Sue Your Judge in Local or State Court


Sue your judge!  That’s what I do.  (This is Judge Frank M. Hull — corrupt federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia.  I am suing her and 15 of her running buddies.)

I’ve learned some tricks of the judge suing trade.

I am happy to share them with my friends….


Sue your judge where he or she committed wrongdoing against you. 


This is important: It doesn’t matter if a judge is a FEDERAL judge, you DO NOT have to sue them in federal court.  Their job is irrelevant.  The only thing that is relevant is whether they violated state law.  If they have, then sue them in state or local court.

Here’s why: The federal judges are hoplessly corrupt, in my experience.  They cover for each other.  When I have sued the crooked judges in federal court, one of their co-conspirators throws out the case without a legal basis to do so.  But it doesn’t matter as the appellate judges will cover for them as well.  In addition, the federal court rules about discovery are very unfavorable.  In addition, the federal judges have devised a ridiculous system that makes it easy for them to block your efforts at deposing them…but that does not apply in state and local courts when the judge has been sued.

In state or local court, you have a much better chance of getting a more honest judge, and the discovery rules are usually much more favorable.  I have sued my corrupt judges in Fulton County Court.

I filed my Verified Complaint on May 20, 2011.  The first of the defendants was served on May 24.

Under Georgia discovery rules, I can take my first deposition 30 days after the first defendant was served.  So, on June 7, 2011, I will have two Defendants and two attorneys for scumbags served for depositions staring on June 27 (more than 30 days after the first person was served).  So, I have a shot at getting discovery before the defendants file answers and/or seek to have my lawsuit dismissed.  I have also served Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions.

My goal is to get evidence that they have that will help me prove their wrongdoing.  I am beginning with judicial employees who I feel may tell the truth to try to protect themselves from a multi-million judgment against them.

I am also deposing the attorney for the crooks who started all of this in the first place and the attorney for one of the judges I am suing.  Both have evidence that I may not be able to get from any other source, and I will try to find out a lot of worthwhile stuff from them.

I’m sure the judges are mad beyond belief after reading the discovery I have requested from their employees and from them.  The attorneys have both lied to me today in emails making false claims to try to stop me from serving them with subpoenas.  I just crammed the law down their throats as I have long since learned not to believe a thing any attorney says!

I am taking my wife to the Grand Ole Opry today for her birthday.  We’ll see Martina McBride, Lady Antebellum, and Carrie Underwood.  WOW! 

I’ll post all of the discovery I have sent out when we get back in town.

Electronic Filing Scam

On another note, Jospeh Zernik and I have been hard at work on actions against the courts over the electronic filing scam.

This is VERY IMPORTANT to all of you who have been screwed as a pro se party in federal court.  The electronic filing system is used to cheat pro se parties and violate their Constitutional rights. 


At this point, you really need to know just one thing.  This may be another way for you to get justice in spite of the corrupt federal courts.

If Joseph Zernik and I prevail in the legal actions we are taking, it will open a floodgate for others to follow.  Jospeh is the expert, and now he’s trained me.  Because of my lawsuit against the judges and clerks of the courts, I am perfectly positioned to pursue this now.  So, stay tuned to for all the detaisl as they unfold.

The PACER – CM/ECF Problems:

The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented invalid public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF) systems in the U.S. courts that undermine the integrity of U.S. court records.

1. Implementation of the electronic records systems amounted to a sea change in court procedures.  The U.S. courts failed to publish valid Rules of Courts, to establish the new court procedures, deemed effective by the U.S. Courts following the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF. This makes them invalid, in our opinion.

2. The systems enable the publication of simulated PACER dockets, and simulated court orders and judgments, which the clerks of the U.S. courts refuse to certify.

3. In implementing the systems, the U.S. courts failed to establish a legally valid and publicly recognizedforms of digital signatures of judges and clerks.

4. In implementing the systems, the U.S. courts established invalid, simulated authentication records (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing in the District Courts, and NDAs – Notices of Docket Activity in the U.S. Courts of Appeals), which replaced the valid Certificates of Service, which were used prior to establishment of PACER and CM/ECF.

5. Elimination of the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs) from public access in the PACER dockets makes it impossible for the public to distinguish between valid and void court records.

6. Routine failure of the U.S. Courts to docket the summonses in the PACER docket, apparently violates the Duties of the Clerks pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and enables the initiation and conduct of entire cases as simulated litigation with no valid summonses ever issued or executed.

7. Routine failure of the Clerks to file valid Assignment Orders for judges and Referrals Orders for Magistrates violates Due Process rights.

8. Routine publication in PACER dockets of simulated minutes, orders, and judgments, which are unsigned and/or unauthenticated, or without docket number and link to any record at all undermines Equal Protection and Due Process rights. (My argument is that the system has cerated two distinct classes of litigants in court — the attorneys who get access to everything, and the pro se parties who do not get access to everything.  I like the position of this as a violation of equal protection.)

9. Failure to establish valid access authorities for court personnel in CM/ECF enables the publication of minutes, orders, and judgments in the PACER dockets by unauthorized court personnel, who are not Deputy Clerks.

10. Procedures that were effectively established by the U.S. courts in CM/ECF enable the appearance of attorneys, who are not Attorneys of Record, with “no communication with clients” clause.  The practice is common in cases involving financial institutions and government officials and undermines the integrity of the courts.

11. Procedures that were effectively established by the U.S. courts in CM/ECF enable the publication of papers in the PACER dockets by attorneys with no prior review by authorized Deputy Clerks, in apparent violation of the letter and the spirit of the Judiciary Act (1789).

12. PACER was implemented with various modifications in the various U.S. courts and courts of appeals, and enables the denial of public access to critical court records (Summonses, papers filed by parties, Judgment Index, Calendars of the Courts, Docket Activity Report, Corporate Parent Reports, etc) in an arbitrary and capricious fashion in the various courts, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.

13. The U.S. courts failed to publish the procedures pertaining to encoding of actions in CM/ECF.  However, review of the system documents that false encoding is commonplace, e.g.:

Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF effectively established two separate and unequal classes in access to the courts and to court records, thereby allegedly discriminating against pro se filers and the public at large.

1. Pro se filers are routinely denied access to CM/ECF, and therefore denied access to electronic filing, and also access to inspect and to copy critical court records.

2. The cost and time required to file on paper by far exceed the cost and time required for electronic filing.

3. The denial of access to CM/ECF by pro se filers enables court personnel to arbitrarily eliminate from the PACER dockets papers, which were duly filed by pro se filers.

4. The denial of public access to court records that are excluded from the PACER dockets, and are accessible only through CM/ECF (e.g. NEFs, NDAs), effectively denies public access to critical court records in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.

5. Through all the features listed above, the U.S. courts electronic systems (PACER and CM/ECF) enable the conduct of cases as simulated litigation, particularly in civil rights matters, where the complainants are pro se filers.

The electronic public access and case management systems (name unknown) of the U.S. Supreme Court undermine the foundation of the Rule of Law

1. The systems enable the publication of dockets, journals, decisions, and judgments by US Supreme Court personnel of unknown authority, which are vague and ambiguous – public access is denied to valid, signed and authenticated court records.

2. The systems enable the issuance of U.S. Supreme Court notices, decisions and judgments by unauthorized personnel.

3. The systems enable the denial the right to file papers in the U.S. Supreme Court by unauthorized personnel.

Conditions, which were established through implementation of the electronic records system, undermined the integrity of the U.S. courts in both Human, Constitutional and Civil Rights and Banking Regulation matters.

If not for the protection of rights of the People, addressing the issues outlined above is required for restoring the integrity of US Banking Regulation.  It is claimed that conduct of the courts is a key factor in the current financial crisis, which is often overlooked.

Unless the issues are addressed, it is unlikely that U.S. Banking Regulation will be restored.

Therefore, it is claimed that addressing these issues is essential for restoring both civil society and socio-economic development.

We have asked Attorney General Holder to investigate.  We won’t be holding our breath on that one.  But I have a TON of proof of the wrongdoing here in the office of the clerk of the United States District Court.  If I can reach a jury, I believe they will throw the book at these racketeers!

{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply