Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-03-11 PRESS RELEASE: Ex Parte Receivership over the Person and Property of Defendant Jeffrey Baron –racketeering in the US District Court in Texas is patronized by the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

12-03-11 PRESS RELEASE: Ex Parte Receivership over the Person and Property of Defendant Jeffrey Baron –racketeering in the US District Court in Texas is patronized by the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

Ratings: (0)|Views: 111|Likes:
In a litigation, which was commenced with the issuance of fraudulent, invalid summons, Judge ROYAL FERGUSON is presiding since May 2009 with no Assignment Order. Following dispute over attorneys fees, ROYAL FERGUSON purported to establish in November 2010 an “Ex Parte Receiver over the Person and Property” of Defendant Jeffrey Baron with no foundation in the law, akin to slavery. Regardless of multiple filings with the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Circuit Judges permitted such corruption to stand. Such conduct should be deemed extra-judicial conduct, which is not protected by any judicial immunity.
Widespread corruption in receiverships was previously documented also in the State of California courts.
Unless corruption of the courts and the legal profession is thoroughly addressed, it is unlikely that the United States will emerge from the current financial and constitutional crisis.
In a litigation, which was commenced with the issuance of fraudulent, invalid summons, Judge ROYAL FERGUSON is presiding since May 2009 with no Assignment Order. Following dispute over attorneys fees, ROYAL FERGUSON purported to establish in November 2010 an “Ex Parte Receiver over the Person and Property” of Defendant Jeffrey Baron with no foundation in the law, akin to slavery. Regardless of multiple filings with the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Circuit Judges permitted such corruption to stand. Such conduct should be deemed extra-judicial conduct, which is not protected by any judicial immunity.
Widespread corruption in receiverships was previously documented also in the State of California courts.
Unless corruption of the courts and the legal profession is thoroughly addressed, it is unlikely that the United States will emerge from the current financial and constitutional crisis.

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Mar 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Human Rights Alert 
2231 S Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
Blog:
 Scribd: 
12-03-11 Ex Parte Receivership over the Person and Property of Defendant JeffreyBaron –racketeering in the US District Court in Texas is patronized by the USCourt of Appeals, 5
th
Circuit.
[
i
]
 
In a litigation, which was commenced with the issuance of fraudulent, invalid summons, Judge ROYALFERGUSON is presiding since May 2009 with no Assignment Order. Following dispute over attorneys fees,ROYAL FERGUSON purported to establish in November 2010 an “Ex Parte Receiver over the Person and Property” of Defendant Jeffrey Baron with no foundation in the law, akin to slavery. Regardless of multiple filings with the US Court of Appeals, 5 
th 
Circuit, Circuit Judges permitted such corruption to stand. Such conduct should be deemed extra-judicial conduct, which is not protected by any judicial immunity.Widespread corruption in receiverships was previously documented also in the State of California courts.Unless corruption of the courts and the legal profession is thoroughly addressed, it is unlikely that the United States will emerge from the current financial and constitutional crisis.
US District Court, Northern District of Texas:
Judge Royal Furgeson, Clerk of
 
the Court KAREN MITCHELL;
US Court of Appeals, 5
th
Circuit:
Judge
Patrick Higginbotham, JERRY E SMITH, CATHARINA HAYNES, Clerk of theCourt LYLE W CAYCE.
View as PDF:
Fraudulent, invalid electronic record systems (PACER and CM/ECF), implemented by the US courts,enable the routine conduct of simulated litigation.
The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented over the past decades electronic recordssystems in the US courts:
PACER – for Public Access Court Electronic Records, and
CM/ECF – for Case Management and Electronic Court Filing.In implementing the systems, the US Courts introduced a sea change in the mechanics of filing andauthentication of courts records. However, the US Courtshave never published new rules of courts in thismatter, neither has the US Congress enacted such rules.
[
]
Key defects in the systems pertain to:- Failure to define the nature of digital signatures;- Failure to define the nature of authentication record, and- Universal denial of public access to the authentication records, often even to parties in their own cases.
 
