_________________________________________________________
Open Questions:
1. Why was the Rampart scandal investigation left under Los Angeles District Attorney (part of the State system) and not removed to Federal agencies, as it should have been? It was the largest public corruption investigation in the history of the U.S.
2. Why was the investigation allowed to be concluded with no final report?
3. Why was there no effort on the part of Federal agencies to release the thousands of victims, the Rampart-FIPs?
4. Why are Federal agencies patronizing the LA-JR at a cost to the treasury so far of about $1 trillion?
5. Why are Federal agencies refusing to comply with ratified International Law:
- Fail to provide Equal Protection under the Law, as required by International Law.
- Fail to maintain Competent National Tribunals for the Protection of (a) Human Rights per international Law and (b) rights pursuant to the Constitution of this Country and its Amendments, as required by International Law,
- Fail to protect the Human Rights of the 10 millions who reside in LA County, as required by International Law,
- Allow residents of LA County to be subjected to the LA-JR
_________________________________________________________
JACQUELINE CONNOR
&
THE RAMPART SCANDAL (1998-2000)
Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleged as a key figure in the LA-JR (Alleged LA-Judiciary Racket).
· Started her career at the District Attorney’s Office.
· Was recognized as “tough on crime”.
· Was recognized as particularly close to RAFAEL PEREZ and other police from the Rampart Division of the LAPD.
· Such police had a reputation of lawlessness even before the onset of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000).
· Such officers often appeared in Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR’s courtroom as witnesses in criminal litigations.
· Such witnesses led to convictions of suspects and their sentencing to long prison terms.
· Later during the Rampart-scandal investigation, it was concluded that a large group of police officers from the Rampart Division engaged in routine framing of evidence, extraction of false confessions through torture, and appearances as false witnesses to falsely convict and falsely sentence a large number of suspect the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons).
· RAFAEL PEREZ later told investigators that all such testimonies were fabricated. The suspects were framed.
· Such framings were the core of the Rampart-scandal.
· A couple of years prior to the scandal, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR provided RAFAEL PEREZ with a glowing recombination letter, referring specifically to his performance in appearances as witness before her.
· After the eruption of the Rampart Scandal and after Rafael Perez signed a plea bargain, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR appeared in a public functions where his family were seated in the audience. He was jailed. From the podium she made comments that were quoted in newspapers. Reading the comments today, they sound like a warning to RAFAEL PEREZ not to cooperate with the District Attorney investigators. These comments were said to raise eyebrows already then.
· Why would a judge object to a corrupt police deciding to cooperate with investigators?
· Later when the Fist Rampart Trial stated, she appeared as the Presiding Judge for the case. At that time newspapers were still reporting… and they express their amazement at the assignment. It was clear that the litigation involved directly conduct that took place in her courtroom.
· A report of interview with the Presiding Judge of the Court stated at the end that he got no response when repeating the question how could such assignment be considered reasonable, except that the Presiding Judge of the Court repeated each time: She is a very proper person.
· During the litigation newspaper reported that she appeared biased towards the Defense. Normally she was known to be the opposite.
· She ruled to exclude most of the Prosecution evidence, a ruling that appeared to observers uniquely biased. Some predicted then, that she managed to derail the trial, and that the jury would like find “not guilty”.
· At the end the jury surprised the observers, and convicted three of the four police on trial.
· On December 22, 2000, in the evening, from home, she ruled to void the trial. The ruling was described in media as ”unprecedented”. Others found only room for praise – how often would you find a judge admitting an error?
· It is not clear what her standing in the LA-JR was prior to the First Rampart Trial, but there is no doubt that after it, she was a central figure. Not only was she smarter than most of them ( let’s admit it – she was by far the smartest of any that I met), but on top, she had the gut to stay in the kitchen, when it got really hot.
· Then again – others say – she was the one who had to most to lose – therefore – she had to stay in the kitchen.
Anecdotes:
· Re: “errors”, I claim that after review of her performance in the civil court in Samaan v Zernik a reasonable person would be hard pressed to accept any error by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR as naïve. Instead, the errors would be recognized as her signature con method, which is rather sophisticated.
