Robbing Argentina in the US court in Manhattan - fraud of medieval style and proportions

The Republic of Argentina could directly (not through the law-firm of Cleary et al) address Clerk of the Court Ruby Krajick of the US District Court, Southern District of New York, and demand:

1. An affidavit stating that the PACER docket in NML Capital v Republic of Argentina is a valid and effectual docket of the Court, which was constructed under the authority of the Clerk of the Court and in compliance with the law of the United States;

2. A copy of the Summons, certified "True Copy of the Original" by the Clerk of the Court, and

3. Copies of the Notice of Assignment and all Orders, Judgments and Mandates, which appear in the PACER docket, together with the respective NEFs, certified "True Copy of the Original" by the Clerk of the Court.

Based on experience with several clerks of the US courts, including Clerk Ruby Krajick, it is unlikely that such demands by the Republic of Argentina would be honestly addressed.

Failure to address such demands should be considered additional evidence of the fraud being committed in this case.

In case any of the above referenced records are obtained from Clerk Ruby Krajick, they are likely to provide additional evidence of the fraud in conduct of the case.

Additionally, in case any such records are obtained from Clerk Ruby Krajick, they should be further forwarded to the Office of Authentications, US Department of State, with a request for Apostille Certificates, pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961).

It is unlikely that the US Department of State would provide such Apostille Certificates for the above referenced records. If it does, it would provide additional evidence of criminality by the US government.

END NOTES

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).