This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 31440, Jerusalem email@example.com;
13-04-07 Simulated litigation practices in the US courts – protecting corrupt state judges
Whoever thought that judges can address their peers’ corruption, must be delusional… From online discussion group, original title – No judge in the US holds a lawful Oath of Office…
Corrupt California Judge (Ret) Jacqueline Connor – one of the leaders of the LA-JR (Los Angeles Judiciary Racket) - and former LAPD undercover narcotic officer Rafael Perez - key figures in the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000). On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:06:47 AM UTC+3, Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) wrote:
1) THE BIG PICTURE To make the story more complete, let me add the following: Corrupt California Judge Jacqueline Connor was one of the leaders of the LA-JR (Los Angeles Judiciary Racket). Her position as such was established in the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000): Before the scandal erupted, she had already been known as a Rampart Judge, for her close relationship with the undercover narcotic unit of the LAPD Rampart station. She was also known for her close friendship with Rafael Perez - later the key figure in the scandal (with Connor). When the scandal erupted, it was misrepresented as an LAPD corruption scandal. In fact, as pointed out by Erwin Chemerinky (then at USC) and by David Burcham (then Dean of Loyola Law School), the LA Superior Court judges were the crux of the corruption. * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)
* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Irvine Law School (2000) Once the scandal erupted, Connor appeared as the trial judge in the First Rampart Trial (2001). As such, she did her best to undermine the prosecution of 4 LAPD undercover narcotic officers, probably to save her own skin. When that did not work, and 3 were convicted by the jury, she overturned the jury conviction in her infamous ruling from home, on Friday night, just before Christmas. The reason - she claimed that she tainted the jury through her erroneous jury instructions - a brilliant fraud on the court! Another key figure in the scandal was then US Attorney for the Central District of California – Alejandro Majorkas (he too served on the board of Bet Tzedek – the Los Angeles “House of Justice” – a prominent Jewish charity and an affiliate of the Los Angeles Jewish Federation...). At the time he was considered a brilliant young legal talent... Majorkas permitted the LAPD the LA District Attorney, and the LA Superior Court to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate their own corruption... Last I checked Majorkas was Director of Citizenship Services... In the 1990s the main line of business of the LA-JR (LA Judiciary Racket) was in controlling the wholesale drug markets in Los Angeles. [1,2] I believe that such conduct started at least as early as the early 1980s, with CIA’s wholesale cocaine trafficking to Los Angeles under Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration. Effectively, under Reagan, through Iran-Contra, Los Angeles was established as an extra-constitutional zone.  At least by the late 1990s, the LA-JR branched into the more lucrative field of real estate and banking fraud through simulated litigation of such cases. The earliest such case that I could document started in 1998 – Galdjie v Darwish.  By the early 2000s, FBI reports distinguished LA County as "the epicenter of a real estate and mortgage fraud". I believe that it was the synergy between the LA Superior Court and LA County-based Countrywide that led to such distinction. I believe that it was also the reason for the exceptionally fast growth of Countrywide... Today, the practice is widespread in the state and US courts from coast to coast - key element, often overlooked in the current financial crisis. That is also the true reason that, as Eric Holder pointed out, banks cannot be criminally prosecuted in the US today. The case I documented in most details of simulated litigation in the current financial crisis is in SEC v Bank of America Corporation in the US District Court, Southern District of NY, under corrupt US Judge Jed Rakoff.  LINKS:
 12-06-08 Courts and Judges as racketeering enterprises under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) - key element in the current financial crisis http://www.scribd.com/doc/96504009/  10-10-15 Proposed Organizational Chart of the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket) s http://www.scribd.com/doc/39383792/  10-10-13 Extra Constitutional Zones - Excerpts From Discussion on the OAK Board http://www.scribd.com/doc/39302595/  Galdjie v Darwish - racketeering by judges and attorneys in Los Angeles County, California http://www.scribd.com/doc/26837352/  12-09-04 Zernik, J., "Design and Operation of the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts are Linked to Failing Banking Regulation", Data Analytics 1:83-93 (2012) http://thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=data_analytics_2012_3_50_60059
On Monday, April 8, 2013 1:07:31 AM UTC+3, Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) wrote:
2) MORE ON SIMULATED LITIGATION - WHEN SUING JUDGES FOR CORRUPTION I guess I still have not answered the question: What happens when you try to sue a judge that ran on you simulated litigation? Well, Richard Fine never did that, but I had done it, even before Richard Fine was arrested. So here it goes: In 2008 I filed complaint in the US District Court, Central District of California, under Zernik v Connor et al. Jacqueline Connor, first named defendant was a judge of the LA Superior Court, and one of the leading figures of the LA-JR (Los Angeles Judiciary Racket). Some 10 judges of the LA Superior Court, as well as the Clerk of the Court were named defendants under Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law. The conduct I was detailing amounted to racketeering, but after reading on the subject, I decided that filing a RICO complaint was above my head, and settled for the above cause of action. 1) No attorney would file such complaint The reason I had to do it pro se was that no attorney in Los Angeles agreed to help me, not even anonymously. Some of them had strange explanation, why it should not be done. Others simply explained that it was too dangerous for them... 2) Summonses The case started with the corrupt office of the Clerk of the US District Court, Central District of California Terry Nafisi refusing to issue me summonses.
