2231 S Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.

com/Human_Rights_Alert

Human Rights Alert

11-12-28 Obama's Birth Certificate: Flim Flam in the US District Court, Central District of California, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
US judges and clerks with no credentials issue unsigned, unauthenticated judicial records, which the US courts refuse to certify, but the public is deceived to believe are valid and effectual court records. The United States has developed a fully blown simulated justice system. Like the Great Depression before it, the current crisis in its core is an integrity crisis of the United States government, and like the Great Depression before it, the current crisis is not likely to be resolved, absent reform of the US courts.

Shell Game

The Flim Flam Man

Following is correspondence among Ron Branson, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Gary Zerman, and Joseph Zernik regarding the recent dismissal of Birther Orly Taitz case at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, challenging Obamas credentials as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, on behalf of numerous US citizens and uniformed personnel.
_______________________________________ i. Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:47:53 +0200 To: Paul Andrew Mitchell From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: Ninth Cir. Dismisses Suit Challenging Obama's Qualifications I fully agree, and that is why they absolutely refuse to duly serve and notice any valid paper, and in particular, refuse to certify any record of the court. See for example, an unrelated case: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US District Court, Central District of California, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. ____
[1] 11-02-09 Press Release: Dont Ask, Dont Tell the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Simulated Appeal from a Simulated Judgment of the US District Court http://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/

_______________________________________ ii. Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: At 09:45 AM 12/28/2011, you wrote: > There is no way that I know of to explain the refusal of a court to provide certified copies of its own orders, > unless the Court itself does not consider them valid court orders. 28 U.S.C. 1691 requires that ALL such Court "process" must exhibit the Court's official seal

Page 2/7 and the Clerk's authorized signature:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1691.html

December 29, 2011

See all of the pertinent cases we assembled here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.2.htm

And, now that the "clerks" and "deputy clerks" have either failed or refused to produce credentials, THERE ARE NO CLERKS authorized to sign any such "process". That also has the necessary result that such a "court" -where no duly authorized "clerks" can be found with proper credentials -is rendered totally impotent because it cannot issue any "process"!!! This conclusion is supported by the law which expressly designates the "court" as the legal custodian of the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 U.S.C. 3331. See 5 U.S.C. 2906:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2906.html

When such "clerks" refuse to produce credentials of which they are the legal custodians designated as such by 2906 supra, they render the entire court impotent, and also implicate themselves in FELONY violation of 18 U.S.c. 1001 (for starters):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html

-Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy) http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

_______________________________________ iii. Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:59:28 +0200 To: Ron Branson, Gary Zerman , Paul Andrew Mitchell, From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: Ninth Cir. Dismisses Suit Challenging Obama's Qualifications 1) The "Dismissal" by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit "Confidence Trick", "Flim Flam", "Shell Game" - in the terminology of tricks and frauds, it is usually considered a short-term trick. You do it on the street corner, pack and leave. And here we have a person like you fooled for years by simulated orders of the courts ... [1] In fact, a whole nation fooled by a "simulated justice system" for a decade or two. 2) Obama's Birth Certificate One of the aspects that I find most fascinating in this story, (and there are numerous fascinations here :) (:), is the fact that in my studies of Public Records, and I consider the deprivation of First Amendment right to access electronic records the mother/father (not to be sexist in such nasty context) of all evils, Birth, Marriage, Divorce, and Burial Records were among the first that emerged as Public Records in

Page 3/7

December 29, 2011

the late middle ages. Public access to Court Records has been also guaranteed in the Common Law for hundreds of years. Prisoners' Indices followed. 3) The Medieval Digital Era The pattern we see today, of denial of public access to valid Court Records, Birth Records, and Booking Records, and the publication instead of patently fraudulent electronic records, is one of the hallmarks of what I call the Medieval-Digital Era. In the Middle Ages the frauds in the courts and in lineages and family records were infamous, not to speak of anonymous, metal masked, castle-basement prisoners. It led to the provision in the Magna Carta (1215) of trial by peers... The "cornerstone of the Constitution of the United States". It's 2012, and we must fight for the same rights again, to ensure public access to public records! Joseph Zernik ____
LINKS: [1] "Simulated litigation", "simulated decisions", "simulated service" here refer to conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows: Texas Penal Code 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 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.

_______________________________________ iv. Ron Branson wrote: Joseph, I just looked at my Order of Dismissal filed 12/8/2011, and not only does it not have a signature, it does not even have a printed name of a person or a position. The Oder only "signs off" with the printed word "AFFIRMED" with nothing after it. We are therefore called upon to "pretend" it is verified even though it does not state. But is not "Affirmed" supposed to be equal to "Oath or Affirmation" according to the 4th Amendment, i.e., "no warrants shall issue but ... supported by oath or affirmation." No one can imagine an oath or affirmation signed by no one. We are asked in court, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?" Accordingly, maybe these words should be eliminated prior to taking the witness stand and testifying. Ron Branson _______________________________________ v. Joseph Zernik wrote: Hi Mr Branson: I assume that as usual, you received an unsigned order, just like the order dismissing the challenge to Obama's qualifications.. Have you ever tried to ask the 9th Circuit for a certified copy of any of the orders in your cases before the Court? I have tried, but never got any. There is no way that I know of to explain the refusal of a court to provide certified copies of its own orders, unless the Court itself does not consider them valid court orders.