· Just as a primer on errors by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR: on her first ever appearance in Samaan v Zernik she presided over hearing of a demurrer pursuant to Statute of Frauds. At that time she was herself launching a statute of frauds fraud.
· In cataloging frauds, I designate Statute of Frauds Fraud in the category of Overarching. It took almost 2 years from start to finish, in contrast with Short Term, or Intermediate. Planning and executing an Overarching Fraud, I consider also a trademark of a Pro. Most guys are built for the Short Term frauds only. It requires character, planning, troubleshooting… confidence, experience…
· The records found for the demurrer showed that she in “error” generated records for the demurrer that day that included: “OVERRULED”, “GRANTED”, and “DISPOSED”, simultaneously. Well – the DISPOSE was a must, the OVERRULED was for the paper file, and the GRANTED was in case of Petition to the court of appeals? Or maybe just for fun…
· On the same date she also issued in “error” a fake assignment Order that was three months back-dated, under the name of Linda Lefkowitz.
· And to top it off – she ran on the same day an “off the record” Initial Case Conference, which is of course a must in any ET (Enterprise Track) case, but good practice is not to have Initial Caes Conference in any case, just for a good measure
· SI was once trying to count how many frauds she was running simultaneoulsly in early July 2007 in my case alone... I believe I got to 10 or something aroudn that. But then again - maybe I never figured out some of them...
· Sometimes she tries to have an act with the Clerk- Vivian Jaime, but it really does not fly... Jaime is not into the performing arts... Maybe she could train, basically - she needs a sidekick...
_________________________________________________________
RAFAEL PEREZ
&
THE RAMPART SCANDAL (1998-2000)
Former undercover narcotics Police Officer of the Rampart Division of the LAPD.
· Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR was recognized as particularly close to him and other police from that division.
· Such police had a reputation of lawlessness even before the onset of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000).
· Such officers often appeared in Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR’s courtroom and provided testimonies in criminal litigations – to convict suspects and sentence them for long prison terms – the RAMPART-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons).
· RAFAEL PEREZ later told investigators that all such testimonies were fabricated. The suspects were framed.
· Such framings were the core of the Rampart-scandal.
· A couple of years prior to the scandal, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR provided RAFAEL PEREZ with a glowing recombination letter, referring specifically to his performance in appearances as witness before her.
· After the eruption of the Rampart Scandal and after Rafael Perez signed a plea bargain, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR appeared in a public functions where his family were seated in the audience. He was jailed. From the podium she made comments that were quoted in newspapers. Reading the comments today, they sound like a warning to RAFAEL PEREZ not to cooperate with the District Attorney investigators. These comments were said to raise eyebrows already then.
· Why would a judge object to a corrupt police deciding to cooperate with investigators?
· Later when the Fist Rampart Trial stated, she appeared as the Presiding Judge for the case. At that time newspapers were still reporting… and they express their amazement at the assignment. It was clear that the litigation involved directly conduct that took place in her courtroom.
· Rafael Perez was scheduled to take the stand in the first Rampart Trial. But that was surely undesirable. Well, then his girlfriend was first arrested and held as some kind of threat against him. Then she was purported to tell investigators that he killed someone and buried the body some place. And it happened right on time for his time to take the stand – and his attorney had to advise him not to do that, so that he would not be asked about the murder issue and incriminate himself.. Later it turned out that there was no murder to start out. But it worked like a charm… and the Trial ended without his taking the stand.
· Of course – a question of interest is what he told or did not tell the District Attorney regarding the LA-JR.
· My bet is that he did tell them something, in disregard of the warning he got from Judge CONNOR in her comments in the public function. Accordingly, he later suffered retribution. The interesting thing to examine, is how such retribution was meted. He was subjected to the “Federal option” – criminal Federal prosecution that both he and his attorney later claimed they were misled to believe was part of the plea bargain. It was later determined to not be the case, and Rafael Perez was convicted and served time also in Federal prison.
· In contrast – although some discussion was heard of the “Federal option” relative to the four police who were the Defendants in the First Rampart Trial (2000) derailed by Judge CONNOR, it was never applied to them,
· More over, one may reasonably state that at the bottom line the Defendants of the First Rampart Trial (2000) should consider their decision not to cooperate with investigators a prudent one – they collected an award of $15 millions through the courts, which was subjected to final review by the 9th District Court of Appeals.
