Page 2/9 January 23, 2010
The failing of the US District Court, Brattleboro, Vermont, to enter, or reject entry, of my Ex Parte Application
Huminski v Corsones
(1:99-cv-00160), a landmark case in re: First Amendment rights, was nosurprise at all. In fact, it was predicted in my previous emails to you, copied below... Please also notice the extraprecautions in my proof of service. The mailing to the Vermont clerk, alone of all parties, was by certified,restricted, return receipt USPS mail. Furthermore, the certificate of service included a URL for an online, digitally signed, dated, and time-stamped copy of the paper, so that the there would be a public proof, in case the courtadulterated my paper, which had often happened in the past.Have you ever checked the "
Related Transactions Report
", or the "
Docketing Activity Report
" in PACER in yourcases at the US courts? These are two of the remaining publicly-accessible safeguards for integrity of the dockets atthe US courts, where available. Not all US courts permit pubic access to these reports either. For example, the USDistrict Court, Los Angeles denies public access to the "
Docket Activity Report
" with no legal foundation at all forsuch denial of access. Review of such reports and CM/ECF manuals, would show that there is no way to enter youropposition
to my ex parte application in an honest, valid, and effectual manner, if my ex parte application hadnever been entered in the docket in the first place. In fact, if your opposition would be entered without enteringmy ex parte application first, it would be a good documentation of the fraud in operation of PACER & CM/ECF atthe US District Court, Vermont, which is what my ex parte application set out to accomplish in the first place.Please notice me, in case the US District Court, Vermont, responds on your opposition with an NEF, a notice of discrepancy, or any other notice that would either accept or reject the entry of your paper. I would likewiseexpediently keep you posted if I ever get any communications regarding acceptance or rejection of my ex parteapplication.None of the multiple US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals that I have examined had any local rules of courts providing permission for clerks and/or judges to have paper vanish - eliminate papers from court dockets at will. Likewise, none had local rules permitting the listing of false and deliberately misleading items in the onlinePACER dockets, which appeared to PACER users as entered, when in fact, CM/ECF users could tell that suchitems were not entered at all. However, all US courts that I examined engaged in such practices. Regarding my vanishing papers, I assume that judges and clerks misguidedly believed that they were authorized to do so, sincemy papers were deemed by them "scandalous". However, they should have documented through a lawfulprocedure, that a paper was filed, but was eliminated from the docket on such grounds, or any other grounds thatthey found to permit their conduct.Furthermore, if you survey the PACER dockets in the various US courts, you would soon realize that even papersthat were initially "docketed" were later removed in certain PACER dockets, with no sealing order, or any justification at all. In some cases, I found dockets in PACER , where particular records were removed from thePACER dockets, with a note - "
Available in person at the clerk's office only
". Such practice as found, for example,in records allegedly documenting racketeering in the courts across the US by Countrywide/Bank of AmericaCorporation. Again - there was never any legal foundation for such practice by US judges and/or clerks.Keeping honest dockets is fundamental to numerous Human Rights in ratified International Law, it is alsofundamental for First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendment rights in US Law. Likewise, it is also fundamentalfor honest banking regulation. Such concepts were well established for generations in the Paper Era.