This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2010.01.23 00:30:09 -08'00'
FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010
10-01-22 Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-00160) in Brattleboro, Vermont, and Fine v Sheriff (2:08-cv-01914) in Los Angeles, California: Willful misconduct of US District Courts from coast to coast as key to dysfunctional banking regulation
Scott Huminski_ _
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:44:35 -0800 To: "Central Banks, Analysis Departments, Basel Accords Committee, US agencies, Law School Faculty, NGOs, and others" From: joseph zernik Subject: Fwd: Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-00160) in Brattleboro, Vermont, and Fine v Sheriff (2:08-cv-01914) in Los Angeles, California: Willful misconduct of US District Courts from coast to coast as key to dysfunctional banking regulation
Not third grade level!
At 23:17 on 1/22/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:17:31 -0800 To: scott huminski From: joseph zernik Subject: Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-00160) in Brattleboro, Vermont, and Fine v Sheriff(2:08-cv-01914) in Los Angeles, California - willful misconduct of US District Courts as key to dysfunctional banking regulation Hi Scott: The transactions we are witnessing today in Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-00160) in Brattleboro, Vermont - a First Amendment case, and Fine v Sheriff (2:08-cv-01914) in Los Angeles, California - a Habeas Corpus Petition, provide additional evidence for my allegations of large-scale fraud in operation PACER & CM/ECF - the case management systems (CMSs) of the United States courts. It was further alleged, that such widespread misconduct of the courts was at the foundation of the current crisis. There simply is no way to exert honest banking regulation on the foundation of fraudulent conduct at the US courts from coast to coast. The remedy must include publiclyaccountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of CMSs in the courts, in prisons, in public corporations and in financial institutions.
January 23, 2010
The failing of the US District Court, Brattleboro, Vermont, to enter, or reject entry, of my Ex Parte Application  in Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-00160), a landmark case in re: First Amendment rights, was no surprise at all. In fact, it was predicted in my previous emails to you, copied below... Please also notice the extra precautions in my proof of service. The mailing to the Vermont clerk, alone of all parties, was by certified, restricted, return receipt USPS mail. Furthermore, the certificate of service included a URL for an online, digitally signed, dated, and time-stamped copy of the paper, so that the there would be a public proof, in case the court adulterated my paper, which had often happened in the past. Have you ever checked the "Related Transactions Report", or the "Docketing Activity Report" in PACER in your cases at the US courts? These are two of the remaining publicly-accessible safeguards for integrity of the dockets at the US courts, where available. Not all US courts permit pubic access to these reports either. For example, the US District Court, Los Angeles denies public access to the "Docket Activity Report" with no legal foundation at all for such denial of access. Review of such reports and CM/ECF manuals, would show that there is no way to enter your opposition  to my ex parte application in an honest, valid, and effectual manner, if my ex parte application had never been entered in the docket in the first place. In fact, if your opposition would be entered without entering my ex parte application first, it would be a good documentation of the fraud in operation of PACER & CM/ECF at the US District Court, Vermont, which is what my ex parte application set out to accomplish in the first place. Please notice me, in case the US District Court, Vermont, responds on your opposition with an NEF, a notice of discrepancy, or any other notice that would either accept or reject the entry of your paper. I would likewise expediently keep you posted if I ever get any communications regarding acceptance or rejection of my ex parte application. None of the multiple US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals that I have examined had any local rules of courts providing permission for clerks and/or judges to have paper vanish - eliminate papers from court dockets at will. Likewise, none had local rules permitting the listing of false and deliberately misleading items in the online PACER dockets, which appeared to PACER users as entered, when in fact, CM/ECF users could tell that such items were not entered at all. However, all US courts that I examined engaged in such practices. Regarding my vanishing papers, I assume that judges and clerks misguidedly believed that they were authorized to do so, since my papers were deemed by them "scandalous". However, they should have documented through a lawful procedure, that a paper was filed, but was eliminated from the docket on such grounds, or any other grounds that they found to permit their conduct. Furthermore, if you survey the PACER dockets in the various US courts, you would soon realize that even papers that were initially "docketed" were later removed in certain PACER dockets, with no sealing order, or any justification at all. In some cases, I found dockets in PACER , where particular records were removed from the PACER dockets, with a note - "Available in person at the clerk's office only". Such practice as found, for example, in records allegedly documenting racketeering in the courts across the US by Countrywide/Bank of America Corporation. Again - there was never any legal foundation for such practice by US judges and/or clerks. Keeping honest dockets is fundamental to numerous Human Rights in ratified International Law, it is also fundamental for First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendment rights in US Law. Likewise, it is also fundamental for honest banking regulation. Such concepts were well established for generations in the Paper Era.
