Human Rights Alert

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

11-05-24 Federal Election Commission (FEC) is asked to disregard Citizens United v Federal
Election Commission as Simulated Litigation
The FEC has never been served with a valid, signed, authenticated record of the US Supreme Court
Judgment, and such record has never been discovered yet. The records of US District Court in Washington
DC, in which the case originated, start with an invalid Summons, end with a Judgment that was not recorded
in the Judgment Index of the Court, with an ‘off the record’ proceeding in between.

Cynthia L. Bauerly
FEC Chair

Los Angeles, May 24 – in a letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Cynthia Bauerly, the
Commissioners, the Acting General Counsel, Acting Staff Director, and the Inspector General, the FEC was
asked:
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 ]
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (08-205) was reported as one of the landmark
decisions of the US Supreme Court. “[D]ecision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited
amounts of money in election campaigns… a stunning example of judicial activism…” [ii ]
However, based on review of US Supreme Court, US District Court, Washington DC, and FEC and US
Solicitor General FOIA-response records, the request 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 ]
• 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.
The requester, Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), has gained substantial experience in
examination of computerized records in large corporate and government systems. His opinions in such
matters have been supported by highly reputed fraud and computer science experts. Papers he has authored
on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in a computer-science journal and presented in international
computer-science and criminology conferences. [iv ]
Report, authored by him, 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... [v ]
z Page 2/2 May 24, 2011

The request was copied to Senator Dianne Feinstein.

LINKS
i
11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56145482/H
ii
0-01-21 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) at the Supreme Court of the United States - opinion of Prof
Chemerinsky and Wikipedia overview
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41364083/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
11-05-08 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/H
v
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