04-1364-cv

14-2815-cv
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
-------------------------------------------------
Burda Media Inc., Burda Holding KG, [ex-Appellee]
v.
Blumenberg, Lee, Viertel et al, Defendants,

Christian T. Viertel,
Defendant Appellant
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Appeal from NYSD: 97-cv-7167 (RWS) #FAKECASE
--------------------------------------------------------------

Successive FRAP 27 Application to RECALL

MANDATES due overt lack of district & appellate
Jurisdiction, lack of judiciability, take JUDICIAL
NOTICE of Summons, VACATUR, nunc pro tunc

Prof. Christian T. Viertel, Pro Se

Maitre Aldo Funaro, of counsel
IDTDG - 9/18 via delle Ballodole
50139 FIRENZE ITALIA
Viertel2020@aol.com : 914-352-1839

2
 A. Prolog on Controlling Guidance via SCOTUS Precedent

SCOTUS oftimes recognizes inglorious jurists, Justices

are learned, and Justices spot them. Even from afar
and from above. That is why their literatim of Federal
Court Access rules were plain, unambiguous and dearly
on target to shoot down riff-raff among Big Law
swindlers1 and hamper complicity:

In 446 U.S. 147, 152 Baldwin County Welcome Center v.

Brown (1984) SCOTUS ruled as follows: [p]rocedural
requirements established by Congress for gaining access to
the federal Courts are not to be disregarded by courts out
of a vague sympathy for particular litigants. As we have
stated in Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807(1980).

Therefore, this COURT has a mandatory duty to take

JUDICIAL NOTICE of Docket Entry DE#1 [EXH.A] of 97-7167.

American Un-Exceptionalism

Thus, this SCOTUS decision allows the Fat Lady To

Sing, settles the lack-of-merit, lack-of-standing issues
grounded upon inaugural DOCKET ENTRY DE#1 [a defective,
incomplete draft of a] dummy Summons Form AO 440,
botched by a trio of Big Law paralegals malpracticing 1L
law.
1
Solo practitioners are deemed rarely at risk of pulling fast ones on lesser endowed
law-clerks, federal judicators and inept court administrators and the AOUSC.

3
 One such requirement established by Congress is that
the Name of the Court to which a petitioner seeks to
summons a party, must be on the SUMMONS.

The Name of the Court

Is missing on form AO 440, and this PANEL, coequally

to earlier PANELS, must take JUDICIAL NOTICE of defective
Docket Entry DE#1. [EXIBIT A 21]

There are no time limits to challenge fundamental lack

of jurisdiction [law see intra].

Regrettably, the Judiciary seems insufficiently

regulated to restrict itself to applying the law, as
codified, as in FRCP Rule 4, enacted by the legislature,
and to simply - not carve exceptions for trammeled
proctors.

Upon judicial Inspection of an improperly filed AO-

440-SUMMONS FORM the determination whether it conforms or
fails to conform to clear and strict procedural norms is
deemed a familiar judicial exercise, which some judicial
branch members, protecting Judge Robert Sweet from a

4
 #scofflaw label and disreputation2, failed to discharge.

This is the time to VACATE AB OVO.

Consequently, as this is not optional for appellate

review panels to address malevolence they must follow
SCOTUS and TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE when a PROFORMA Summons
Form issue descended to the modern ruination standard
term of FAKE SUMMONS. This FAKE deprived, more,
precluded every District Court Judge from a scofflaw grab
of inaugural SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction, from a scofflaw
usurpation of personal jurisdiction or any jurisdiction at
all, over Christian T. Viertel, Blumenberg and all the
other conjectural defendants. Sweet, while corked up3,
possessed ZERO judicatory capacity over a <albeit
counterfeit> RICO controversy. #FAKEJUSTICE

Summarily, PROCESS SERVICE OF FAKE SUMMONSES is FAKE

PROCESS, whether the sewer-type, the Hague-way or plain
vanilla was inconsequential to this Docket. Clerk Finneran
did not file Certificate of Default. Check the docket,
and the law clerks should have drawn the only intelligent

2
This was a prototypic FAKE Start at Pearl Streets intake window [$125.00 file-fee
lost], complete with pourboire- to help catch a lucky wheel spin [Bingo RWS]
3
Sweet could have dismissed the case for Summons-Defect for a BIGLAW do-over. RWS
did not. Intake Clerks could have rejected the incomplete Summons, but waived it along
in hope of an xtra Xmas bonus.

5
conclusions. The panel members waived a duty to take a
good look at grave, lower improprieties. 04-1364cv was a
true travesty and must be withdrawn by the surviving panel
members. Over and Out.

B. Law in support of Drain the Swamps

Every bad thing must have an END, even appellate

blindness, conscious avoidance, improprieties and
favoritism [#CAtwoskangaroos] for contemptible jurists
of a certain ignoble regard. The End is here and the
final motto reads:
Nunc Pro Tunc NULLIFICATION.

See: In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132;Re

Cavitt, 118 P2d 846."Jurisdiction is fundamental and a
judgment rendered by a court that does not have
jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio."

C. Intro and History

Comes now, Christian T. Viertel, moving this Court

under FRAP 27 to finally allocate to meet the ends of
justice by this MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATES AND TO, SUA
SPONTE, WITHDRAW PANEL OPINION in 04-1364, 14-2815 AND TO
VACATE all ancillary proceedings for lack of ORIGINAL
FEDERAL JURISDICTION pursuant to a FAKE FIRST docket entry

6
of a defective SUMMONS FORM AO 440 and based upon law, that
defective summonses are a nullity resulting in FAKE HAGUE
TREATY as FAKE sewer process service upon every hankered
after defendant-in-spe.

Thus, a bonafide lower federal civil case did not ever

materialize, thus, there was no RICO subject basis, and,
consequently, underscored by Sweets INQUEST avoidance
and VOID of a SDNY required RICO Statement that Movants
tripled DEFAULT RICO JUDGMENT was issued in the most
punitive animus, in bad faith, ultra vires and in cold-
blooded abuse of judicial authority.

Here, District, and intrinsically as a consequence,

Appeals Panels, had no judicial business over any party4.

NYSD 97-7167 was pseudo-process. The BURDA Group (proforma

labeled as plaintiffs) pulled very late out of Big Laws

larcenous scheme, lost $4000000 through BIGLAWs fee-

scheme. BURDA no longer participates and is, decidedly,

not opposed to this MANDATE RECALL procedure. BURDAs

4
This was not a surprise to some straight jurists of reason and insiders at both
Courthouses. Some saw this coming; some watched judicial wiggling, and that finality
will arrive only once legacy jurisdictional doctrine No Ticky No Washy4 became the
primary good cause for RECALLING the Mandates in the Interest of Justice.

7
abandonment of all legal arguments5 to salvage a

FRAUDULENT DEFAULT JUDGMENT is proof that BURDA prefers not

to promote unlawful absurdities.

D. Big-Law HUBRIS, arrogance and delusions caused

extinction of all jurisdiction

Once lower Judges, aged but not learned, shut out

basic elements, like AO 4406, ponder whether crucial
standing could vest, and then front-run prejudice to

5
Notice of Docket Activity entered on 02/26/2015 at 4:16:10 PM EST and filed on
02/18/2015

Case Name: Burda Media, Incorporated v. Blumenberg

Case Number: 14-2815

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text: LETTER, dated 02/17/2015, regarding non-participation in this appeal, on behalf of
Appellee Burda Holding GmbH & Company, KG and Burda Media, Incorporated, RECEIVED. Service
date 02/18/2015 by US mail.[1447744] [14-2815]

