Here is an interesting e-mail I got today.
Subject: missing credentials for employees of USDC/California
So, where or who in your experience is responsible
for the missing credentials.
It would seem to me that it is a matter of follow up on
someone's end. Is there a pattern?
In the matter of the Appointment Affidavit, the law
is clear: the judge must sign it and convey it
immediately to the Clerk of Court, who remains the
legal custodian. See 5 U.S.C. 2906:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2906.html
Yes, there are patterns. You can come to your own
conclusions, by doing a thorough review of this
evidence database which we are continually updating here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm
Here's what we are finding:
(1) as a matter of law, the DOJ is the legal custodian
of Presidential Commissions:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
(without commission, "robe" can't even take oath)
(2) as a matter of law, the Clerk of Court is the
legal custodian of the Appointment Affidavit:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/federal.judges.htm
(without 2 Oaths, all acts are void)
(3) we have not located any statutes which designate
a legal custodian of the Senate Confirmation or
Oath of Office; sometimes, copies of these credentials
are in DOJ's appointment files, sometimes not;
(4) DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy has been
superlative, and professional, in responding to FOIA
requests for all 4 required credentials:
(a) DOJ will either supply copies of all 4 credentials; or,
(b) DOJ will summarize the number of missing credentials;
previously, DOJ did actually identify the personnel whose
credentials were missing (not so lately, however);
(5) historically, Clerks of Court had a form referring
litigants to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
for all required credentials; but, that A.O. has a policy
of NOT disclosing any credentials now;
(6) after that A.O. failed to produce any credentials,
or did so many months and sometimes YEARS after a
reasonable request, we served a SUBPOENA on that office
for the Appointment Affidavits and Oaths of Office
required of ALL justices, judges, magistrates, clerks
and deputy clerks; that SUBPOENA is now overdue, and
the A.O.'s Director is in contempt of court;
(7) even after we show 5 U.S.C. 2906 to Clerks of Court,
they STILL refuse to produce any evidence of the required
credentials; this indicates bad faith and probable fraud
on their part, e.g. see 18 U.S.C. 1001 (a felony);
(8) in one instance, a full 3 1/2 YEARS after a case began,
one "robe" called a hearing and dangled some credentials
in front of a criminal defendant; he would not allow the
defendant to examine the credentials, however; this hearing
raised a ton of questions about how this "robe" claimed
jurisdiction over a matter concerning his own missing
credentials, namely, he is necessarily a material witness
to the existence, or absence, of those credentials,
in violation of 28 U.S.C. 455 and 18 U.S.C. 1001;
a proper SEARCH WARRANT would be required to remove
such credentials from the legal custodians;
(9) in another, more recent example, I served a "robe"
in San Diego with a NOTICE AND DEMAND, BY AFFIDAVIT,
specifically demanding exhibition of his Appointment
Affidavit (which SHOULD be in his Clerk's custody);
instead of ordering the Clerk to produce it, that
"robe" signed a bogus "order" commanding that Clerk
to return my correspondence; this act definitely
has the appearance of concealing, rather than disclosing,
his Appointment Affidavit;
(10) if there is any pattern in San Diego, 12 of 16
"robes" were missing one or more of the required
credentials; DOJ was able to produce Senate Confirmations
and Presidential Commissions for all 16, this time;
however, 10 of the 12 were missing BOTH the Appointment
Affidavit and the Oath of Office.
(11) another pattern is that 2 confirmed impostors
remain on the Ninth Circuit, and all 45 have refused
even to answer my written DEMANDs for their Oaths of
Office;
(12) a FOIA request is now outstanding for 3 of the 4
credentials required of all 45 "robes" on the Ninth Circuit
(because DOJ already answered my prior FOIA requests for
just their Presidential Commissions);
(13) and, a FOIA request is also outstanding for all
4 credentials required of the "robes" on the USDC
in San Francisco and Oakland;
(14) Los Angeles is another "hot spot"; an insurance
industry publication recently described it as a
"judicial hellhole" (I concur);
(15) Dean D. Pregerson, who is seated on the USDC
in downtown L.A., consistently turns up withOUT any
of the 4 required credentials; he once threw me out
of his courtroom, when I was there to counsel a
criminal defendant in a preliminary hearing;
that was a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment;
(16) Gary Taylor, who DOES have all 4 credentials
at the USDC in Santa Ana, California, referred our
APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE IRS to Pregerson; go figure!
(17) it was the Clerk of Court at the USDC in Santa Ana
which issued the SUBPOENA to the A.O.; on that SUBPOENA
was the name of the chief Clerk in downtown Los Angeles;
so, the judiciary are in contempt of their own SUBPOENA!
I hope this helps.
Please help yourself to a careful review of the
evidence database we have developed (see URL above).
DOJ's reply to FOIA request:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths...ly.2004-03-16/
.gif = Graphics Interchange Format (scanner output)
Summary:
17 out of 33 "robes" are missing one or more of the 4 required
credentials.
DEMANDs for Missing Credentials (mailed 9/27/2004):
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi.../nad.missing.c
redentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...ey/nad.missing.
credentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...d.missing.cred
entials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...nad.missing.cr
edentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...ad.missing.cre
dentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...ad.missing.cre
dentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi.../nad.missing.c
redentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...nad.missing.cr
edentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...et/nad.missing
.credentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...ana/nad.missin
g.credentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...an/nad.missing.
credentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...rd/nad.missing
.credentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...ad.missing.cre
dentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...marie/nad.miss
ing.credentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi.../nad.missing.c
redentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...ad.missing.cre
dentials.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...en/nad.missing.
credentials.htm
To date, DOJ has replied to FOIA requests for the following
federal "robes" in California:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commi...lders.2004-03-
16.htm
FYI:
San Diego City Attorney has no license to practice law:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aguirre/nad.oath.htm (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aguirre...-13/letter.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aguirre/letter.2005-01-
13/letter.refused.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aguirre/refusal01.htm
This SUBPOENA to The State Bar of California is overdue:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/ (PAST DUE)
Our investigation of missing licenses formally began here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/motion.to.strike.htm (PAST DUE)
None of the following ATTORNeys ever produced a valid license:
