10-02-09 [English/Castellano] Requesting Refund from the US District Court Los Angeles - for failure to provide honest court services / Solicitud de Reembolso de los EE.UU. Tribunal de Distrito de Los Ángeles - por no facilitar los servicios judiciales honestos..

Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:41:51 -0800
To: "Terry Nafisi"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Zernik  v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - request for refund of filing fees. Timely response requested.
Cc: "Dawn Bullock"

February 9, 2010

Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court
US District Court, Los Angeles

Timely response within 2 days is requested.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!

Dear Clerk Nafisi:

To this date, you have failed to respond on the simplest questions regarding conduct of the case of Zernik  v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).  However, the records in my possession were sufficient to determine that the complaint in the case was never entered - no valid NEF was ever issued.

I therefore request full refund of my filing fees in the case, since I was never recipient of the honest court services implied in the payment of such fees.  Please provide full refund within 2 business days.  My mailing address is provided below.

I further request you answer regarding disposition of future cases that I may want to file at the US District Court, LA.  

Am I barred for life from any access to the court? 

Was it only a one time denial of access?   

Does the office of the Clerk determine on a case by case basis whether or not to allow access to the court?

Timely response within 2 days is requested.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526
La Verne, CA 91750
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

_____________
Fecha: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:41:51 -0800A: "Terry Nafisi"De: Joseph Zernik
Asunto: V Zernik Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - Solicitud de devolución de las tasas de tramitación. La respuesta oportuna solicitada.Cc: "Dawn Bullock"
9 de febrero 2010
Terry Nafisi, Secretario de la CorteTribunal de Distrito de EE.UU., Los Ángeles

La respuesta oportuna a los 2 días se solicita.

El tiempo es la esencia!

Estimado Secretario Nafisi:
Para esta fecha, no han respondido a las preguntas más simples en cuanto al comportamiento del caso de Zernik V Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550). Sin embargo, las actas en mi poder fueron suficientes para determinar que la denuncia en el caso nunca se inscribió - no válido NEF nunca se emitió.
Por lo tanto, la solicitud de reembolso completo de mi tasas de tramitación en el caso, ya que nunca fue beneficiario de los servicios judiciales honestos implícita en el pago de dichas tasas.Sírvanse proporcionar reembolso completo dentro de 2 días hábiles. Mi dirección de correo es a continuación.
También le invito respuesta sobre la disposición de futuros casos que la posibilidad de poner en el Tribunal de Distrito de EE.UU., LA.

¿Estoy excluido de por vida de cualquier acceso a la corte?¿Era sólo una negación de un tiempo de acceso?¿La oficina de la Escribana de determinar, caso por caso si permite o no el acceso a la corte?

La respuesta oportuna a los 2 días se solicita.

El tiempo es la esencia!

         En verdad,
         

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526
La Verne, CA 91750http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

10-02-09 Subject: Fact-Based Discussion: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) Law.com - Rakoff Still Has Questions About SEC Pact With BofA - Or is Rakoff just conducting a false display of justice at the United States court???

   

Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:44:23 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Fact-Based Discussion: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) Law.com - Rakoff Still Has Questions About SEC Pact With BofA - Or is Rakoff just conducting a false display of justice at the United States court???
Just another United States judge running his own little false display of justice... It looks like Alejandro Mayorkas was not that original after all... The case of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) is almost a direct copy of US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)...

The case was never sealed, but the US District Court, NY, would not allow access to the records in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) - no access to the summons, no access to the NEFs, just as the US District Court, LA would not allow access to the records in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)... And there is good evidence to support the notion that no NEF was ever issued in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) - the same way that the Consent Decree was never entered in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) ...

In both cases no explanation was provided for denial of First Amendment rights...

SEC v BAC is just another false display of justice in the United States Courts, to benefit a large bank... Just as in the case of US v City of LA it was never an adversarial litigation in the first place. The two parties came to court as two old friends, with a written settlement in hand, just asking the court to rubber stamp it for them. Judge Rakoff refused to be treated as an obvious rubber stamp, so he is dragging it a bit... However, there is no way that the outcome of this litigation would be anything other than a sham... No claims were ever filed against any individual to start out... Therefore, the end result was that the taxpayer was paying for the attorneys to move the taxpayers money from one pocket to the other...