Two emergency petitions, filed with the corrupt 9th Circuit, to compel the office of the US District Court to issue the summonses, were summarily denied with no explanation at all. 3) First amendment right to file papers in court In parallel, the office of the clerk of the US District Court, Central District of California, denied me the right to file any papers, which included evidence of the corruption of the LA Superior Court. That included, for example, an opinion letter by probably the best fraud expert in the US - retired FBI agent James Wedick, who amazingly agreed to issue an opinion letter on the subject. Wedick had been decorated by US Attorney General, by FBI Director, and by US Congress for his achievements in law enforcement - he was key figure in Abscam...  Wedick’s letter specifically referred to conduct of David Pasternak, former President of the LA Bar Association, and former President of Bet Tzedek. The clerk of the US District Court issued on all such papers perverted "Discrepancy Notices."  Moreover, the clerk explained to me that he was doing so at the explicit instruction of corrupt US Magistrate Carla Woehrle. She was the same one who later perverted Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition. Later, I tried it again in the US District Court, Washington DC, with a little different approach. In Zernik v Melson et al I sued Fast and Furious Kenneth Melson (US DOJ) and Kenneth Kaiser (FBI Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations) in a petition to Compel a US Officer to Perform His Duties. I asked for Equal Protection of the 10 million people of LA County against the LA-JR. Corrupt US Judge Richard Leon took the same approach as Woehrle, with a slightly different bent: All my papers that included evidence of judicial corruption were returned with the hand inscription "Leave to File Denied" on their faces, signed by Richard Leon. Bill Windsor's experience with Judge Richard Leon was exactly the same.  3) Appearance of unauthorized attorneys with "no communication with client" clause Another key element of simulated litigation in cases of this kind, and also in cases involving banksters, is the appearance on behalf of the defendants of attorneys with no authorization by the clients and with "no communication with client" clause. This part of the routine was best described by US Bankruptcy Court, Texas, Jeff Boehm in early 2008, in a case involving Countrywide, where Sandor Samuels (President of Bet Tzedek) was Chief Legal Officer at the time.  It is a standard procedure in many or most foreclosure and similar litigation cases involving the banks. You would not find in such cases any paper that is signed by the client (e.g. no declaration or affidavit by an officer of the bank), or even any paper that was derived from the client. The attorneys for the banks would work strictly from records he or she obtained from public databases.
In cases involving judges, it is even simpler... The attorney is not even hired by the defendants. Instead the attorney is hired by the California Judicial Council. The perversion of the process here is in issuing deliberately false authorization letter to the respective attorney. I best documented it in the case of Richard Fine. The case was Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County. But in response to requests to the California Judicial Council, they insisted in calling the case Fine v Sheriff of the Court...  4) Issuing of unauthenticated orders and judgments in the US District Courts As is the case in the LA Superior Court, key element of simulated litigation in the US courts is the issuance of unauthenticated orders and judgments. However, due to the differences between the electronic record systems of the LA Superior Court (Sustain) and the systems of the US courts (PACER and CM/ECF), the records look differently. In the US District Courts, issuing unauthenticated orders and judgments comes as orders and judgments, accompanied by NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing), which is missing the "Electronic Document Stamp", which is the fraudulent way that electronic signatures were implemented in these systems. In such cases, papers, which were electronically filed by parties to the case may be authenticated by an NEF bearing the "electronic document stamp", but none of the minutes, orders, or judgments would bear that stamp.  Summary The above is only a short summary of the highlights of simulated litigation practices. Anyone, who is seriously interested in the subject, should review the more detailed Motion to Intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) in the Supreme Court  Because of the extensive documentation, I consider the case of Richard Fine a historic landmark case. It documented the operation in concert of the following fraudulent electronic record systems: 1) LA Superior Court - SUSTAIN 2) Sheriff of Los Angeles - INMATE INFORMATION CENTER 3) US District Courts - PACER & CM/ECF I 4) US Courts of Appeals - PACER & CM/ECF II 5) US Supreme Court - UNNAMED LINKS:  07-12-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) David Pasternak: Grant Deeds in re: 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, opined as fraud by James Wedick http://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/ 08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide Dr Zernik protection against real estate fraud - corruption in Los Angeles County courts http://he.scribd.com/doc/29713733/  09-04-09 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #105: Compiled Records of Perverted Discrepancy Notices http://www.scribd.com/doc/39773867/