6
A Public Record review of SDNY 97-7167, the filed original SUMMONS DRAFT on
Form AO 440, DE#1, was dysfunctional and defective, since BURDAs high caliber
semi-proctors failed to conform in stating a name of the Court, a most important,
unswayable, mandatory legal requirement for any valid Summons. Prima facie, the
Courts locale, address, ZIP/GPS locator to which a defendant be summoned to appear
was left vacant caused either by Big-Law incompetence, hubris or spite, as in 1996 when
RA Klaus Jander (Esq) captured BURDAs Bolls: We at Rogers&Wells own these Courts

8
wiggle by, they indubitably seek collusion with Superiors
on Appellate panels [DocketText: CASE, to JAC, RR, DC, C.JJ., SUBMITTED.[1515074] [14-

2815]] and tilt7 into contorted genuflection to obeisant Big-

Law trolls, the forbearing signs that federal bench-lives
should have terms has arrived.

Whether this blatant jurisdictional omission was a

deliberate lawyerly ruse, lack of legal training, or caused
by delinquent diligence and exuberance is inconsequential
here, because the omission was not, and cannot be
rectified. A Name of Court of Jurisdiction was missing
forever. [EXHIBIT A]

The omission is legally and procedurally inexcusable8,

unpardonable under the Nations Mother Court many Big Law
Exceptions [itself a legal unicorn], because it directly
conflicts with mandatory Rule 49 (SUMMONS) and with the 14th
Amendment for DUE PROCESS. Importantly, both BURDAs, the
putative, involuntary plaintiffs, ultimately removed

7
Sweet turned out to be black-robed poster man for the pallbearers trip to Justice Hall
of Shame (if space remains)

8
pretty disingenuous for this triumvirate of Park Ave.-highway robbers[quote by
former Burda Managers Gerd Bolls/C.Hirsch]
9
FRCP Rule 4. Summons
(a) Contents; Amendments.
(1) Contents.
A summons must:
(A) name the court and the parties;
(B) through (G).[underline added for emphasis]

9
Roger, Wells/Clifford and Chance US LLP10, who had posed as
inartfully proctors, scheming paralegals, without a
procura alle lite mandate {BURDA directors never issued a
mandate to litigate, in German: Prozessvollmacht
granting Cliffords team, co-lead by Dr. Klaus Jander to
file a lawsuit in USA, since a Burda-Blumenberg forum
selection clause set Munich, Germany as exclusive venue
under German Law11} from their former clients for any
federal lawsuit nor a Federal RICO matter. Rogers & Wells
acted without mandate to be, at last, shut down and out.

E. Pro se statement

The United States Supreme Court unanimously held in

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d
652 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully

10
Notice of Docket Activity The following transaction was entered on
12/08/2014 at 10:37:38 AM EST and filed on 11/04/2014 Burda Media, Incorporated v.
Blumenberg
Case Name:

Case Number: 14-2815

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text: LETTER, dated 11/04/2014, confirming that Clifford Chance US LLP does not represent
Burda Media and Burda Holding GmbH & Company, on behalf of Appellee Burda Holding GmbH &
Company, KG and Burda Media, Incorporated, RECEIVED. Service date 11/04/2014 by US mail,
CM/ECF.[1387023] [14-2815]
11
German Law knows no equivalency to a Racketeering Influenced Criminal
Organization civil statute in German penal code StGB.

10
pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be
dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "
'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'
" Id., at 520-521, 92 S. Ct. at 596, quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d
80 (1957).

And further, a pro se motion may be dismissed for

failure to properly plead or state a claim only where "it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief". Here, the Public Record on JUDICIAL NOTICE speaks
for itself.

F. Historical Facts of legal nullity

Later, 2007, BURDA, the pseudo-Plaintiffs, dropped

paralegal and bar-card-holders representation by
terminating the BIGLAW firm of Federal/NY Bar associates
and has decidedly abandoned legal objections to
NULLIFICATION and has not argued in legal opposition of,
what BURDA since considers to be indefensible misconduct by
its former BIGLAW firm and counsel. BURDA recognized that
the BIGLAW firm they hired botched AO-440-SUMMONS and 6-12
months later unsuccessfully tried to process serve a few
of those miscreant-pamphlets together with a verbatim

11
SUMMONS Form French translation12 upon Movant and others
in France. These others were fictitious defendant
monikers that could not have legal or physical presence in
France and not in F-06230 Cap Ferrat13.

