Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark case. A valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment is yet to be discovered… Most recently, an invalid record was produced by FEC.
____

____
See PDF copy of this posting, including copies of the Supreme Court records at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55064366/
____
Los Angeles, March 22 - Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (08-205) is no doubt one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court. It was reported to have accorded corporations First Amendment rights, “decision 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 in the case - a historic document - is yet to be discovered...

An invalid record was recently produced by FEC as the February 22, 2010 Judgment
Most recently, May 9, 2011 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response was received from FEC on request for the February 22, 2010 Judgment and the corresponding authentication by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court. [[ii]]
[]
Figure 1: The record that was provided by FEC as the February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission combined with its authentication by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.

The judgment record, which was provided in the FOIA-response by FEC cannot possibly be deemed a valid court record:

· It is a record dated January 21, 2010, whereas the online docket noted the issuance of a Judgment on February 22, 2010.
· It is an unsigned record, which bears a stamp certifying that it is a “true copy” of an unsigned original record.
· The stamp itself is signed, but not dated. Moreover, the name and authority of the person who signed the stamp (Cynthia Rapp) were not printed below the signature line. Therefore, the signature on the stamp, certifying “true copy” is of dubious validity as well.
· Contrary to what was stated in the FOIA response letter [i], the record, which was provided, did not include true and valid attestation/authentication by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.

A legal dictionary says:

AUTHENTICATION - An attestation made by a proper officer, by which he certifies that a record is in due form of law, and that the person who certifies it is the officer appointed by law to do so… By authentication is also understood whatever act is done either by the party or some other person with a view of causing an instrument to be known and identified.

It should be of particular concern that FEC, like other parties to the litigation, so far has not produced a copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment as served on FEC by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Instead, the record, which was produced, was derived from the PACER docket of the US Court, District of Columbia. However, to the degree that the record, which was provided, was a record filed and entered in the US Court, District of Columbia, it was missing the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing), which is deemed the valid authentication record by the US district courts under electronic filing. [[iii]]
Entry of February 22, 2010 Judgment remains ambiguous in the online records of the Supreme Court.

The online records of the Supreme Court and previous attempts to discover a valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment support the notion that no valid record of the February 22, 2010 Judgment exists.

· The online docket of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission states: [[iv]]
Feb 22, 2010 JUDGMENT ISSUED.


Figure 2: Excerpts from the online docket of the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

· "Issuing" of orders and judgments, which are neither certified, nor entered, is a common fraud in the lower courts. [[v]] The February 22, 2010 Judgment was not found among the online records of the US Supreme Court.
· The online records of the US Supreme Court [[vi]] also show that the Journal for January 21, 2010, the date of the presumed decision, is missing the typical introductory remark, found in many (but not all) dates of seating of the court, regarding certification and entry of the orders and decisions.

For example, on January 25, 2010, the immediate next seating of the Court, the Journal says:
The Chief Justice said:

"We have issued orders today, they have been duly entered and certified, and filed with the Clerk." [underline added -jz]

Previous attempts failed to discover the February 22, 2010 Judgment, as served on parties to the litigation.

· The March 29, 2011 response from Office of Solicitor General to FOIA Request, states:

Neither of these records were found in review of records maintained by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

· The March 24, 2011 response from the Civil Division of the US Department of Justice to FOIA request states:

The Civil Division does not maintain records relating to that case.

· Request was also forwarded to parties in the case, for a copy of the judgment, which was supposed to have been noticed and served. One party responded that the February 22, 2010 Judgment was neither served nor noticed, in apparent violation of Due Process rights. No party responded that a February 22, 2010 Judgment was either noticed or served.
· Previous attempts to discover valid and effectual judicial records in paper court files of the US Supreme Court uniformly failed. Access to the electronic records of the US Supreme Court was and is denied, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.

Efforts to discover a copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission continue.

Reports of the United Nations Crime Prevention Center on "Strengthening Judicial Integrity" list missing court records as a cardinal sign of judicial corruption. [[vii]]

Simulated Litigation is today a common practice in both the state and US courts.

Simulated litigation is defined in the Texas Penal Code (§32.48) as follows:

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…
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.

Two examples of recent cases of Simulated Litigation, which were widely reported by media as valid court actions are:

· Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425) in the US District Court, Central District of California (US Judge Virginia Phillips), and its counterpart, the appeal (10-56634) still underway in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The underlying matter is the disputed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of the armed forces. [[viii]]
· Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York (US Judge Jed Rakoff). The underlying matter is the unlawful taking of $5.8 billions in bonuses by banking executives during the Merrill Lynch- Bank of America merger. [[ix]]

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. 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, if correctly implemented.

In conclusion:

· So far, the records of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) remain vague and ambiguous, like the vague and ambiguous records of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), where the Supreme Court was reported to have recognized corporations as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
· Citizens United v Federal Election Commission presumably accorded corporations First Amendment rights. However, the First Amendment right of the people, for access to valid and effectual records of the Supreme Court of the United States, is denied. As a result, so far, there is no way to ascertain, whether in fact a valid and effectual February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission was ever certified and entered.
· The US Supreme Court’s case management system, a key to establishing the validity, or lack thereof, of various Supreme Court records, remains under a veil of secrecy, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights. Claims of online publication of false and deliberately misleading records by the office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court were part of the previous request for impeachment of Clerk William Suter. [[xi]]

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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41364083/
[ii] 11-05-10 Reply on FEC Response on FEC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, No. 2011-46, in re: February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-805) -s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55053218/
[iii] Regarding the NEFs as authentication records of the US courts under electronic filing, see:
11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
[iv] 11-03-16 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States - Review and Compiled Online Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50900898/
[v] For review of false issuance of invalid records in the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals (PACER and CM/ECF), see:
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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/
11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
For review of false issuance of invalid records in the Superior Court of California (eCourt and Sustain), see:
11-04-17 PRESS RELEASE: Lomas v Bank of America (KC059379) – Fraud turns into Extortion in the Los Angeles Superior Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53212710/
09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir's Opinion Letter re: Sustain - the Case Management System of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46069337/
[vi] 11-03-16 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States - Review and Compiled Online Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50900898/
[vii] 00-04-00 Report of the First Vienna Convention - Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2000) (See p5-6)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/
01-03-01 Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption CICP-10, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2001) (see p5-6)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/
[viii] 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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/
[ix] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Simulated Litigation and Simulated Banking Regulation in the United States
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/
[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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/
[xi] 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47539382/
____
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
_______
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Flag Counter: 119
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Total Reads: 405,060
Followers: 564
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http ://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Total Item Views: 317,053
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
_____________________________