(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
Were the Texas Penal Code in force and effect in the State of Israel, all justices of the Israel Supreme Court since 2002 would be deemed repeat offenders, and should be jailed.
Regardless, under the Israeli Penal Code, simulating legal process could probably be prosecuted under fraud and deceit, and breach of loyalty.
It should be noted that simulating legal process is considered extra-judicial conduct, and as such is not covered by any immunity.
The fraud in the Israeli Supreme Court computer systems mimics similar conditions in the state and federal courts in the United States
The implementation of fraudulent computer systems in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in 2002 involved US-based corporations IBM and EDS. The State of Israel Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010) states that the project was conducted in violation of the laws of the state of Israel: Contracts were issued with no tender, contracts failed to include technical specifications, the project failed to include core supervision by State employees, the final product was not subjected to independent examination by State employees prior to installation, unknown number of persons were issued double smart cards, and the servers of the courts were removed from the custody of the clerks to the custody of a corporation.
The implementation of such systems in 2002 in the Supreme Court was also accompanied by the appearance since then of impostors with no lawful appointment as "Chief Clerks". [ix]
The fraud in the computer systems of the Israeli courts mimics similar, much earlier events in the state and federal courts in the United States.
Probably the earliest documented such fraudulent system is "Sustain", which was implemented in the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1984. Documentation of the fraud in "Sustain", and its employment in the conduct of simulated proceedings in the Los Angeles Superior Court was part of the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2010 Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States by the UN Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Alert submission was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Periodic Report with the note " corruption of the courts and the legal profession... in California". [x]
The case of former US prosecutor Richard Fine provides unique documentation of the fraud in computer systems of the US federal courts (PACER and CM/ECF). [xi] Richard Fine exposed and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). Such conduct by the judges required the signing by the California Governor of "retroactive immunities" (called by media "pardons"). In retaliation, Richard Fine was falsely imprisoned for 18 months in solitary confinement by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, while the US courts patronized the corruption by conducting simulated proceedings on Fine's habeas corpus petitions. [xii]
However, the most striking example of the corrupt records of the US Supreme Court is probably in the case of Citizens United v FEC. The case is one of the landmark cases of the Supreme Court in recent decades, and it was described as a license to corrupt. But hardly noticed was the fact that there is no valid judgment record in this case. The Supreme Court's computer system notes that a judgment was "issued", but no judgment record is to be found, and no judgment record was ever served on the parties in this case. [xiii]
A notice, served on US Attorney General Eric Holder, regarding the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF, remains unanswered. [xiv]
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