The Second Circuits cavalry support [intra] for the

BIGLAW firms botched transatlantic Hague service try-outs
must now be deemed, by jurists of reason, at least
irritating collusion, if not ignoble. As it turns out, the
Opinion was impermissibly impartial, discriminatory and
patently xenophobic. Defiance by a unwilling target was
the elephant in chambers. The Hague question which CA2s
panel answered was probably somewhat relevant, but this was
not a real but a FAKE case, pseudo-process over which
Circuits have no authority to opine. A place for dicta is
elsewhere. The self-made Policemen of the World lost
their batches long ago. Upholding opinions and Mandates
based upon total lack of [appellate] jurisdiction is
disgraceful. Scalia stated, The Judge who always likes the
result he reaches is a bad judge.

12
another genuine botch in French, where any valid Assignation requires a name of
a Court of competent jurisdiction to appear prominently on frontal page
13
TELECOMMUNICATION PARTNERS, TRANSVIDEO, TV BROADCAST CENTER, AGATE
REALITY, are four noms imaginaire de plume, wholesome fabrications by Plaintiffs
Park Avenue proctors, who acted without BURDAs mandate while construing this
unauthorized action. Not a single BURDA officer or director participated, nor acted, nor
authorized nor condoned this rogue RICO action.

12
 Disgrace often turns complete, unless prudent and
strong action stops the hemorrhaging [Roy Cohn, Trumps
mentor]

G. Reputational liabilities of fellow jurists must never

be of judicial concern

The Courts fear of reputational sufferance over

exposure of jurisdictional vacuum caused by a <lesser
valued> alien FAKE-default-judgment-debtor is too real, but
must stand back, just as Comity, when, as here, RULES for
FEDERAL ACCESS TO JURIDIC PROCESS and FEDERAL LAW can
finally be resurrected by this Appellate Court and maybe
turned into a small beacon, at last. Nostra culpa is
overdue. Scalia suggested to [H]ave the courage to have
your wisdom regarded as stupidity! Be fools for Christ. And
have the courage to suffer the contempt of the
sophisticated world.

This Second Circuit once nobly proclaimed: In the

context of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion, a judgment may be
declared void for want of jurisdiction only when the court
plainly usurped jurisdiction . . . [i.e.,] when there is a
total want of jurisdiction and no arguable basis on which
it could have rested a finding that it had jurisdiction.
Central Vermont Public Service Corp. v. Herbert, 341 F.3d
186, 190[underline as emphasis]

13
 The CA2s Hague Panel also proclaimed: We now hold that on a
motion to vacate a default judgment based on improper service of process where the
defaulting defendant had actual notice of the original proceeding but delayed in bringing
the motion, the defendant bears the burden of proof to establish that the purported
service did not occur. [Quoted >10 times in subsequent opinions].

And, exactly these words make a RECALL of its Mandate

so unavoidable, because i) time does never matter once a
jurisdictional defect incontrovertibly established, and ii)
<defendant>, Movant, shouldered its burden of proof by
JUDICIAL NOTICE of DE#1, as a nullity of a Summons,
despite many eager jurists and keen help practicing at both
Courts. Those underlings were distinctly and fairly
burdened to establish such a primitive check-list for
proof, but produced an extraordinary failure.

In fact, it is well grounded in law for a Court and

Judicial Officer to fulfill its sworn duty by assuring its
own jurisdiction was not CLOUDED, VOID or VOID ab initio.

