Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@
earthlink.net,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2011.01.23
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert 12:00:00 +02'00'

11-01-23 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634, 10-56813): Zernik’s Reply in Support of
Motion to Intervene

Attached:

1) Zernik’s Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene as served and filed.

See also:

[1] 11-01-08 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell' - Motion to Intervene, Requesting the US Court of
Appeals to Dismiss the Appeals from an Uncertified Judgment, was Posted in the Docket, is Now
Pending before the Court-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46528428/
[2] 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit -
Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
[3] 11-01-21 Press Release: Log Cabin Republicans Oppose Challenge to Validity of the Judgment in the
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Litigation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47323956/
[4] 11-01-21 Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634, 10-56813) - in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:
Log Cabin Republicans Oppose Challenge to Validity of the Judgment in the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Litigation: Opposition (Dkt #49), and Order (Dkt #52)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47323178/
 Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813

IN THE UNIED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Log Cabin Republicans,

a non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross Appellant,

vs

United States of America; Robert M Gates,

Secretary of Defense, in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross Appellees.
___________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No CV 04-8425, Honorable Virginia A Phillips, Judge
___________
[Proposed] INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S VERIFIED REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTEVENE AND RELATED PAPERS
(Dkt #39-47 under 10-56634)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
jz12345@earthlink.net
 [Proposed] INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S VERIFIED REPLY

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTEVENE AND RELATED PAPERS

(Dkt #39-47 under 10-56634)

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: Intervenor Dr Joseph Zernik (“Zernik”)

herein files his verified Reply in Support of his Motion to Intervene (Dkt #39-47

under 10-56634).

1. Zernik’s Motion to Intervene reliably nformed the Court of

“unprofessional conduct” in litigation of Log Cabin Republicans v USA et

al in the US District Court.

The Motion to Intervene and related papers, listed as “filed” on January 7,

2011, (Dkt #39-47 under 10-56634) requested the Court’s leave to file, and

permission to intervene in instant appeals. The Motion and related papers also

reliably informed the Court of “unprofessional conduct” pertaining to litigation of

Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425) and Zernik v Connor et al

(2:08-cv-01550) in the US District Court, Central District of California. In both

cases Clerk of the US District Court refuses to certify the PACER dockets; in

Zernik v Connor et al only an invalid electronic certificate of authentication/

attestation (NEF – Notice of Electronic Filing) by the Clerk was discovered

pertaining to the Judgment; in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al the clerk has

refused to produce the electronic certificate, in what the Court should deem

violation of First Amendment rights.

2/9
2. Zernik sought the Court’s remedies relative to uncertified Judgments

from uncertified dockets of the US District Court in both Log Cabin

Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-

01550)

Accordingly, Zernik asked the Court to initiate corrective actions, including, but not

limited to Mandates on the US District Court, as detailed in the filings (Dkt #39-47).

Zernik’s interest in the case, as detailed in the Motion to Intervene and related papers,

originated in part from the similarly in facts and law between the two cases. Zernik

further claimed that rulings by the Court on the matters raised in the proposed

Intervention is likely to substantially impact on the Human, Constitutional, and Civil

Rights of all under the 9th Circuit, and beyond.

3. Log Cabin Republican’s Response, opposing the Motion to Intervene,

lacks in substance.

The following arguments were discerned in the Log Cabin Republican’s

Response in opposition to the Motion to Intervene, listed as filed on January 11,

2011 (Dkt #49 under 10-56634):

a. “Proposed Intervenor Zernik has no connection to this case nor any known

interest therein”.

The claim lacks in foundation. It ignored the detailed arguments presented in

Zernik’s Motion to Intervene pertaining to his interest in the case, and the legal

foundation for permitting such intervention, including, but not limited to the

3/9
 similarity in facts and law relative to conduct of Log Cabin Republicans v USA

et al and Zernik v Connor et al in the US District Court.

b. “The motions and requests are incoherent and do not demonstrate good cause

to intervene”.

The claim lacks in foundation. It should be deemed at best a handwaving

argument.

c. “Neither party has invited the participation of this individual in this case”.

The response failed to provide any legal reference that intervention in the US

courts is by party’s invitation only.

d. “[H]is intervention would not advance the resolution of the constitutional

issued presented”.

Zernik argued that the Court should find itself lacking in jurisdiction in

conduct of an appeal from an uncertified judgment, and that the parties should

have no interest in conduct of an appeal from an uncertified judgment. It

remained incomprehensible how the Log Cabin Republicans propose to resolve

constitutional issues through the conduct of such appeal. On the contrary,

Zernik claimed that conduct of such appeal would inherently violate

constitutional principles, while addressing the matters inherent to the Motion to

Intervene and concomitantly filed Motions and Requests would substantially

impact on the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all under the 9th

Circuit and beyond.

4/9
4. Log Cabin Republicans failed to produce the electronic certificate of

authentication/attestation (NEF – Notice of Electronic Filing) of the

October 2010 Judgment in their response.