_________________________________________________________
U.S. Dept of JUSTICE, FBI
&
The Rampart Scandal (1998-2000)
A. Appearances of Non-Engagement
Purportedly - Federal agencies left it to State of California agencies to work out the case. Therefore, the investigation and prosecution were under the charge of California Department of Justice, Los Angeles County District Attorney, with the end result of prosecution at the LA Superior Court, what came to be known as the First Rampart Trial (2000), where Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR appeared as Presiding Judge. The trial was derailed, and with that - an end came to the prosecutions of the Rampart scandal culprits, and also an end to any attempt to release the thousands of victims.
The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) reviewed such events, and concluded that LA County Justice system could not investigate itself, prosecute itself, and adjudicate itself. It recommended an "Outside Investigation". However, one can argue that even from the perspective of 1998, or 1999, or 2000 - years during which Mayorkas was key decision maker for the U.S. Dept of Justice on the matter - it was clear that the scope of the corruption was such that required removal of the investigation from State to Federal Jurisdiction:
- It was the biggest corruption investigation in the history of the U.S. with 200 investigators assigned to it for 2 years.
- In the year 2000, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky described it as the worst abuse of Civil Rights by police in the history of the U.S. He also characterized it as typical of "police states and most repressive regimes".
- The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) concluded that the investigation was deliberately restricted to prevent it from exposing the full scope of the corruption, which was much wider than represented in any of the available reports.
The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) also explained at the outset the reason that it was commissioned in 2003: When LAPD Chief Bratton assumed his position, he was expected to lead the LAPD out of the scandal and to implement measures that reflect lessons learned from the scandal. However, there was no Report issued at the end of the Rampart scandal investigation. The Panel in its Report explains that it refused to issue such report, since it concluded that the investigation, massive as it was, was a failure, and the Panel concluded that we did not know the basic facts about the scandal yet.B. Involvement in Cover Up
1. Rewards and Punishments
a. Although "The Federal Option" was discussed at the time in media as a likely way to resolve the outrage after the derailing of the First Rampart Trial, it was never applied to the 4 police who were charged with corruption in that prosecution.
b. "The Federal Option" was applied on RAFAEL PEREZ - after he signed a plea bargain with the District Attorney, but was presumably wanred by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR not to cooperate with the investigation.
2. Consent Decree
a. The Consent Decree (2001) was framed on an artificially narrow basis:
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS lead the U.S. prosecution and drafted the Consent Deceree, entered in July 2001 in U.S. v City of LA et al at the U.S. District Court, LA. For reasons that were never explored, the Consent Decree was framed only under the section of the code that pertains to the abuse of rights of juveniles under the color of law (42 USC § 14141), and omitted the section that pertains to abuse of rights of others, such as adults under the color of law (42 USC §1983 ).
The section used as foundation for the consent decree, 42 USC § 14141, states:
(a) Unlawful conduct
It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(b) Civil action by Attorney General
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1) [1] has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
b. The Overseer for Civil Rights pursuant to the Consent Decree (2001-2009) had limited effect.
There is no doubt that the LAPD under Chief Bratton made substantial efforts, as reviewed in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), and achieved substantial progress, and such efforts were facilitated by the mandate of the Consent Decree, which forced the city to provide the means for such efforts. However, reviewing the effect of the Overseer as such, one may conclude that the effect of the office was limited. Key provisions in the Consent Decreee were never implemented, as far as could be determined today. Primarily - the key provision of periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers such as RAFAEL PEREZ, was never implemented. One should note that in the early 2000's several such Overseers for Civil Rights were appointed by the Bush administration, including one for the Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and another one - for the healthcare of Prisoners in California. In all three cases, in retrospect, one may conclude that the appointment of Overseers was more of a Public Relations action that one that was intended, or resulted in improvement in the underlying matters.
One may wonder or at least entertain the doubt that factors foreign to the furtherance of justice were involved in the decision not to remove the investigation from State to U.S.
3. Rampart-FIPs
No Federal agency made any attempt to release the victims.
