10-11-11 Did Judge JED RAKOFF engage in IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT? Further discussion on OAK board

US Judge JED RAKOFF
SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829): Did US Judge JED RAKOFF engage in IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT?

Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 58 minutes ago
Someone expressed confusion about the L. A. court system. With problems in the federal district court, southern district of New York, I would hope that the media covering the case looks into problems with attendant paperwork. Very few journalists went to law school, not like Bill Curtis on CBS TV who covered the Charlie Manson trial.
Andrew


Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA just now
Hi Dr Jackson:
I am glad that we got some of the minor confusion and distraction out of the way:
a) The paper, which was published in computer science, peer-reviewed journal opined computer fraud in the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF from coast to coast.
b) Also a previous example - the habeas corpus of Richard Fine - opined as Fraud on the Court as well - was in a US District Court. Therefore, California budget deficits were irrelevant there, and are irrelevant in the case of SEC v BAC as well. In fact, PACER and CM/ECF were implemented in a decade long project of the Administrative Office of the US Courts, which was concluded a couple of years ago, at the estimated cost of low $ billions. For the same money, one could easily design a valid and honest system. A system where all authentication records are concealed from public access is not cheaper, possibly more expensive. Regardless, there were numerous features in design of the systems that were indicative of deliberate intent to mislead - hence fraud.
c) As you know, I am not an attorney either. The review in the paper, recently submitted for a peer-reviewed international law journal, was not a legal review, but of clerical nature. You did not have to be a rocket scientist to look at the docket of SEC v BAC at the US District Court in New York to figure out that it did not resemble any kind of valid litigation. One should assume that legal reporters of major media outlets at least are experienced at looking at dockets. Furthermore, media were repeatedly informed during the litigation of its fraudulent nature. Regardless, such media continued to report the case as if there was no concern regarding validity and integrity of the records.
JZ


Hi again Dr Jackson:
Let's get back to the core issue -
CONDUCT OF JUDGE JED RAKOFF IN SEC v BAC
Not being an attorney - I believe that conduct of Judge Rakoff - a judge of the highest reputation - in the case of SEC v BAC was of the type that is Impeachable Misconduct. Similar conduct by Judge Manuel Real at the US District Court, Central District of California, in a case that had minimal public policy significance, led to the initiation of Impeachment Proceedings at the US Congress.
A plausible explanations for conduct of media is in concern regarding retaliation. Attorney Steven Yagman exposed and complained about the conduct of Judge Manuel Real. Within a few months Attorney Yagman landed in federal prison for several years - on tax evasion of the order of $100,000, which some claimed would have been resolved with fines in other cases. In his sentencing hearing he quoted Kafka "a cage went looking for a bird",,,
It is the standard treatment of whistleblowers in the US in recent years...
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine's case provided yet another example. He exposed and rebuked the fact that all judges in Los Angeles County, California, took for 10 years "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"), which required the enactment of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.
Richard Fine landed in 18 months of solitary confinement with no warrant, no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered in his case.
Most journalists are probably not that brave...
JZ