January 23, 2010
My ex parte application in Huminski v Corsones was also served on Richard Fine, falsely hospitalized in Los Angeles since March 10, 2010. In a way, your abused docket in Huminski v Corsones and his abused docket in the habeas corpus petition - Fine v Sheriff - were linked through this filing, which alleged willful misconduct of the US courts from coast to coast through operation of PACER & CM/ECF. My filing in Huminski v Corsones also served to inform Richard Fine in jail, regarding the scope of the alleged fraud in the conduct of the US courts today. Fine started his journey as a believer in the US justice system - in contrast with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, whose widespread corruption he had documented, exposed, and rebuked. Richard Fine's case is yet additional support for my claims of the central role of case management systems (CMSs), such as PACER & CM/ECF in the deterioration of the US justice system in the digital era. Richard Fine had served as a US Prosecutor. He was a highly accomplished attorney. Therefore, his faith in the US justice system had to reflect his own experience as an insider over a number of years in the Anti-trust Division of the US Dept of Justice. However, his experience there was during the Paper Era, while his current abuse and wrongful hospitalization, sanctioned by the US District Court, Los Angeles, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, albeit - through fraudulent court papers - Kozinski Frauds - was exerted in the Digital Era. Finally - his story demonstrated that even a former US Prosecutor and highly accomplished attorney, had never figured out the fraud perpetrated on him through a quartet of CMSs in LA County and beyond: a) LA Superior Court - SUSTAIN b) Sheriff Department - INMATE INFORMATION CENTER c) US District Court, LA - PACER & CM/ECF platform, US District Court, LA version d) US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - PACER & CM/ECF platform, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit verion. Court records of Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-00160) and Fine v Sheriff (2:08-cv-01914) documented willful misconduct of US District Courts from coast to coast in PACER & CM/ECF. The remedy must include publiclyaccountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of CMSs in the courts, in prisons, in public corporations and in financial institutions. The current US crisis is not a financial/ economic crisis per se, but an integrity crisis - similar to previous depressions, including, but not limited to the Great Depression that started in 1929, and which did not end in fact until WWII. If no attempt is made to remedy the underlying integrity failure, the US should be ready for a prolonged economic depression. Truly,
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron, Coming soon- deep house music! http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
January 23, 2010
for-Leave-to-File-and-Request-not-to-serve-sham-court-orders-on-Pro-Se-Plaintiff-Humins  http://www.scribd.com/doc/25562464/10-01-18-Huminski-v-Corsones-1-99-cv-00160-Huminski-sOpposition-to-Zernik-s-Ex-Parte-s At 16:17 AM 1/22/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:17:40 -0800 To: scott huminski From: joseph zernik Subject: Re: Your filing Scott: For this discussion purpose I define the following terms: FILED - designates the fact that a paper was conveyed by a party who is either the court itself, or an outside the court party, into possession of the clerk of the court. ENTERED - designates the fact that the paper was reviewed by the clerk of the court and was found valid on its face: I.E: case caption, case number, court's name, judge's name, party designations, signature of filer on brief and declarations, if any, and if outside the court party - valid proof of service. Thereafter, if paper was by the court - the clerk issues a certificate of mailing and notice of entry. Once done - the paper was incorporated into a particular case file of the court, and therefore, became part of the "Court Filings" - i.e. public records of the respective case. I consider these terms the critical terms, and their interpretations by the various courts relative to the implementation of computer systems is the core of the fraud in the various courts' computer systems that I checked. In the Paper Era it was relatively simple: FILED: The paper came into possession of the clerk, and he stamped it FILED with date and hand signature. The filer got a copy stamped "CONFORMED" or "ORIGINAL FILED", etc. ENTERED: The clerk physically entered the paper into the respective court file, and stamped it "ENTERED" and endorsed it with date and hand signature. In parallel, the clerk would note it in the paper docket. In the Digital Era, particularly in PACER & CM/ECF, the whole issue was entirely perverted. For example - an attorney can "ENTER" a paper into the digital court file and the docket, with no action required by the clerk. That is in fact the key issue that I consider had to be defined by law or by Rules of Court, but was never done that way. In contrast, a Pro Se, has to mail it to the clerk, and the clerk is supposed to then affect the electronic filing. In both cases, the end result of electronic filing is a valid Entry only if a valid NEF was issued by the system, bearing a valid RSA-encrypted digital signature. In the case of filing by attorneys, in cases that I have inspected, it is automatic. If the attorney went through
January 23, 2010
the menus, and did the electronic filing correctly, the NEF is issued instantaneously, and the paper is "Entered". In case of filing by the clerk, I concluded that at some point in the process the clerks have the option of completing it as either "True Entry" or "Fake Entry", it is not clear to me what the menu options available to the clerks are. However, I provided the Clerk of the Court in Los Angeles samples of the two types of entry by clerks, and requested an explanation... That is what they are "researching" for months now - in fact refusing to respond on. A related key issue is that in the Paper Era, the stamps always had the name of the Clerk of the Court in one place or another, and the filing and entry were by his/her authority, delegated to a Deputy Clerk appointed by the Clerk. There was a very clear legal chain of accountability. In PACER & CM/ECF you cannot find any mention of any clerk's name whatsoever. Through implementation of PACER & CM/ECF, they entirely eliminated this critical "checks and balances" mechanism, which evolved over centuries specifically as a safeguard for integrity of the courts against corrupt judges (in part - since the clerks have no judicial immunity comparable to judges). Therefore, my second question to the Clerk of the Court in Los Angeles, which she refuses to respond to, is whether the dockets in the cases that were subject of the requests were dockets, which were constructed by authority of the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to US law. You cannot get any more basic than that. Refusal to respond on these questions was interpreted by me as "Taking the Fifth". 1) Have you received an NEF from the clerk in response to your filing? If not - your paper was never truly entered. The NEF, when bearing a valid RSA-encrypted digital signature is today's equivalent of the clerk hand-endorsing the "ENTERED" stamp on the paper, in contrast with the stamp "FILED". 2) I surely never got an NEF from the court. Therefore, my paper surely was never entered. 3) Have you checked the "Related Transactions Report" and the "Docket Activity Report"? You paper must be listed as an opposition to mine, and adjudication of the matter, must be listed as termination an "Open Status" that was supposed to be created by the entry of my ex parte application. One common way that fraud and deceit is perpetrated in conjunction with Kozinski Fraud, is by listing the motions as "Misc". That way, from court's perspective, no "Open Status" was created. Therefore, there is no need for true adjudication. Therefore, when the court issues a void order as Kozinski Fraud, the court is not left with an "Open Status" that was not adjudicated and terminated. There is much more logic to the madness than you realize. jz
Page 6/9 At 02:05 PM 1/22/2010, Scott Huminski wrote:
January 23, 2010
Well Joe, for some reason your motion was assigned a paper #344 but the motion does not appear in the docket sheet. My opposition was docketed, appears and everything is OK with it. Odd. -- scott
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. At 01:25 PM 1/21/2010, Scott Huminski wrote: Looks like my opposition with a 44 cent stamp will get docketed before your motion. Agreed some clerks may be evil people, but in 13 years and hundreds of documents filed i never had a docketing problem. In the Vermont district we don't practice the use of paper #'s from the docket when filing an opposition. Frankly, its easier to let the clerks figure that out. -- scott
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. At 18:09 on 1/21/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:09:18 -0800 To: scott huminski From: joseph zernik Subject: Huminski v Corsones (1:99-cv-00160) Hi Scott: Your statements below are incorrect, to the degree that you consider a signed order that came with a defective, invalid NEF - bearing no RSA-encrypted signature - as "served". In fact, it was never lawfully served on you. Furthermore, if you read the review on NEFs,  it provided the references for the legal foundation of my claims that (a) the RSA-encrypted digital signatures are held by the US courts to be today to be the authentication of US court records by the clerk, and (b) a court order with no such attestation by the clerk was not an order that required "full faith and credit". jz http://www.scribd.com/doc/24732941/10-01-03-Notice-of-Electronic-Filing-NEF-First-Amendment-CMSsReview
At 08:27 AM 1/16/2010, Scott Huminski wrote: I will get a proper signed order by the court in a several page opinion I would guess. As the issue is jurisdictional, I would expect and have gotten in the past a mailed signed order. The NEF type/status does not invalidate a signed and served ruling. -- scott
Page 7/9 At 14:44 on 1/15/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:44:00 -0800 To: scott huminski From: email@example.com Subject: RE: HUm v. COr Thanks, this NEF is invalid as well. I hope you realize it by now.