 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC – master of the “Leave to file denied” http://www.scribd.com/doc/56612919/  08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme - appearances by counsel who are not Counsel of Record, with "no communications with clients" clause: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/  10-03-19b Richard Fine: Dr Zernik - Mr Carrizosa's Correspondence on behalf of the California Judicial Council in re: Case Caption in engagement of Attorney McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) http://www.scribd.com/doc/28645522/  10-01-01 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - CM/ECF - Table Summary of NEFs in Zernik v Connor, based on copies provided by Clerk on December 29, 2009 http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681397/  10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik, with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/ 10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/ 10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/ 10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/ 10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/ 10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Dr Zernik's Motion to Intervene 5 Amended Appendices s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/ 10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendix IX b: Zernik's Declaration in re: April 16, 2010 search for records in the Courts microfilm judgments archive s http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/ 10-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - Dr Zernik's Declaration RE: Court Counsel Danny Bickell and Filing at US Supreme Court http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430464/
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:56 PM, JZ wrote:
3) Answer: Why did Richard Fine not sue the corrupt California Judge David Yaffe Are you serious? You must be kidding... By the time Richard Fine's habeas corpus was denied by the full conference of the Supreme Court (prior to that, Justice Kennedy ran on him simulated denial of his petition - search in the Supreme Court failed to reveal any valid record of that decision...), Fine concluded that the US justice system is corrupted from top to bottom. From prison, he called on the people to take action.
When Fine came out of the 18 months of solitary confinement (considered by the UN torture), he was silent for a couple of years. Recently (March 2013) he lectured in a local law school, and you can hear for yourself what he thinks today (see links below). However, you should assume that he is partly muted, out of fear of further reprisal (see below). In general, it is practically impossible to reverse simulated decisions or judgments. The higher courts have jurisdiction to review only valid judgments and orders of the lower courts, not simulated judgments and orders. That is one reason that corrupt judges prefer simulated orders and judgments to true ones... (beyond the "avoidance of cognitive dissonance, previously mentioned). For example, when Fine filed his habeas corpus petition to the corrupt 9th Circuit, he filed it from uncertified judgment. The corrupt clerk of the US District Court refused to certify (a cardinal sign on simulated court decision), and the 9th circuit agreed to only hear his arguments against the "not permitted" payments received by the judges, not the habeas corpus petition per se... (and then they promptly denied the petition). In general, I believe that the clerks feel that it is none of their business, as long as there is no signature of a clerk anywhere in a simulated litigation... I myself filed a Motion to Intervene in Fine's cases in the corrupt 9th Circuit. Therefore, I was served with the 9th papers, unsigned and unauthenticated, including a simulated decision by the corrupt Alex Kozinski. Corrupt Clerk of the 9th Circuit Molly Dwyer refused to certify the decisions or the docket in the case. I also filed a Motion to Intervene in Fine's case in SCOTUS, only to have it "Returned" by the corrupt "SCOTUS Counsel" Danny Bickell (not by a Clerk!). Back to the Israeli courts, which adopted the same type of corruption over the past decade, with help from IBM, EDS): The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN Human Rights Council was titled "Integrity, or lack thereof in the electronic records of the courts of the State of Israel". The subtitle was "A court that refuses to certify its own decisions, is certified corrupt!". By that I mean, any decision of a court (originating from English common law), which comes with no signed authentication record from the office of the clerk, and which the clerk of the court refuses to certify "True copy of the original", should be deemed simulated court order. The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated into the 2013 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) report of the UN on Israel with a note referring "Lack of
integrity in the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel" (which naturally made me a darling here...). The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN regarding the United States was in part based on detailed description of the fraud in Sustain - the electronic record system of the LA Superior Court, and the case of Richard Fine, as part of a series of similar simulated cases (I focused on real estate fraud by judges, attorneys and banksters on the one hand, and false imprisonment cases on the other). The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated into the UN 2010 UPR report of the UN on the United States with a note referring to "Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California." A few days before the deadline for submission, there was an attempt to trap me by the US Marshals "District Threat Unit", which I avoided. And a few days after the