10-12-17 SEC's Freedom of Information Response in re: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) // Falso Registros Bancarios Reglamento // 假银行监管记录

  

Judge Jed Rakoff_ _ _ _ _ _  _ __ __ _ _ _BAC Pres Brian Moynihan_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SEC Chair Mary Schapiro


SEC's Freedom of Information Response in re: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)

Pretense Litigation under SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States

Los Angeles, December 17 - Human Rights Alert and Joseph Zernik, PhD, released Freedom of Information Act responses [1] provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission, pertaining to litigation under SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829), including unsigned Summons as issued by clerk.

The PACER docket of the case failed to include the summons as issued by clerk in apparent violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Moreover, the office of the Clerk of the Court refused to provide a copy of the Summons, and claimed that the custom at the US District Court, Southern District of New York, was not to docket the summons.

The PACER docket also failed to include any reference to execution of service of the Summons, or waiver of the execution of the service of the Summons and the Complaint.

As documented in the FOIA-responses released today, SEC failed to provide any evidence of an Assignment Order for Judge Jed Rakoff and Minutes of the proceedings in the case, all of which were missing from the PACER (the online Public Access system of the US courts) docket as well.

SEC also refused refused to provide copies of the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) - the attestation/authentication for judicial records, including, but not limited to the NEF pertaining to the purported February 24, 2010 Final Consent Judgment.

The office of the Clerk of the Court also refused to provide copies of the NEFs in the case, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.

Absent attestation/authentication by the Clerk of the Court, the February 24, 2010 Final Consent Judgment cannot be deemed a valid and effectual judicial record.

For the reasons, including but not limited to the above listed ones, the case as a whole was opined in a scholarly report, filed for international peer-review, as pretense litigation and Fraud on the Court. [2]

The report also reviewed the extensive coverage of the case by both US and international media.  The case was widely perceived as the highlight of enforcement of corporate and banking regulation under the current financial crisis.  In contrast, the report opined that the case was the hallmark of pretense Banking Regulation in the United States, and direct evidence of the tight link between corruption of the US courts and corruption of banking regulation. 

The report also served as the basis for requests, which were filed with the US Congress judiciary and banking committees to initiate investigation, and if appropriate - impeachment proceedings - against US Judge Jed Rakoff and Clerk of the US Court Ruby Krajick. [3, 4]

Human Rights Alert also called upon US Congress to initiate corrective actions:

1) Restoring provisions of the Salary Act of 1919, which placed the clerks of the US courts under the direct authority of the US Attorney General.
Such provisions were key to restoration of integrity of the US courts and ending the Robber Baron Era a century ago.

2) Enacting federal rules or electronic court records.
Such rules would restore accountability of the clerks for the PACER records, and restore public access to the attestation/authentication records of the US courts, now universally excluded from Public Access in apparent violation of First Amendment rights, following implementation of PACER and CM/ECF (the elelctronic case management system of the US courts) by the Administrative Office of the US Courts.  Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF was claimed as key to undermining the authority of the clerks and integrity of the US courts.

Such actions by US Congress were asserted as essential not only for restoring the integrity of the US courts, but also for restoring the integrity of banking regulation and ending the current economic Depression.


Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ 
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345  

LINKS:
[1] 10-12-17 RE: SEC Freedom of Information Response re: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45502385/
[2] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States - pending
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/
[3] 10-12-04 RE: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE - Request for Investigation, Impeachment Proceedings Where Appropriate s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44669382/
[4] 10-12-08 Press Release - Request for Investigation, Impeachment of RUBY KRAJICK, Clerk US District Court, Southern District of New York-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44910959/