Most recently, request was filed by this writer with Mary Schapiro, SEC Chair, to release copies of the summons and the NEFs. If indeed the case was an honest, valid and effectual litigation, enforcement action by a regulatory agency, what reason would SEC have to hide the summons and the NEFs???

Any plausible explanation of this conduct of SEC and the US court, which is consistent with honesty, compliance with the US law, and furtherance of justice, would be greatly appreciated... As far as I can tell, it is just widespread corruption of the courts...

Robber Baron Revival Era...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26182464/10-01-31-Letter-to-SEC-Chair-Mary-Schapiro-Re-Complaints-Against-Bank-of-America-Corporation-and-Brian-Moynihan-s

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
At 06:29 AM 2/9/2010, you wrote:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202442986867&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100209&kw=Rakoff%20Still%20Has%20Questions%20About%20SEC%20Pact%20With%20BofA

Rakoff Still Has Questions About SEC Pact With BofA

In particular, the federal judge asked the director of the SEC's New York regional office why the agency was 'silent' about the circumstances surrounding the termination of the bank's former in-house counsel

Noeleen G. Walder

New York Law Journal

February 09, 2010

Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff grilled attorneys for the Securities and Exchange Commission Monday about a proposed $150 million settlement -- the second submitted to him -- that would bring an end to two actions against the Bank of America Corp. stemming from its $50 billion takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. in 2008.

The actions accuse the bank of failing to disclose to shareholders that it had authorized Merrill to pay up to $5.8 billion in bonuses in 2008 and of keeping shareholders in the dark about "extraordinary" losses Merrill sustained in the two months before the merger.

Last year, Rakoff rejected a $33 million settlement over the bonus pay, which he called a "contrivance" and criticized the settlement for making shareholders pay an "additional penalty for their own victimization". The action, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bank of America Corp., 09 Civ. 6829, is scheduled to go to trial on March 1.

Monday's hearing covered that lawsuit and a second proceeding filed by the SEC last month, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bank of America Corp., 10 civ. 0215.

Rakoff observed that the $150 million fine included in the settlement, while still small, was "more meaningful" than the earlier proposal. He expressed some reservations about remedial measures in the settlement but said they were "quite positive" overall.

However, he asked for more information about the role of the attorneys who advised the bank bearing on the question of whether it was culpable or simply negligent.

Rakoff said he would make a decision by Feb. 19.

The 1 1/2-hour session came on the heels of a suit filed by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomoaccusing the bank and former chief executive officer Kenneth D. Lewis and then-chief financial officer Joseph L. Price of deceiving the federal government by making an "empty threat" to pull out of the merger unless the government ponied up bailout money.

The government gave the bank $20 billion in bailout funds in January 2009, which the bank repaid in December along with $25 billion it had received earlier.

Under the terms of the most recent proposed settlement, the bank would have to pay a $150 million fine and implement seven remedial measures for three years, including retaining "disclosure counsel" to advise the audit committee of Bank of America's board and giving shareholders a nonbinding say on executive compensation. (See Bank of America's and the SEC's memoranda of law in support of the proposed consent judgement.)

The pact also includes a 35-page statement of facts prepared by the SEC, which says that the Bank of America's agreement with Merrill over employee bonuses "was not publicly disclosed" to shareholders before they approved the merger on Dec. 5, 2008, and states that the bank did not reveal that Merrill had lost $15.3 billion in the forth quarter of 2008 until more than one month after the shareholder vote.

While the bank has acknowledged there is an "evidentiary basis" for the statement of facts, it insists that it does not represent the "complete record" or amount to an admission of liability.

'STRIKING DIFFERENCES'

Rakoff focused on what he called the "striking" differences between the SEC's factual statement and the facts presented in Cuomo's complaint.

In particular, the judge asked George S. Canellos, the director of the SEC's New York regional office, why the agency was "silent" about the circumstances surrounding the termination of the bank's former in-house counsel, Timothy Mayopoulos.

According to the attorney general's complaint, the bank fired Mayopoulos on Dec. 10, 2008, one day after he claimed he learned Merrill's losses stood at $9 billion rather than $7 billion.

According to Cuomo's complaint, Mayopoulos was terminated "without warning" and replaced with Brian Moynihan, an attorney who had not practiced law for roughly 15 years. Moynihan has since replaced Lewis as the bank's CEO.

Rakoff said this issue was important in determining whether the bank's failure to disclose Merrill's losses to shareholders was the result of negligence or culpable intent.