submission deadline, according to my neighbors, US Marshal came with guns, and looked eager to shoot. I immediately escaped from the United States. (needless to say, in my writing online I repeatedly emphasized that I am opposed to violence in principle, and that I am unarmed, although I am well trained in using weapons of various kinds.) As of January 2013, the US is refusing to permit me to renounce citizenship, probably to keep some claim of jurisdiction over me outside the US, in case they manage to trap me. In general, I believe that those, who wish to fix the widespread corruption of the state and US courts, should focus much more on corruption of the clerks. And the simplest test of any bizarre order or judgment that you get is to ask the clerk to certify it "True Copy of the Original". If you cannot get that, you can rest assured that what you got is a simulated legal record, nothing more. LINKS:  Richard I. FINE - part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ySsQlhJiitI&list=UUxl2DR yoAJdd0kFz2z_E5dQ  Richard I FINE - Speaks out - part 2 Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itW4zuyrl4w&list=UUxl2DRyoAJdd0kFz2z_E5d Q&index=4  Richard Fine - Speaks against Bribe taking L.A. Judges - part 3 Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NmtXgAsJJ8&list=UUxl2DRyoAJdd0kFz2z_E5dQ
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Bob Hurt wrote:
4) Question: Why did Richard Fine not sue the corrupt California Judge David Yaffe Well, then why hasn't Fine sued the sheriff and judge for violation of ministerial duties?
On 4/5/2013 8:20 PM, JZ wrote:
5) Simulated litigation practices – key to understanding the US justice system today. It all goes back to the simulation of legal process. A judge that has no Oath of Office, particularly in Texas, and issued an order as you described, which was served on the individual, should be deemed as engaged in simulating legal process. By Texas Penal Code, that is a criminal offence.  Moreover, a judge that engaged in such conduct, should be deemed void of any judicial immunity - he was not engaged in judicial conduct at all... Was the judge ever prosecuted??? Of court not! A counter example is in the case of Richard Fine. Corrupt California Judge David Yaffe was running on him a simulated litigation with no valid legal records. Eventually, Yaffe issued on Richard Fine a simulated order with monetary penalty for "Contempt". Richard Fine, and experienced by old attorney, had no idea that the papers were not valid under the electronic system of the LA Superior Court (Sustain). However, Richard Fine fully realized that the process was simulated, when Judge Yaffe ordered him to appear before a Commissioner, purportedly as Debt Examiner, who had no Appointment Order, as required by California law. Eventually, on March 4, 2009, Judge David Yaffe issued a simulated Judgment of Contempt on Richard Fine, for refusing to answer to the Commissioner. The Judgment of Contempt, issued on March 4, 2009 was dated March 24, 2009, and never entered as required by California Civil Procedure section 664 to be "effectual for any purpose", was never served on Richard Fine, and was never authenticated by the Clerk of the Court. And Sheriff Lee Baca immediately took Richard Fine on March 4, 2009, from the LA Superior Court to solitary confinement for 18 months in the LA County jail. However, in the absence of valid records for the imprisonment, the Sheriff registered Fine as arrested and booked on location and by authority of the Municipal Court of San Pedro, which does not exist. And obviously, Richard Fine never appeared before the "Municipal Court of San Pedro". Was Judge David Yaffe or Sheriff Lee Baca ever prosecuted for such conduct? Of course not! In short: all the laws in the book are of no value when the justice system, judges, clerks, sheriffs are thoroughly corrupt. JZ LINKS:  Texas Penal Code - Section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
§ 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. (c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document: (1) states that it is not legal process; or (2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or authorize the document. (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a). (e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. (f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, § 3, eff. May 21, 1997.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Bob Hurt wrote:
6) Conduct of judges with no lawful Oath of Office Well, I guess that would mean 4 USC 101 and 102 govern Texas and the other oathless states. Unfortunately those USC sections have no accompanying penalty provisions, so how shall the people penalize state officers who refuse to swear the oath? You might this instructive: Prieto Bail Bonds v State of Texas, 994 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999), attached. At trial the appointed Senior Judge, Woodward, ordered Prieto to forfeit his bond because the Mexican defendant had runnoft to Mexico. Prieto discovered the judge had not sworn the oaths required in Texas Constitution Article XVI Section 1 (enacted 1989) and timely objected to the forfeiture order. Woodward claimed he had de facto officer status in spite of the missing oath (and
made numerous other specious, failing arguments). The Supremes in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, disagreed, saying appointed senior judges must swear a new oath each term, that Woodward had no such oath on record, and that Woodward had issued the bond forfeiture order without authority. They reversed Woodward's ruling, and ruled in favor of Prieto. Prieto got his money back as Woodward gritted his teeth down to mere nubs. Vive le Texas Loyalty Oath. Bob Hurt
