Digitally signed by

Human Rights Alert Joseph Zernik

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net email=jz12345@ea
rthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2011.05.24
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert 15:08:21 +03'00'

11-05-24 RE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for policy
statement by FEC
May 24, 2011
Cynthia L. Bauerly, Chair,
Caroline C. Hunter, Vice Chair,
Matthew S. Petersen, Commissioner,
Donald F. McGahn II, Commissioner,
Steven T. Walther, Commissioner,
Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner
Alec Palmer, Acting Staff Director
Christopher Hughey, Acting General Counsel
Lynne A. McFarland, Inspector General
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20463
By email and by fax:
director@fec.gov, oig@fec.gov,
12025018134@myfax.com
RE: Citizens United v FEC - Request for an FEC Policy Statement
Over the past decade I have gained substantial experience in examination of computerized records in large
corporate and government systems. My opinions in such matters have been supported by highly reputed fraud
and computer science experts. Papers I have authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in a
computer-science journal and presented in international computer-science and criminology conferences. [i ]
Report, authored by me, 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... [ii ]
Following review of US Supreme Court, US District Court, Washington DC, and FEC and US Solicitor
General FOIA-response records, I opined that Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805) in
the US Supreme Court and Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US
District Court, DC, were cases of Simulated Litigation. [ iii ]
To wit:
• No valid summons was ever issued or served on the FEC in the case in the US District Court, DC
• No Judgment is listed as entered in the Judgment Index of the case in the US District Court, DC
• No valid, duly signed and authenticated record of the Judgment of the US Supreme Court has
been discovered so far.
• There is no record to show that the Judgment of the US Supreme Court has ever been served by
the Clerk of the US Supreme Court on the FEC.
Please find detailed analysis of the records in this matter in the links below. [iv ]
Therefore, I write to request an FEC policy statement in this matter:
z Page 2/2 May 24, 2011

Why would the FEC not disregard the cases of Citizens United v FEC in the US District Court,
DC, (1-07-cv-2240) and in the US Supreme Court, (08-805), as matters that have never been
litigated and decided pursuant to the law of the United States?
I would appreciate your expedient response on this important matter by email to jz12345@earthlink.net.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
CC:
California Senator Dianne Feinstein
By fax: 12022283954@myfax.com
LINKS
i
11-05-08 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/H
ii
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".
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/H
iii
Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code; §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 document; or
(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.
iv
11-03-16 The Riddle of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States - Review and
Compiled Online Records
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50900898/H
11-05-10 Reply on FEC Response on FEC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, No. 2011-46, in re: February 22, 2010 Judgment in
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55053218/H
11-05-10 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission - Simulated Litigation in the US Supreme Court…
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55064366/H
11-05-17 Repeat Request for a Signed FEC FOIA Response No 2011-46, in re: valid February 22, 2010 Judgment record from the US
Supreme Court
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55610098/H
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…
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55613401/H
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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56048803/H
11-05-23 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in Simulated
Litigation
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56080106/H
11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in Simulated
Litigation
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56106686/H