Canellos assured the judge that the SEC's view was that the bank did not "conceal any information" from its attorneys.

He called the timing of Mayopoulos' firing a "coincidence," and suggested that, contrary to Cuomo's allegations, the former general counsel might have been aware of the $9 billion in losses before Dec. 9, 2008.

Canellos said Mayopoulos was terminated after the bank learned that Moynihan planned to leave in the midst of the merger. To retain Moynihan, the bank offered him the position of general counsel.

However, a skeptical Rakoff persisted in questioning the SEC's version of the facts, asking why the bank had pushed Mayopoulos out the door without giving him an explanation.

The judge also asked Canellos whether the SEC agreed with Cuomo about the role the bank's outside counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, had played in advising the bank about its disclosure obligations.

Cuomo's complaint alleged that Wachtell had recommended further disclosure in November 2008 and discussed how it would be achieved.

"Shortly thereafter ... the decision was reversed, Wachtell's role was marginalized, and the Bank made its own decision not to disclose," the complaint states. "Outside counsel was never again consulted about disclosure, even after the losses later doubled."

Canellos agreed that the bank consulted Wachtell at an "early stage," and did not solicit follow-up advice.

"Where I think this cuts ... is I am really presented here with two strikingly different version of the facts," Rakoff said, adding that he would like to see portions of the records dealing with Mayopoulos' firing and Wachtell's "limited" role.

He said he would issue an order by Thursday detailing exactly what material he was seeking.

Turning to the substantive terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Rakoff said the remedial measures on a whole "strike me as quite positive." However, he raised several concerns about certain terms of the provisions, including the Bank of America's power to select a "disclosure counsel" and questioned whether the court should play a more hands-on role in selecting a "compensation consultant."

And while he said the $150 million fine was "still quite small in view of the huge sums involved," it was "at least more meaningful than the $33 million originally proposed."

But the judge said the settlement "still suffered from a fundamental flaw" by taking money from shareholders who had been harmed and recirculating it back to them.

"If the individuals aren't going to be penalized, isn't the money effectively coming from shareholders?" he asked.

Lewis J. Liman of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton argued on behalf of Bank of America.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.
To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.

10-02-09 [English y Castellano] Please Sign the Petition - FREE RICHARD FINE! Favor de firmar la Petición - LIBERAR RICHARD FINE!

  