In a pone call and letter to the Consent Decree Bureau in 2008, towards the end of the tenure f the Overseer, staff had no idea of any attempt past or present to release the FIPs, and the letter remained unanswered.
B. Patronizing LA-JR
1. All conduct of Federal agencies listed above is consistent with patronizing the LA-JR.
2. An unusual e-mail note from veteran FBI agent JAMES WEDICK in August 2008, explains the refusal of FBI to investigate real estate fraud by the LA-JR, as related to FBI refusal to investigate the judges of the LA Superior Court.
3. STEVE GOLDMAN, Chief of the White Collar Crime Squad of FBI, in fact attempted to induce this writer to file a complaint where the role of judges was not mentions. This writer considered any filing of declaration under penalty of perjury, where the most pertinent facts were to be avoided, as a major liability, and as of little chance of success.
4. Responses of KENNETH KAISER and KENNETH MELSON to congressional inquiries regarding the refusal of FBI and US Dept of Justice to investigate, must be found as fraud upon review by a competent court. There is no reasonable explanation for such official letters other than patronizing the LA-JR.
5. Refusal to engage in the current situation. In the face of overwhelming evidence. FBI never engaged in the current situation.
____________________________.
Early Life: Born in Havana, Cuba, Alejandro "Ali" Mayorkas' family fled from the country in 1960 when Mayorkas was barely a year old. The family entered the United States as refugees and settled in California. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Mayorkas shared how significant this move was for his family:
"My father lost the country of his birth, and my mother, for the second time in her young life, was forced to flee a country she considered home. But our flight to security gave us the gift of this wonderful new homeland. I know how very fortunate I am."
Career:Mayorkas served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California from 1989 to 1998. During this time, he served as Chief of the Office's General Crimes Section, where he trained and mentored Assistant U.S. Attorney new hires.From 1998 until 2001, Mr. Mayorkas was the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. At 39 years old, Mayorkas was the youngest U.S. Attorney in the nation at that time. From 2001 until his USCIS appointment, Mr. Mayorkas had been a partner with the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers. Mayorkas holds a J.D. from Loyola Law School and a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.
USCIS Director: Nominated by President Barack Obama on April 24, 2009 and unanimously confirmed on August 7th by the Senate, Mayorkas was sworn in as USCIS' third director on August 12, 2009. Mayorkas accepted the appointment, saying:
"The USCIS mission is rooted in the vision of our founding fathers. My family, like millions of others, came to this country to pursue our dreams in a land of liberty and opportunity. I am committed to administering our country’s immigration and naturalization laws efficiently and with fairness, honesty, and integrity."
Personal: Mayorkas was named as one of the "50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America" in 2008 by the National Law Journal. He serves on the Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek Legal Services, a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the disadvantaged with access to justice. He also serves on the Board of Directors of United Friends of the Children, a non-profit organization devoted to the well-being of foster youth in Los Angeles County. Mayorkas and wife Tanya have two young daughters, Giselle and Amelia.
_____________________________
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS was the key person in this regard, as U.S. Attorney for Central California (The Federal Central District of California includes Los Angeles) at the time. Of interest in his resume above, is his service at Bet Tzedek. The man who was in charge of U.S. Department of Justice operation in Central California 1998-2001, was listed by 2007, as President Elect of BET TZEDEK, where he was to succeed:
a) Atty SANDOR SAMUELS - Associate General Counsel of Bank of America Corporation, formerly Chief Legal Officer of Countrywide Financial Corporation, a key figure in organized crime - and
b) Atty DAVID PASTERNAK - an attorney who was opined by highly decorated FBI veteran JAMES WEDICK as the perpetrator of Fraud Grant Deeds, likewise, he was evidenced to engage in racketeering at the LA Superior Courts in collusion with Judge JOHN SEGAL in Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish, and under whose name numerous defective Grant Deeds were found in the office of Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder, issued on behalf of the courts, and demonstrating at least some of the features that led JAMES WEDICK to opine fraud in re: Grant Deeds in Samaan v Zerni. In a phone call in 2007 Atty Mayorkas denied that he was President Elect, and indeed he never succeeded Samuels.
____________________________.
