Comment by just now
Dr Jackson-
A question:
The US was in fact the one that established the international law doctrine of international monitoring (and intervention) in matters of Human Rights, with the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Later it became part of ratified International Law.
Naturally, the US found it of convenience to hold itself the Enforcer, but exluded itself from any binding international treaties and conventions in the matter.
* Isn't it a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gender?
* Why should the US refuse to cooperate with international monitors and rapporteurs, if things are so peachy keen?
After all, any nation could argue that 'competent and honest nationals could do that and don't need international supervision...' Obviously, history shows that it does not always work that way... Surely not within reasonable time from historic perspective.
Based on US history of the past 200 years, it may take half a century or more to fix conditions of the justice system that emerged in the US in recent decades...
Joseph Zernik
LINKS:
[1] Regarding refusal of the US to cooperate with international monitors and rapporteurs, see the UN 2010 UPR report:
10-11-10 United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Working Group: Outcome Document of the 2010 UPR of the United States: Wg.6 9 l.9 Usa
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42157366/
___
Comment by 6 hours ago
US District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles)
Hi Dr Jackson:
With all due respect... How can 'competent and honest American do that'?
Even the US Supreme Court is denying access to its electronic records, as documented below, and keeps only false and deliberately misleading records in its paper court file...
Moreover, the evidence as a whole shows that in none of the cases that were listed below there was any judicial review at all... Only false and deliberately misleading 'notices' of 'denials' were issued by an unauthorized SCOTUS employee in collusion with the Clerk of SCOTUS, and false and deliberately misleading 'dockets' were published online.
In all US courts that were examined, without exception, and in the California state courts as well, it is obvious that the clerks today consider themselves unaccountable for the integrity of any of the records that are published online. To wit - no US Court clerk, which was requested, agreed to certify a PACER docket...
Moreover, even in cases where US judges were caught in what should be deemed obvious willful judicial misconduct, the outcome was mostly a slap on the wrist.
Check out for example:
Regulation of US Judicial Ethics and the case of US Judge (Los Angeles, not surprisingly) Manuel Real... [1]
Moreover, review of the history of the US Courts shows rampant corruption during the notorious Robber Baron Era, for example. Reform efforts by the US Congress lasted for almost half a century, repeatedly undermined by the judiciary...
The First Step in any 12 Step Program is recognizing that you have no control over the situation, and need help from all powers that be... :)
It appears at times that the legal profession in the United States is under a Code of Silence, or worse, actively covering up the level of judicial corruption, which is unheard of in other 'Western Democracies', and trying to dupe the public at large to believe that the system is somewhere within reasonable range of integrity...
JZ
LINKS:
[1] 10-11-28 Regulation of US Judicial Ethics and the Case of Judge Manuel Real-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44210446/
_______
Comment by 9 hours ago
Reasons may vary, but in some places court records need to be in order, and electronic records need to have paper counterparts where both are filed. I think competent and honest Americans could do that and don't need international supervision, but public records being open to everyone, nothing prevents some Rapporteur or his henchman from taking a look. Andrew
_______
Comment by 20 hours ago
Hi Lilly:
I hope that the release below addressed your question: "what shall be done about it," at least in part. As to: "one size fits all approach": There are some parts that are one size fits all, where the system as a whole needs to be fixed, and those were outlined below:
1) Placing the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General, and
2) Enacting federal rules pertaining to electronic court records.
However, in papers, which were submitted for international peer-review in top-tier legal journals, the proposed approach was further elaborated: The one size fits all must be done first, because it would include the restoration of public access to electronic court records. I claim that only after that is done, the full level of corruption of the judiciary would be exposed.
At that time it would become evident that there is no way to prosecute or impeach all the offending judge, therefore, Truth and Reconciliation Commission would have to be established.
Further measures were proposed:
1) The public at large, and computing professionals in particular, would have to continue to vigilantly monitor the electronic papers of the courts.
2) The US should be subjected to international monitoring, through cooperation with international monitors and rapporteurs, and by ratifying Human Rights treaties and conventions.
I hope that I answered your questions. Joseph Zernik
_________
Comment by on November 26, 2010 at 12:01am
US Supreme Court
William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States – Evidence of Public Corruption
[see separate posting:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2010/11/10-11-25-william-suter-clerk-of-supreme.html ]
_________
Comment by on November 22, 2010 at 4:38am
Joseph, I am in complete agreement: "Conditions in both the state and US courts have reached levels of corruption, which have not been seen since the late 19th - early 20th century."
The issue is: what shall be done about it. The 'one size fits all' approach in dealing with it just isn't going to work.
PS:// Civility and diplomacy work best when it is enforced by behind the scene bare knuckles.
No comments:
Post a Comment