Page 4/7

December 29, 2011

In that context, one should consider the data below, which I am asking those familiar with such papers to review and comment on. In case you decide to ask the 9th Circuit for a certified copies of any decisions in your cases, I would be grateful if you email me PDFs of the requests, and the responses, if any. Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (NGO) _______________________________________ vi. Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
From: freedomfightersforamerica@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:freedomfightersforamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Supreme Law Firm Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 12:24 AM To: 123456xyz@gmail.com

Subject: [freedomfightersforamerica] 9th Circuit of known IMPOSTORS -- Pregerson / Fisher / Berzon -- "tosses" Obama birthplace challenge
Re: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf

Almost forgot to mention: David O. Carter:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/ http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/nad.certificate.htm

(no license to practice law in California)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/state.bar.record.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/state.bar.record.2.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/affidavit.gif http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/oath.gif

(Carter's Forms administered by Terry J. Hatter, another known impostor):

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/ http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/nad.missing.credentials.htm

(no OATH OF OFFICE and no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/nad.certificate.htm

(no license to practice law in California)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/state.bar.record.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/state.bar.record.2.htm Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy) http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

_______________________________________ vii. Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: ----- Forwarded Message ----From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:12 PM Subject: 9th Circuit of known IMPOSTORS -- Pregerson / Fisher / Berzon -- "tosses" Obama birthplace challenge
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf

Summary: known impostor/"robes" get routinely assigned to any case that challenges any aspect of "public policy". Harry Pregerson:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/

Page 5/7
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/nad.certificate.htm

December 29, 2011

(no license to practice law in California)

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/state.bar.record.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/state.bar.record.2.htm

Raymond C. Fisher:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/ http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/affidavit.refused.JPG

(defective OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS)

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/nad.certificate.htm

(no license to practice law in California)

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/state.bar.record.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/state.bar.record.2.htm

Marsha S. Berzon:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/ http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/affidavit.refused.JPG

(defective OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS)

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/nad.certificate.htm

(no license to practice law in California) http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/state.bar.record.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/state.bar.record.2.htm Very interesting revelations here about Harry Pregerson and Dean D. Pregerson by the late Gary Wean, former LAPD Detective:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/gary.wean.article.htm

(search for "Pregerson" -- all occurrences)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#CDCA http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/pregerson.dean/ http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/pregerson.dean/nad.missing.credentials.htm

(missing all 4 credentials!) -Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy) http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

_______________________________________ viii. Ron Branson wrote: At 01:45 AM 12/24/2011, Ron Branson wrote: Pastor Wiley, I just received the announcement of the dismissing of your Ninth Circuit appeals case challenging the qualifications of Barack Obama to be president. I though I would apprise you that the I just received the dismissal of my Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. I instantly appealed the dismissal of my suit in fraud, and paid the $455 filing fee. Five days later the Court issued a noticed of intent to dismiss the Notice of Appeal. They said the issue presented on appeal was insubstantial. There was as yet any issue presented on appeal. I opposed the Order of intent to dismiss my appeal, and I received a Dec, 6, 2011 Order dismissing my Appeal, stating "The questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument." They cite to U.S. v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857. But that case is inapplicable as it refers to a case wherein the Appellant filed an opening brief, citing his argument on appeal. Here, there is no opening brief, nor are there any questions presented on appeal. Rule 3(c)(4) states, "An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice." My Notice of Appeal follows precisely as shown in Form 1in the Appendix. This shows a preconceived plan by the Ninth Circuit to cut off the right of appeal at the

Page 6/7

December 29, 2011

Notice stage before any appeal issues can be presented. Attached is my opposition to dismissing my Notice of Appeal. Ron Branson _______________________________________ ix. Gary Zerman wrote: From: Gary Zerman To: lawsters@googlegroups.com Subject: And Another One Bites The Dust Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:17:10 -0800 To All: If there is one case that illustrates why we have birth certificates/records and have courts of law, it is that of Barack Obama (BO). Yet another one bites the dust. GLZ. ____________________________________

Appeals court tosses Obama birthplace challenge

By PAUL ELIAS | AP 4 hrs ago SAN FRANCISCO (AP) The so-called birther movement was dealt another legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. The three-judge panel cited various reasons for disqualifying six sets of plaintiffs, who included Obama's political rivals, taxpayers and military personnel. The birther movement has filed multiple lawsuits over the issue, so far with no success. Its leaders have lost similar challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers allege that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in that African country, rather than the U.S. state of Hawaii. They claim his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery. The appeals court didn't address the authenticity of the birth certificate, instead ruling that the challengers couldn't show "concrete injury" from the allegations. The taxpayers listed in the lawsuit, for instance, failed to show how the citizenship question affected any federal taxing and spending provisions. The lawsuit was filed in 2009 by 40 plaintiffs, including conservative activists Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, who ran for president and vice president respectively as members of the American Independent Party against Obama in 2008. They alleged they had standing to file a lawsuit because of their interest in competing in a fair election. Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot was also a plaintiff. Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the three-judge panel, said Keyes and Drake waited too long to file their lawsuit. The election was over and Obama was already sworn in when the lawsuit was filed. "Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election," Pregerson wrote. "Plaintiffs' competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed." Orly Taitz, one of the challengers' lawyers, said she would ask the appeals court to convene a special 11-judge panel to

Page 7/7

December 29, 2011

reconsider the case. If she's turned down there, she said she would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Taitz said she has filed similar lawsuits in five states and has two other federal appeals pending in Washington, D.C.
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-tosses-obama-birthplace-challenge-191256867.html

-You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group. To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en. Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Opposition to Order Filed Oct 25" 2011Re Order to show cause-17-11.docm"