"Under Rule 60(b)(4) a deferential standard of review is not appropriate

because if the underlying judgment is void, it is a per se abuse of discretion
for a district court to deny a movant's motion to vacate the judgment under
Rule 60(b)(4)." [Quoted 2 times]

Shift of that intrinsic duty to a foreign party was

simply an unethical abuse of discretion by a wanton
District Court, per se.

Instead, the pseudo-Courts Hague focal point was a

suspicious or blindfold diversion to only resolve haggles

14
over functional or dysfunctional Hague Certificates in the
barren, subordinate context of personal jurisdiction and
was an utterly futile academic exercise14 in neglectfulness
caused by Sweets unreasonable failure to examine15 Exhibit
A, as prima facie evidence, the inaugural doomed SUMMONS
DRAFT of Form AO 440 and to confirm its NULLITY and its
equally doomed French translation of Burdas16 useless
pseudo Summons, EXHIBIT B [bis17].

If jurisdiction was absent, the court must vacate the

judgment as void.

See Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 704 (6th Cir.

1974) (A void judgment is a legal nullity and a court
considering a motion to vacate has no discretion in
determining whether it should be set aside.)

15
In fact, at least two jurists, one, a law clerk, and a staff attorney, self-reportedly,
alerted their direct judicial masterminds of AO 440s obvious defect, but both regretfully
recall being silenced and gagged over the issue.

16
The term BURDA does not suggest, that Prof. Dr. Burda or his officers and directors
had scienter or participated in these pseudo proceedings that were exclusively initiated,
orchestrated, concluded by Roger & Wells, - gone - now >>Clifford Chance USA LLP, until
their termination by clients BURDA.

17
The French Central Authority numbers translations of Originals as bis [sic],
Definition: (adv) - (music) repeat, again, encore; (address) , a

15
 H. The Firm

The <magical> Firm produced a 1L textbook scenario18 of

how to abuse judicial process, and another of fraudulent
representation, evident by total absence of a BURDA officer
or director mandate to litigate. The mandate was for review
and structural advise in the New York BURDA office.
Attorney-greed cost BURDA more than 4 million without
counter value. Further, it was held in NY BURDA records at
BIGLAW Roger&Wells firm, that target Blumenberg was by
contract dated 1992 - immune from litigation in USA and
from U.S. Code violations. BURDAs home Court venue in
Munich was exclusive and under German laws, -RICO abuse
was not permitted. The firm act unethically for greed.

Any which way one turns, fraud by bar associates, so

dearly favored by a few of their judicial peers, is rampant
at the Nations Mother Court. The Swamp must be drained.

Blumenberg and Movant, two of many pseudo defendants

were denied relief by nomenclatural actors.

Movant had applications for VACATUR derailed despite of

a rogue, swindler-made RICO-DEFAULT-JUDGMENT for

18
This Motion will be circulated among a choice group of Movants peers at Law Schools
and blogs authors as well as judicial law clerks at the Queens Privy Council

16
 19
$2+millions [without inquest or RICO test, EXHIBIT C ]
that was, to borrow from Scalias Latin sheet, ultra vires,
because Appellate Courts are equally jurisdiction-free
once a District Courts inadvertent error, maybe sub or
conscious avoidance, obstruction of justice, maybe
blindfulness or maybe Park Avenue thunderstruck, failed to
dismiss for lack of a valid original, inaugural SUMMONS,
that prevented all federal jurisdiction to establish or
lay. The NULLITY is preserved on Public Record.

The Opinion, often cited, more often cited erroneously,

was reasonably weighted by scholars (also by Miner, NYU law
review) to have been textbook misfortune of a wrong
standard of review thus, its result was biased,
unsurprisingly, in favor of Big Law who, by less-magic
touch, botched its inaugural SUMMONS FORM AO440 in such an
unsalvageable manner, that a restart on a valid AO 440
would have cost the magic firms reputation, cause ridicule
from Law Journals and the British press, and would have
cost dearly in billed-dollars for refunds, claw-backs and
just maybe earlier discovery by clients BURDA.

