Saturday, November 20, 2010

Petition for Writ Of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court - Kevin G. Chesney - Chesney v. Valley Stream

" A Valley Stream man has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court October 2010 Term seeking review of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals fake docket and phantom appeal.

The application was made after the man, a former Valley Stream Union Free School District No. 24 custodian, was permanently disabled on the job, was unlawfully terminated and then filed a discrimination case in the Eastern District of New York.

When he filed an appeal of his case to the Second Circuit to obtain a review of the destruction of his entire court file and school district payroll records, he discovered that his appeal in the Circuit Court had never been assigned to a panel or judge, that orders were issued by unauthorized computer clerks and not judges, and that his PACER (Public Access Court Electronic Records) electronic docket for the Eastern District of New York had been so tampered and altered internally as to be completely unreliable.

His petition to the Supreme Court, copy annexed, outlines the severe, proven docket fraud and deprivation of all due process.

The case of first impression involves the constitutional violations resulting from tampering with a publically paid for government operated Internet system (PACER) used nationwide and worldwide by attorneys for individuals, corporations, public not for profits, immigrants, inmates and even accused terrorists.

The United States Supreme Court brief is called Chesney v. Valley Stream U.F.S.D. No. 24,Case No. 10-457. The petition and its appendix contain never before seen proof of fake dockets, orders and procedure in two New York federal courts. "

Valley Stream - Kevin Chesney -

Petitioners Kevin G. Chesney and Lorraine
Chesney, ux., respectfully submit this petition for writ
of certiorari to review the fake “Order” dated May 5,
2010, which was not certified, mandated or sent to
the trial court by the Circuit Court, the purported
record on appeal, as well as the dockets leading up to
the May 5, 2010 “Order.”

SUP. CT. R. 10 and 11; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1734 and
1735, FED. R. APP. P. §§ 4(a)(1)(A), 41, 45, 45.1, the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. § 3501,
et seq.) Public Access Court Electronic Records
and CONST. amend. XIV, § 1, which provides, in
relevant part:|

No State shall . . . deprive any person of life,
liberty or property, without due process of
law. . . .

Paperwork Reduction Act § 3501 provides in
relevant part:

The purposes of this subchapter are to –
(1) minimize the paperwork burden for individuals,
small businesses, educational
and nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors,
State, local and tribal governments,
and other persons resulting from
the collection of information by or for the
Federal Government;

(2) ensure the greatest possible public
health benefit from and maximize the utility of information created, collected
maintained, used, shared and disseminated
by or for Federal Government;

(3) coordinate, integrate, and to the extent
practicable and appropriate, make uniform
Federal information resources
management policies and practices and
policies as a means to improve the
productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness
of Government programs, including reduction
of information collection burdens
on the public and the improvement of
delivery to the public;

(4) improve the quality and use of Federal
information to strengthen decisionmaking,
accountability, and openness in Government
and society;

(5) minimize the cost to the Federal Government
of the creation, collection, maintenance,
use, dissemination, and disposition
of information;

(6) strengthen the partnership between the
Federal Government and the State, local
and tribal governments by minimizing
the burden and maximizing the utility of
information created, collected, maintained,
used, disseminated and retained
by or for the Federal Government;

(7) provide for the dissemination of public
information on a timely basis, on equitable
terms, and in a manner that promotes
the utility of the information to

Source of Post and Full Document