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

11-05-23 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC –

invalid court records in a case of Simulated Litigation
“It is a case of Simulated Litigation involving the Chief Judge of the US Court, Washington DC, in a landmark
case… It has an invalid beginning, an invalid end, and an ‘off the record’ proceeding in between.”

Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge

US District Court, Washington DC

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (08-205) is no doubt 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…” [i ] However, a valid and effectual
copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment of the US Supreme Court in the case - a historic document - is yet to
be discovered... [ii ,iii ]
Today, Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), published review of the litigation records of
Citizens United v FEC (1:07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, Washington DC, where the case originated.
His opinion concludes that key records are invalid in the US District Court, DC, as well. [iv ]
Invalid records in litigation of Citizens United v FEC in the US District Court, DC
“It is a case of Simulated Litigation involving the Chief Judge of the US Court, Washington DC, in a
landmark case …” says Dr Zernik, “It has an invalid beginning, an invalid end, and an ‘off the record’
proceeding in between.”

Figure 1: Invalid PACER Summons of Citizens United v FEC in the US District Court,
DC. The record fails to show the Seal of the Court.

• Summons as executed - The record of the Summons as executed on Federal Election Commission
(Dkt #15) is an invalid record, since it fails to show the Seal of Court, as required by US law. A repeat
z Page 2/4 May 24, 2011

FOIA request was filed, in order to exclude the possibility that the Seal of the Court was missing as a
result of photocopying or scanning. [v ]
01/10/2008 Minute Entry Proceedings held before a Three Judge Panel of Circuit Judge A Raymond Randolph and
United States District Judges Royce C. Lamberth and Richard W. Roberts : Preliminary Injunction held on
1/10/2008. (Court Reporter Wendy Ricard.) (rje) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
Figure 2: Invalid PACER docket notation of Minutes of the January 10, 2008
proceeding in Citizens United v FEC. No docket number was designated, and no
record of the Minutes was linked to the docket notation.

• Minutes - No valid record at all exists for the January 10, 2008 proceeding, the only proceeding listed
in the record of the case. Invalid notation was created in the docket, with no record linked to it at all.
Effectively, it was an ‘off the record’ proceeding of the court.

Figure 3: Invalid, simulated record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens
United v Federal Election Commission in the US Supreme Court, as it appears in the
PACER docket of the US District Court.

Figure 4: A fake, simulated bank check record.

• US Supreme Court Judgment – The Judgment record, as it appears in the docket of the US District
Court, is unsigned, and fails to include authentication by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.
Judgment Index Report
U.S. District Court - - District of Columbia
Report Period: 01/01/2005 - 05/23/2011
Sorry - no data for the chosen selection criteria
Judgment Index Report Selection Criteria
Case number 1:07-cv-2240
Figure 5: The Citizens United v FEC entry in the Judgment Index of the US District Court, DC.

• Judgment Index - No Judgment at all is listed in the Court’s Judgment Index for the case, and the
complaint is listed as never terminated in the Related Transactions Report.
Simulated litigation is today a common practice in both the state and US courts.
Simulated legal process is defined in the Texas Penal Code (§32.48) as follows: [vi ]
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…
z Page 3/4 May 24, 2011

The practice of Simulated Litigation is the most common form of corruption of judges and clerks in both the
state and US courts today. It is common in all levels of the US courts, in both obscure and high profile cases.
[ vii , viii ]
Invalid case management systems in the courts are the enabling tools of Simulated Litigation
The practice of Simulated Litigation is probably as old as the courts themselves. Over centuries, record
keeping of the courts, the core of Due Process, evolved to prevent it. Implementation of computerized case
management systems in the state and US courts, where the nature of signatures and authentication was
left vague and ambiguous, is claimed to be central to the widespread practice of Simulated Litigation.
[ ix ] Request for review of the evidence of fraud in the computerized records of the US District Courts and
Courts of Appeals (PACER and CM/ECF) was previously forwarded to Harvard Law Professor Yochai
Benkler, an expert on computers and the law. [x ]
Needless to say, computer technology could have had the opposite effect, enhancing court transparency and
integrity, if correctly implemented.
The author
Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience over the past decade in examination of computerized records in
large corporate and government systems. His opinions in such matters have been supported by those of
highly reputed fraud and computer science experts. Papers he authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and
published in a computer-science journal and presented in international computer-science and criminology
conferences. [xi ]
Report, authored by Dr Zernik, 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 and discrimination by law enforcement in California. [xii ]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
LINKS:

i
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
ii
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
iii
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
iv
11-05-23 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in a Simulated
Litigation
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56080106/H
v
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 s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56048803/H
vi
Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
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
z Page 4/4 May 24, 2011

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.
The practice is widespread in both the state and US courts at all levels.
vii
11-02-09 Press Release: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense
Judgment of the US District Court
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/
viii
Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Simulated Litigation and Simulated Banking
Regulation in the United States
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/H
ix
Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring,
Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/H
x
11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer
fraud in the US courts
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/H
xi
11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/H
xii
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