On 4/1/2013 2:10 PM, Dessie Andrews wrote:
7) Judges with no lawful Oath of Office The oath,(not this particular one), is in the U.S.Constitution, Art. VI, clause 3, and enumerated at 1 Stat 23, and again at 4 U.S.C. 101 and 102. About half of the States have an oath that includes the mandatory oath, and the rest, no oath. Texas has no such oath to support the Constitution of the U.S., and the language is not discretionary. to wit:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Arnie wrote:
8) Judges with no lawful Oath of Office Jon, Where is precedent law supported in the organic Constitution? Arnie
Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job! firstname.lastname@example.org 714-964-4056 714-501-8247 - mobile
On Apr 1, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Jon Roland wrote:
9) Judges with no lawful Oath of Office Oath provisions that deny affiliation or support for the Communist Party were struck down by the Supreme Court in Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961). Since then such language has been omitted from them, although the statutory requirement may still be on the books in some jurisdictions. -- Jon
---------------------------------------------------------Constitution Society http://constitution.org 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 email@example.com ----------------------------------------------------------
me (Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) change) 10) Judges and courts as racketeering enterprises And my favorite (and this is an old one):
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:45:26 PM UTC+3, Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) wrote:
11) Some pictorials:
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:31:13 PM UTC+3, Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO) wrote:
12) Kleptocrats Kleptocrats(s) is derived from Kleptocracy. I consider the Meriam Webster definition below deficient and euphemistic, since they failed to explicitly relate it to stealing from the People by Kleptocratic governments. See, in contrast, the definition for Kleptomania: klep·to·ma·nia noun \ˌklep-tə-ˈmā-nē-ə, -nyə\ : a persistent neurotic impulse to steal especially without economic motive
noun \klep-ɑtä-krə-sē\ plural klep·toc·ra·cies Definition of KLEPTOCRACY
: government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind
— klep·to·crat noun — klep·to·crat·ic adjective First Known Use of KLEPTOCRACY
Other Government and Politics Terms
agent provocateur, agitprop, autarky, cabal, egalitarianism, federalism, hegemony, plenipotentiary, sovereignty, socialism
Next Word in the Dictionary: kleptomania Previous Word in the Dictionary: kleptoAll Words Near: kleptocracy
12-06-08 Courts and Judges as racketeering enterprises under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) - key element in the current financial crisis http://www.scribd.com/doc/96504009/  11-02-03 Stealing from the People: Corruption in the United States; the Big Feast: Banker, Judge, Civil Servant http://www.scribd.com/doc/48090911/  02-01-00 Stealing From the People: Corruption in Indonesia; Book 2: The Big Feast Soldier, Judge, Banker, Civil Servant; Edited by Richard Holloway http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110315/
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Arnie wrote:
13) Kleptocrats Thank you kindly. And please define exactly who you mean by the term: Kleptocrats Arnie Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job! firstname.lastname@example.org 714-964-4056 714-501-8247 - mobile
On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:56 PM, JZ <email@example.com> wrote:
14) Kleptocrats The Kleptocrats! Haven't you noticed what is going on?
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Arnie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
15) So who’s in control? If all clerks offices are vacant and all elected officials offices are vacant on what basis is the business of the people being conducted? and... perhaps, even more importantly, by whom? Arnie Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:35 PM, JZ <email@example.com> wrote:
16) What about the clerks? How about lawful appointment records for any of the clerks of the US and state courts? Absent honest office of the Clerk of the Court, there is no Due Process. Jz
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Dessie Andrews wrote:
17) The US Constitution and Oath of Office The oath,(not this particular one), is in the U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, clause 3, and enumerated at 1 Stat 23, and again at 4 U.S.C. 101 and 102. About half of the States have an oath that includes the mandatory oath, and the rest, no oath. Texas has no
such oath to support the Constitution of the U.S., and the language is not discretionary. to wit:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Arnie wrote:
18) The US Constitution and Oath of Office Jon, Where is precedent law supported in the organic Constitution? Arnie Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
On Apr 1, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Jon Roland <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
19) The US Constitution and Oath of Office Oath provisions that deny affiliation or support for the Communist Party were struck down by the Supreme Court in Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961). Since then such language has been omitted from them, although the statutory requirement may still be on the books in some jurisdictions. -- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------Constitution Society http://constitution.org 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 email@example.com ----------------------------------------------------------