As a CM/ECF authorized party to the litigation in the US District Court,

counsel for the Log Cabin Republicans should have the NEF of the October 2010

Judgment in their possession. Several requests were forwarded to counsel for the

Log Cabin Republicans in recent months to produce a copy of the Certificate. In

their Response, the Log Cabin Republicans failed to do the obvious - produce the

Certificate of the October 2010 Judgment. Neither did the Response provide any

explanation for the refusal to produce the Certificate.

5. Counsel for the USA did not oppose Zernik’s Motion to Intervene.

The Court should note that counsel for the USA have not opposed Zernik’s

Motion to Intervene, inherent to which is the Motion for a Declaratory Mandate:

Why the appeals from an uncertified judgment should not be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction and/or mootness.

6. Clerk of the US District Court has not produced the Certificate since the

filing of the Motion to Intervene, either.

The Court should also note that the Clerk of the US District Court has not

produced the electronic Certificate of the October 2010 Judgment since the filing

of the Motion to Intervene, either.

7. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is respectfully requested

to grant Zernik’s Motion to Intervene.

5/9
 For all the reasons in paragraphs 1-6 above, the Court should grant Zernik’s

Motion to Intervene.

Dated: January 23rd, 2011 Joseph Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Intervenor, In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
jz12345@earthlink.net

____________

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, read instant [Proposed] Intervenor’s

VERIFIED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE, and I
know the content thereof to be true and correct; it is true and correct based on my
own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon
information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and
correct as well.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of
perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States.
Executed on January 23rd, 2011.

____________________
Joseph Zernik

____________

6/9
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served this date the documents described as: VERIFIED
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE on parties in this
action by a) dispatching it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3
business days, and/or b) emailing (as listed below) true copy thereof, as follows:

a. Counsel for United States of America

Anthony J. Steinmeyer (anthony.steinmeyer@usdoj.gov)
(202) 514-3388
August E. Flentje (august.flentje@usdoj.gov)
(202) 514-3309
Henry Whitaker (henry.whitaker@usdoj.gov)
(202) 514-3180
Attorneys, Civil Division, Appellate Staff
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 7256
Washington, D.C. 20530
BY EMAIL AND BY COMMERCIAL CARRIER

b. Counsel for Log Cabin Republicans

Dan Woods (dwoods@whitecase.com)
(213) 620-7772
Earle Miller (emiller@whitecase.com)
(213) 620-7785
Aaron Kahn (aakahn@whitecase.com)
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
BY EMAIL AND BY COMMERCIAL CARRIER

c. Filers of Amicus Briefs

1) SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE WORK
Amicus Curiae,
Christopher L. Dueringer
Direct: 310-576-2183
[NTC Retained]
BRYAN CAVE LLP
Suite 300
120 Broadway
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
JAMES E.PIETRANGELO, II
Amicus Curiae - Pending,
[COR NTC]
Firm: 802.33.0501
P.O. Box 548
Avon, OH 44011

7/9
Fax 1 310 260 4183
BY EMAIL: cldueringer@bryancave.com

2) SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK

Amicus Curiae,
William Hibsher, Partner
Direct: 212-541-1085
[NTC]
BRYAN CAVE LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
JAMES E. PIETRANGELO, II
Amicus Curiae - Pending,
J Pietrangelo II, Esquire
[COR NTC]
(see above)
Fax 1 212 541 1486
BY EMAIL: wjhibsher@bryancave.com

3) SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK

Chris LaRocco, Attorney
Amicus Curiae, Direct: 212-541-3163
[NTC]
BRYAN CAVE LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Fax 1 212 541 1343
BY EMAIL: chris.larocco@bryancave.com

4) LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.

Amicus Curiae,
Jon Davidson
Direct: 213-382-7600
[NTC]
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
Ste. 1300
3325 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1729
By Fax: 1-213-351-6050@myfax.com

5) THE PALM CENTER

Amicus Curiae,
Bridget Jeanne Wilson, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 619-232-8377
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Rosenstein, Wilson & Dean, P.L.C.
Suite 300
1910 First Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Fax: (619) 238-8376
BY EMAIL: bwilson@rwdlaw.com

6) SERVICEMEMBERS UNITED
Amicus Curiae,
Raven Sarnoff, Attorney
Direct: 213-536-4236
[NTC]

8/9
Sarnoff & Sarnoff, APLC
Firm: 213.536.4236
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4750
Los Angeles, CA 90017
BY EMAIL: dsarnoff@sarnofflaw.com

7) SERVICEMEMBERS UNITED
Amicus Curiae,
David Joshua Sarnoff, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 213-536-4236
[NTC]
Sarnoff + Sarnoff, APLC
Suite 4750
707 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
BY EMAIL: Rsarnoff@sarnofflaw.com

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January 23rd, 2011,

Joseph Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
[Proposed] Intervenor, In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
jz12345@earthlink.net

9/9