There has been a mechanism hidden deep inside the United States Postal Service that took advantage of a software ‘bug’ or ‘glitch’ that allowed certain people to gain access to tracking information of mail and packages outside of the normal course of business. (This would apply to any mail, ballot, legal filing or other wise any important person. with something to trade or spend, wanted to know the content of, or stop the delivery of.)
I am not sure if that system has been stopped but I do know Post Office Management alerts indicate it has and the technology arm of the post office has stopped that ‘bug’. There is a sure fire way to find out if that system has been stopped.
It would have to come from my city and be addressed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fransisco. Would not matter if it had a return address on the envelope, only that it originated from zip-code 85120 and was addressed to the 9th Circuit Court. How do I know that?
Well, it appears that once a court has been given information publicly on the docket, that flat out proves mail theft of mail addressed to the court they apparently do not take that news lightly.
Since defendants in the 9th Circuit case were also aware of that information one would think someone, whomever was responsible for making the theft deal, would have somehow gotten word to the thieves that they should stop stealing the mail. Didn’t happen that way. Apparently the fear of being caught in a wire tap, stopping a felony was too great. So it continued. Even after the court had performed its own ‘
investigation’ (indicated on the docket) and even after mail had been found by Postal Inspectors and literally placed on the docket to show it had been ‘misappropriated’.
It continued. That was a problem that needed to be solved. So we solved it.
A long time ago I researched the Postal Inspector’s process ( one source among many others) and found a consistent truth. As much as it would be nice to grab postal employees when someone complains about mail theft, it takes a direct witnessing to pull it off. That is a sting.
So we pulled a sting.
We first mailed a letter to the 9th Circuit Appeals court invoking local rule 36-4. No it did not come right out and state that rule number, but it did phrase the rule properly enough, that literally, only a lawyer admitted to the 9th Circuit and aware of the local rules, would know what it said.
That mail was indeed stolen and the content of it set off a chain reaction of defendants cleaning social network accounts all over the same weekend and right after the letter was stolen.
But that wasn’t the sting.
The sting, was in sending a follow up letter to the Court BY FEDEX (since there does not appear to be a criminal enterprise inside FEDEX!) that was copied in U.S. Mail to the exact same court address as the first stolen letter and was specifically described to the court in the overnight package. The court or postal inspectors (probably the inspectors) changed the FEDEX delivery method from late afternoon the next day (cheap), to early morning the next day (highly expensive). Far enough ahead of the arrival of the stamped letter to make preparations for it.
They apparently did. That letter is on the docket and is contained in the piece (at the bottom) Deputy Postmaster General FIRED!!!!! Postmaster General Forced to Retire; while the Post Office Management Alert showing the ‘bug’ treatment is inside of How Mail In Ballots are Stolen. It contains a copy of the first letter (stolen and scared the crap out of the defendants) which was marked not to be filed. (A rule 36-4 requirement.)
Circuit Rule 36-4. Request for Publication
Publication of any unpublished disposition may be requested by letter addressed to the Clerk, stating concisely the reasons for publication. Such a request will not be entertained unless received within 60 days of the issuance of this Court’s disposition. A copy of the request for publication must be served on the parties to the case. The parties will have 14 days from the date of service to notify the Court of any objections they may have to the publication of the disposition. If such a request is granted, the unpublished disposition will be redesignated an opinion. (Rev. 12/1/09)
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (husband of FEDERAL JUDGE SUSAN BRNOVICH), Kent Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney and Amanda Stanford Pinal County Clerk of Court (former, this witch has resigned last month and why the county still carries that person as elected is absurd) were all caught literally RED HANDED knowing the content of that first stolen letter. Then, the post office employees stealing the letters were caught in the sting that followed.
And another criminal issue became yet another roadblock to our ever receiving opinions and orders in a dental malpactice case. Of all things. Then we found out that Michael G. Bailey (husband of Arizona Appeals Court Judge Cynthia Bailey) was the chief of staff to Brnovich while the crimes were being committed (including Arizona state sponsored censorship of the 9th Circuit Court by Google and Lumen Database) and as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona it was his job to investigate and prosecute HIMSELF and his former BOSS. That turned into a DOJ IG investigation. Still pending.
But…
Way back in 2004 and 2005 the exact same Post Office Corruption was in full swing and it was identified and proven to be a criminal enterprise inside a 4th Circuit appeals court case. Mail was even dislocated from inside the courthouse. The clerk I had been dealing with for months, up and disappeared. When I asked what happened to her just a few days later the response was ‘she has not been with us for quite some time’. That case made it to the Supreme Court where it was locked down and has been ‘in another court’ in the 4th Circuit ever since.