_____
Docket entry, Dkt #none, pertaining to Deletion of Order of Disbarment - Dkt #4, in In RE: Ronald Gottschalk (2:11-mc-00284) in the US District Court, Central District of California. The text re-affirms that the January 11, 2012 Order of Disbarment/ Suspension by Chief Judge Audrey Collins (dispositive order, akin to judgment in such case) was issued with no NEF, and was therefore deleted. However, it should be noted that this docket entry is of the "Text only" type, entered by a person of unknown name and authority, is unsigned and unauthenticated. Ronald Gottschalk was a Los Angeles Attorney, who like Richard Fine protested judicial corruption. Like Richard Fine he was falsely arrested in 2009 (albeit for a few weeks only), and like Richard Fine he also was falsely hospitalized. However, whereas Richard Fine was kept in solitary confinement for 18 months in the hospital section of the jail, Gottschalk was kept in an outside psychiatric ward. Gottschalk reported that he was forced to take psychiatric medications, while being denied critical diabetes medication. Through communication with the author of this report, Gottschalk was educated regarding the significance of the NEF and its "Electronic Document Stamp". Therefore, when he received the Order of Disbarment with an invalid NEF, he filed the request to delete it from the docket. Chief Judge Audrey Collins apparently consented. [xxvii] It is instructive that both Fine and Gottschalk, senior, experienced attorneys, who were authorized CM/ECF participants and passed the mandatory instruction, were entirely unaware of the significance of the NEF and the "Electronic Document Stamp" for validity, force and effect of judicial records. Such conditions reflect the lack of authority and ambiguous records, pertaining to the definition of fundamental court procedures in PACER and CM/ECF - the fraudulent IT systems of the US courts.
_____
Today the NEFs are considered by the US courts today the Certificates of Service, Notice of Entry of Judgment. However, public access to the NEFs is denied, since they are not included in the PACER dockets in disregard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. With it, the US district courts often issue and docket orders and judgments with no NEFs or with invalid NEFs. Under such conditions, the public, and at times even experienced attorneys are unable to distinguish between valid judicial records of full force and effect, and invalid, void judicial records.
The US District Court, Southern District of New York, universally denies public access to the NEFs of records in its PACER dockets, including the records in NML Capital v The Republic of Argentina. Therefore, there is no way for the public to ascertain, whether any of Judge Griesa's rulings, orders, and judgments were authenticated, entered, and certified - and therefore of any force and effect.
Such serious ambiguity regarding the validity and effect of court records in NML Capital v The Republic of Argentina, should not doubt be considered a serious violation of Due Process rights.
It should be noted that United Nations reports on strengthening judicial integrity list denial of access an indicator of judicial corruption.
Other key records missing
Other key records, which are missing in the docket of NML Capital v The Republic of Argentina include, but are not limited to: Initial Conference (prescribed by Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), and Notice of Entry of Judgment (prescribed by Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Fraud in banking matters is common in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, and other US courts
Summons as issued by the Clerk of the Court and as executed in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York. The PACER docket in SEC v Bank of America Corporation included no copy of the summons in disregard of US law, as is the case in NML Capital v The Republic of Argentina. The summons in SEC v Bank of America Corporation was eventually discovered through a Freedom of Information request on SEC. As seen here, the summons is unsigned, and fails to bear the seal of the court, i.e., invalid summons. SEC v Bank of America Corporation was a landmark court case, relative to banking supervision under the current financial crisis. It originated in the unlawful taking of $5.8 billions by banking executives. US Judge Jed Rakoff colluded with Clerk of the Court Ruby Krajick and attorneys for SEC and Bank of America Corporation and conducted Simulated Litigation in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, which ended with no executive being held accountable and none of the ill-gotten funds returned by the offending executives.
_____
As documented in detail in other cases in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, conduct of Simulated Litigation in banking matters is a common practice by US judges in that court and in other US courts today. [ xxviii]
A notable example is SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) and the related case of SEC v BAC (1:10-cv --00215) , which originated in the u nlawful taking of $5.8 billions by banking executives during the merger of Bank of America and Merrill Lynch in late 2008. [xxix] The litigation, under US Judge Jed Rakoff, who was hailed by the Wall Street Journal as "tough" in this case, ended with a payment of $133 millions by the victims - the shareholders - to themselves being imposed by the Court. No executive was held accountable, and no executive returned to the shareholders any of the ill-gotten funds.
As is the case in NML Capital v The Republic of Argentina, the summons i n SEC v Bank of America Corporation was not docketed, in disregard of US law. Judge Jed Rakoff held no lawful assignment in the case, and access to the NEFs was denied. The summons record i n SEC v Bank of America Corporation was eventually discovered through a Freedom of Information request on SEC. As shown here it was invalid on its face - bearing no signature of the Clerk of the Court and no Seal of the Court. The case documents collusion of attorneys acting on behalf of the US government and SEC, attorneys for Bank of America Corporation, Judge Jed Rakoff and Clerk of the Court Ruby Krajick in the conduct of Simulated Litigation.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
2