January 23, 2010
What would be your interpretation of the legal status of jurisdiction of Judge Murtha, when a ruling denying the disqualification would arrive with an invalid NEF? jz
At 10:17 AM 1/15/2010, Scott Huminski wrote: Yup, Your motion will definitely be docketed and I would hope that there would be a ruling on your motion after disqualification is ruled on. Perhaps a concurrent ruling. Have fun with the attached NEF. --scott
At 09:56 on 1/15/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:56:39 -0800 To: scott huminski From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: HUm v. COr Scott: You are most welcome to oppose my requests, and I would not reply to your opposition either. 1) To oppose my requests, I assume that you expect the court to docket my paper, so that you would have something to oppose. My experience elsewhere included vanishing court papers anytime they pertained to issues such as stated in my requests, whether it was my case or others'. Therefore, you may have nothing to oppose, and could spare yourself the effort. 2) In case the court dockets it, and you oppose, I hope that you would share with me any NEF that the court may issue and serve on you, as part of any ruling, which is my interest in the first place. It would show the conduct of the court after it was given notice of its fraudulent conduct. I assume that any ruling of such nature would be served on you with an invalid NEF as well. 3) The question still remains, how the court would act on the disqualification motion. I assume that the court would have to rule first on the pending disqualification, before it rules on anything else. Would the court issue an order with an honest, valid, and effectual NEF on the disqualification? My prediction is that the court would not be able to issue an honest NEF on the order denying motion for disqualification. Again, I hope that you would share with me any NEF that you may get served on you with such order. If indeed the denial of disqualification would be served with an invalid NEF, in fact it means that the court had no jurisdiction in the first place. Therefore, both my request and any opposition that you may file on my requests may be moot.
January 23, 2010
In short - whether you oppose my requests or not, if my request would be docketed, it means that the court got the notice. Recidivist conduct by the court after getting such notice, must be deemed by international courts as an aggravating factor. You are welcome to oppose my requests. Your opposition would create another opportunity for the court to issue a fraudulent paper with no valid NEF, which would be important additional evidence for my claims in international court. Joe Zernik
At 08:26 AM 1/15/2010, Scott Huminski wrote: great, I'll have to oppose it as it does not comply with FRCP 24 intervention. Nothing personal. -- scott
At 00:44 1/15/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:44:50 -0800 To: scott huminski From: email@example.com Subject: Re: HUm v. COr Hi Scott: Yes, it was all mailed out the morning of 1/14/10, with correct cert of service, including your name and address. I also included Richard Fine in the service list, because I find it the surest way to have him receive his mail - under the guise of court service. In fact, that was the reason that I filed the original motion for the 9th circuit in his case - to inform him that they were cheating him all the way to the 9th circuit. Please confirm when you receive the motion by mail. RE: The court in Vermont, I called first, and got the name of the deputy-clerk (Kathleen Korstange), and sent it certified, restricted, return receipt. The reason was that my experience had been that such motions tended to disappear from the court records with no trace if sent by regular first class mail. Jz At 06:00 PM 1/14/2010, Scott Huminski wrote: Hi Joe, Is your motion on the way? Did you include a cert of service? -- scott Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
Page 9/9 The Usual:
January 23, 2010
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!
"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.