Page 2/8 March 11, 2012
With it, the systems enable to conduct simulated litigation, while projecting the appearance of normal courtconduct. Such corrupt practices have been previously documented in the US courts from coast to coast,reflecting widespread corruption of judges, clerks, and attorneys.Regardless, the case of Jeffrey Baron is unique in flaunting the corruption.
 Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al 
(3:09-cv-00988) in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas:Simulated litigation, coordinated by the Plaintiffs and others with the Court, in advance of filing thecomplaint. [
]
The complaint, filed in May 2009, originated in a contract dispute.Review of the records of the US District Court in this case shows:- Fraudulent summonses were issuedby the Office of the Clerk KAREN MITCHELL – with no seal of the court, as required by US law.
[
]
 - Judge ROYAL FURGESON appears in the case with no Assignment Order at al.
[
v
]
 - The purported Receiver, Attorney PETER VOGEL, was appointed in November 2010 through an exparte “Emergency motion for Appointment of Receiver over Jeffrey Baron”
[
]
 - The fraudulent Order Appointing Receiver fails to stateany section of the US code as the legalfoundation for the appointment of a receiver in this case.
[
]
 - The fraudulent Order Appointing Receiver purported to give him authority over the Person and Assetsof Defendant Jeff Baron. The notion itself is akin to slavery.- Numerous “Motions”, “Minutes”, “Orders”, and “Clerk’s Notices of Delivery” in this case werenoted “entered” in the docket of this case with no docket numbers, and/or with no hyperlinks to anyelectronic records. Such docket notes are opined as fraud on the court.- Search of the Calendar of the Court for January 1, 1970 to March 11, 2012, showed “No ScheduleFound”.This case is now nearing its fourth year, with no end in site. The Civil Cover Sheet notes the original Demandof $75,000. However, by now, Judge ROYAL FURGESON and others, have seized the multimillion dollarscorporations controlled by the Defendant, with no legal foundation at all, while intimidating him under thethreat of force, unlawful, but credible.The case as a whole should be deemed simulated litigation, extortion and racketeering by Judge ROYAL
 
FURGESON, Clerk of the Court KAREN MITCHELL, Attorney PETER VOGEL and others involved in thecase. Conduct of Judge ROYAL FURGESON in this case should be deemed extra-judicial activity, andtherefore, with no judicial immunity at all.
 
Upon review of the records, a reasonable person would conclude that the criminal scheme in this case wascoordinated by the Plaintiffs Judge ROYAL FURGESON, Clerk of the Court KAREN MITCHELL,Attorney PETER VOGEL, and others in advance of filing the complaint.
 
Page 3/8 March 11, 2012
Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al 
(3:09-cv-00988) in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas: False docket notes with nodocket numbers and/or with no hyperlinks to records.
 Netsphere Inc, et al v Jeffrey Baron
(10-1120) in the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit: Thecorruption in the US District Court is permitted to continue unbridled, to this date. [
]
Numerous filings with the US Court of Appeals, 5
th
Circuit, did not put an end to the alleged racketeering inthe US District Court in Texas.Appeal from the Ex Parte Order Appointing Receiver was filed on December 3, 2010, and continues to thisdate. The docket of the US Court of Appeals notes numerous other related filings.
[
]
 The US Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over simulated orders and judgments of the US District Court.Therefore, all such cases in the US Court of Appeals, are opined as fraud on the court as well.Regarding District Judge ROYAL FURGESON, who pretends to appear as Presiding Judge inthe case,papers filed in the US Court of Appeals by the Defendant quote the from official transcripts:
[
x
]
 
-
THE COURT: You realize that order is an order of the Court. So any failure to comply with that order iscontempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death.
-
THE COURT: They do and I have jurisdiction, too. So I'll tell you what.... You want to challenge the court order, Ihave the marshals behind me. I can come to your house, pick you up, put you in jail. I can seize your property,do anything I need to do to enforce my orders. I'm telling you don't screw with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool,a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don't understand that, I can make you understand it. I have theforce of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me.
 Regarding Attorney PETER VOGEL, who pretends to appear as Receiver both in the District Court and in theCourt of Appeals, papers filed in the US Court of Appeals by the Defendant note:
[
]
 
-
“Attorney Peter Vogel is a colleague of the district judge and the two blog together on Karl Bayer’s blog site.”
-
“Peter Vogel, at this minute, is marching forward, billing daily in a billing frenzy, at a rate of almost $10,000.00per day.”
-
“Peter Vogel and his law firm were adverse to Jeff Baron– literally specialists in suing him (and Ondova). Theyapparently developed this specialty in violation of their ethical duties – after acquiring attorney-client confidentialmaterial Jeff Baron disclosed to Peter Vogel in 2001.”
Regardless, the US Court of Appeals continues to patronize the conduct of the US District Court in this case:
 
On December 8, 2010, Circuit Judges PATRICK HIGGINBOTHAM, JERRY E SMITH, andCATHARINA HAYNES, denied Baron’s initial Motion for Stay pending Appeal, in an unsigned order,which bears no stamp of the Clerk of the Court.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->