal, and failure to do so shall constitute â€œautomatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute,â€ Order of 10/25/2011, EXHIBIT B.
__________________________________ Dated: December 30, 2011