Simulated Litigation

applies to court cases – broadly, it is anything done which is not in compliance with the “rule of law” based on the “facts in evidence” or otherwise deny litigants their right to “due process”

it can involve “fact shaping”, submitting altered or manufactured doc-ments, judges failing to permit proper facts to be entered into evidence, a clients own attorney colluding with the court and the other litigants attorney to cause the case to be decided against their own clients best interests, references to court rules and prior rulings that don’t actually exist, judges presiding without jurisdiction and/or proper -ssignment, altering court transcripts, hiding court records, holding hearings w/o noticing a litigant,

simulated litigation is defined in the texas usa penal code (§32.48) as follows:

a person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any doc-ment that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process…

the practice of simulated litigation is the most common form of corruption of judges and clerks in both the state and us courts today. it is common in all levels of the us courts, in both obscure and high profile cases.

examples here : citizens united v federal election commission – simulated litigation in the us supreme court… courthouseforum.com/forums/view.php?id=1072234
the government prosecutor engaged in simulated litigation when he chose not to call a witness whose testimony would have resulted in conviction of the wealthy corporation president.

the government public pretender engaged in simulated litigation when he did not object to evidence against his client that clearly was not admissible.

two examples of recent cases of simulated litigation, which were widely reported by media as valid court actions are:

· log cabin republicans v united states of america et al (2:04-cv-08425) in the us district court, central district of california (us judge virginia phillips), and its counterpart, the appeal (10-56634) still underway in the us court of appeals, 9th circuit. the underlying matter is the disputed don’t ask don’t tell policy of the armed forces.

· securities and exchange commission v bank of america corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the us district court, southern district of new york (us judge jed rakoff). the underlying matter is the unlawful taking of $5.8 billions in bonuses by banking executives during the merrill lynch- bank of america merger.