Jurists of reason have assured Movant, that the panels

unfortunate thumbs-up was not unusual, but, nevertheless,

19
Unconscionably CERTIFIED as a COPY by a fictitious SDNY Clerk ghost, Melanie L.
Lopez , a counterfeit Latina rubberstamp to which no deputizable live American
person attached, invisible and unreachable on x_x_x@sdny.uscourts.gov .

17
oftimes abused as undeserved commercial advantage, a
predilection for power over weakness.

I. Good Cause to Vacate

Good Cause to VACATE coincides with fundamental

injustice and fundamental lack of federal jurisdiction
caused by a NULLITY of SUMMONS that was erroneously
ingested upon intake, failed law clerk and judicial
oversight contrary to an implicit duty to inspect form
and functionality of instruments that Rule 4 requires to
establish Federal Jurisdiction on statutory grounds.

[N]o passage of time can transmute a nullity into a

binding judgment, and hence there is no time limit for such
a motion. It is true that the text of the rule dictates
that the motion will be made within a reasonable time.

There are no time limits with regards to a challenge to

a void judgment because of its status as a nullity...
United States v. One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147,
157 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted);

Since dysfunctional SUMMONSES20, and their exact

translation, were impotent to confer any or personal

20
Until recently, District Courts too frequently faced defective 440 Forms from scads of
lawyerly dimwits to cause the Administrative Office USC to upload its Online-Template
for Form 440, which blocks save or prints, unless practitioners selected one Name
of Court from a multi-choice drop-down menu shown below]

18
jurisdiction either by valid Hague and, coequally, by
invalid or botched Hague process service21 (irrespective of
buddy support), the firm knew it was on an illegal,
unlawful path and its [PROPOSED] DEFAULT TRIPLE PUNISHMENT
for Movant should never have been submitted without
officers or directors of Burda explicit approval and a duly
sworn loss statements by such officers and should have much
less issued, not only in view of ample authority reflecting
the federal systems disdain for default judgments,
particularly those from Kafka-Lands.

It most probably was a curved judicial ball thrown 2000

to a Big Firm to interrupt their Big Gun billing scheme to
a clueless multi billionaire - foreign client, a sad
judicial ruse Court insiders labeled: a compliant billing
enabler.

http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/notice-lawsuit-summons-subpoena/summons-civil-action

19
 FIAT UT PETITUR

For good cause presented above, Movant respectfully

submits that all MANDATES OF THIS COURT shall be RECALLED
in this Case and in prior related Cases, its Opinions and
S.Os withdrawn, and proceedings nullified nunc-pro-tunc,
with appropriate public notice causing a halt to Movants
internet record opprobrium. The Court shall consider to
issue a stern enough warning what can go wrong when
associated bar litigators misconduct and collude and when
such misdeeds are not caught timely by those under duty to
fairly administer federal Courts and Public records.

Chief Judge Lamberth called out: "We're a public

institution - we're accountable to the public."

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of July 2017

Christian T. Viertel Maitre Aldo Funaro

Pro Se of counsel

Istituto di Torre della Giustizia

9/18 via delle Ballodole 50139 ITALIA FIRENZE
viertel2020@aol.com 1-914-352-1839

4pg Attachments/EXHIBITS/ Wordcount: 3713

Motion Info Statement (Front Cover), ecf Service

20
EXIBIT A: Exhibit A

21
EXIBIT B: Exhibit A bis the FRENCH HAGUE Version:

22
 EXIBIT C DE#93: Exhibit C: The wrongfullly accepted
Default Proposal, FAKE-certified by a NYSD fictitious
Court Deputy: Melanie L. Lopez. [ 1 of 2]

23
 EXIBIT C cont: Default Proposal FAKE-certified by
NYSD fictitious Court Deputy: Melanie L. Lopez. [2 of 2]

24
Courtesy Certificate of FYI-email-SERVICE upon BURDA

25