Petition powered by ThePetitionSite.com

LIBERAR RICHARD FINE Objetivo: el sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles County, California Patrocinado por: EL PROYECTO COD y el Dr. Z PEDIMOS Alguacil Lee Baca a usar su autoridad Due y abordar adecuadamente los aspectos jurídicos, CIVIL Y LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS de un americano, PRESO RICHARD FINE (CJ PRESO 1824367), rezamos el Sheriff Lee Baca EXAMEN La detención, RESERVA Y ASIGNACIÓN DE VIVIENDA PERMANENTE RECORDS , y si se comprobare inadvertidamente INSUFICIENTE - TOMAR acciones correctivas y que liberen inmediatamente LIC FINE. CON ÉL, la marca podrá SHERIFF Un nuevo comienzo para el Condado de Los Angeles SISTEMA DE JUSTICIA, CON LA DIGNIDAD DE LA PERSONA JURÍDICA, CIVIL Y LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS DE TODOS ... Ver imágenes de lo falso SOBRE SU CARA 4 de marzo 2009 en la Sentencia: 1 ) http://inproperinla.com/Doc2.jpg2) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-judment -registro de copia-de-nosotros-dist-CT-hábeas corpus-DOC-16-respuesta-de-la-sup-CT-presentada-May-1-2009.pdf Resumen: Este recurso se presenta ante el% Condado de Los Angeles, Lee Baca, Sheriff u2013,% u2013 a utilizar su autoridad debida y correctamente la dirección thelegal, derechos civiles y humanos de un americano, preso RICHARD FINE (1.824.367). Reconstruido Cronología: Antes de el 4 de marzo 2009 una solicitud de procedimiento fue remitida al Departamento del Sheriff para que el actual de obtención de Detalle en el procedimiento, en el entendimiento de que el proceso terminaría con la condena y el encarcelamiento de Bellas Atty por desacato. De hecho, el juez David Yaffe tal sentencia pronunciada en audiencia pública, como se evidencia en reportero de la corte% u2013% u2019s transcripción del primer registro del procedimiento. A través de tales directivas oral, el juez Yaffe inducir a error al Sheriff% u2019s de obtención de Detalle para la detención Atty Fine a las 11:05 am. Sin embargo, el juez Yaffe luego a la izquierda con ningún registro de una base jurídica adecuada para tal acción. En cambio, el juez Yaffe procedió a crear un segundo expediente contradictorio en% u2013 expediente judicial, que no refleja ninguna sentencia o encarcelar a todos. De hecho,% u2013 el 4 de marzo 2009 procedimiento fue totalmente eliminado del registro! El Sheriff consiguiente% u2019s registro de obtención de Detalle de la reserva en San Pedro a las 12:32 pm probablemente insuficiente, y es el tema principal de este recurso. Por 4:31 pm, los documentos fueron recibidos por el Sheriff% u2019s Departamento a través de una transmisión de fax anónimo de Servicios u201CJudicial%% u201D. Dichos documentos reflejan todavía un tercero, grabar de nuevo engañosa para los litigios, incluidos los registros no válidos: El 4 de marzo 2009 Orden de detención preventiva y el 4 de marzo 2009 la sentencia por desacato. En tal contexto, es comprensible por qué el Sheriff Baca se negó a responder a Atty u2019s Richard Bellas% recurso de hábeas corpus. El Tribunal Superior de Los Angeles y el juez Yaffe finalmente respondió, a través de documentos presentados el 1 de mayo de 2009 por el Lcdo Kevin McCormick. Tal respuesta no incluir una declaración bajo pena de perjurio por el juez Yaffe% u2013 el testigo de hecho competente, sino que también logró producir la quintaesencia de los registros litigios% u2013 el Registro de Acciones (expediente), y las pruebas de entrada de la sentencia. Se basó en los registros del Departamento del Sheriff y el% u2019s Reporter Tribunal transcripción% u2013 los registros que la varianza de ausencia, en, y / o contradictorias de los registros en el archivo de la corte. Los registros número se presentaron como prueba sin autenticación. Por último, no hay razón para creer que el juez Yaffe nunca vio tal escrito antes o después de haber sido presentada en su nombre en la corte. Es inconcebible que el Tribunal de Justicia para participar en las prácticas de este tipo de litigios que afectan a privación de libertad de un individuo. La solicitud ha sido presentada directamente por lo tanto con el juez Yaffe, a confirmthat estos registros se presentaron con sus conocimientos y en su nombre. Sin embargo, siguen sin respuesta. Alegato: Oramos Alguacil Lee Baca revisión de la detención, la reserva, y registros de asignación de vivienda permanente, y si se encuentra sin darse cuenta insuficientes - tomar acciones correctivas y liberar inmediatamente a Atty Artes. Con ella, el Sheriff puede marcar un nuevo comienzo para el sistema de justicia del Condado de Los Angeles, con la dignidad de los derechos jurídicos, civiles y humanos de todos.

10-02-09 English/Castellano: Requesting exaplnations by John A Clark, MD, for false hospitalizations by the LA Sheriff's Department / Exaplnaciones requirente de John A. Clark, MD, de hospitalizaciones falsas por el Departamento del Sheriff de Los Ángeles.

  
          Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:50:01 -0800

To: "Clark, John H" 
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Request for clarifications regarding false hospitalizations by the Sheriff's Department
To John H Clark, Chief Medical Officer, Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles, California;
By email: "Clark, John H"

The favor of a response within 10 days was requested.

Dear Dr Clark:

I am writing to seek your response on behalf of the Sheriff's Department regarding claims of false hospitalizations by the Sheriff's Department of attorneys who had filed complaints alleging corruption of the judges of the LA Superior Court.

False Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause, Appearing As Cover Up For False Imprisonments.
a.      Alleged Facts Regarding False Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause
RICHARD FINE and RONALD GOTTSCHALK, two attorneys who had filed complaints alleging corruption of the judges of Los  Angeles Superior Court, were falsely hospitalized with no probable medical cause. Such cases were not unique.  After such facts were published and advertised by this writer, others came forward and stated that they were subjected to similar treatment by the Sheriffs Department.  In the cases of the two individuals listed above, such false hospitalizations were associated with arrests with no warrants and no valid authority. Of particular concern were:
     i.      The false hospitalization of Richard Fine, by now ongoing for almost a year, with no medical justification at all.
    ii.      The false hospitalization of Ronald Gottschalk in a psychiatric ward, with no medical justification at all, where he indicated that he was coerced to intake psychiatric medications, with no medical justification. Ronald Gottschalk also claimed that he was denied access to medically required food and medication for his diabetes, and that efforts were made to extract from him admission of suicidal tendencies and/or other fictitious psychiatric disorders.

b.      Requests for Responses:
     i.      It was alleged that JOHN H. CLARK, MD, Chief Medical Officer,  Sheriffs Department, County of Los Angeles, must be held accountable for all hospitalizations by the Sheriffs Department, and that he should provide reasonable explanations for the false hospitalizations of Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk.
Could you please provide any reasonable explanation for the facts in the matter of false hospitalizations of Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk?
    ii.      It was alleged that the facts in this matter demonstrated the urgent need for publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of an information system that would document the medical authority for each and every hospitalization by the Sheriffs Department, County of Los Angeles.
Could you please provide the names of the physicians who authorized the false hospitalizations of Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk?

Respectfully,
Dated: February 09, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California              
                                                                                    Joseph H Zernik, PhD 

                                                                                     
                                                                                    By: ______________
                                                                                    JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                                                    Phone:
                                                                                    Fax:
                                                                                    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                                    Email
                                                                Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                                                Scribd:http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

  
Fecha: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:50:01 -0800 A: "Clark, John H" De: Joseph Zernik Asunto: Solicitud de aclaraciones sobre las hospitalizaciones falsas por el Departamento del Sheriff 

Para John H. Clark, Médico Jefe del Departamento del Sheriff, Condado de Los Ángeles, California; Por correo electrónico: "Clark, John H"

El favor de una respuesta dentro de 10 días fue solicitada. 

Estimado Dr. Clark:
Le escribo para solicitar su respuesta en nombre del Departamento del Alguacil respecto de las reclamaciones de las hospitalizaciones falsas por el Departamento del Sheriff de los abogados que habían presentado denuncias de corrupción de los jueces de la Corte Superior de Los Ángeles.
Hospitalizaciones falsos sin causa médica probable, que aparece como encubrir falsos encarcelamientos. 

a. Hechos alegados Respecto a las internaciones falsos sin causa médica Probable RICHARD FINE y Ronald Gottschalk, dos abogados que habían presentado denuncias de corrupción de los magistrados de la Corte Superior de Los Angeles, fueron falsamente hospitalizados sin causa médica probable. Estos casos no son únicos. Después de estos hechos fueron publicados y anunciados por este escritor, otros se presentaron y declararon que fueron sometidos a un trato similar por el Departamento del Sheriff. En los casos de los dos individuos antes mencionados, como hospitalizaciones falsas fueron asociados con las detenciones sin orden judicial y ninguna autoridad válida. De particular interés fueron los siguientes:
     i. La hospitalización falsa de Richard Fine, ahora en curso durante casi un año, sin justificación médica alguna.
    II. La hospitalización falsas de Ronald Gottschalk en un hospital psiquiátrico, sin justificación médica a todos, donde se indica que fue obligado a la ingesta de medicamentos psiquiátricos, sin justificación médica. Ronald Gottschalk también alegó que se le negó el acceso a los médicos necesarios para la alimentación y la medicación para la diabetes, y que se hicieron esfuerzos para obtener de él la admisión de las tendencias suicidas y / u otros trastornos psiquiátricos ficticios.
b. Las solicitudes de las respuestas: 
     i. Se alegó que John H. Clark, MD, Director Médico, Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Angeles, debe rendir cuentas de todas las hospitalizaciones por el Departamento del Sheriff, y que deberán dar explicaciones razonables para las hospitalizaciones falsas de Richard Fine y Ronald Gottschalk. ¿Podría dar una explicación razonable de los hechos en el asunto de las hospitalizaciones falsas de Richard Fine y Ronald Gottschalk? 
    II. Se alegó que los hechos en este asunto demuestra la urgente necesidad de rendir cuentas públicamente de validación (certificado de verificación de la lógica funcional) de un sistema de información que el documento de la autoridad médica para todos y cada uno de hospitalización por el Departamento del Sheriff, Condado de Los Angeles. ¿Podría usted por favor proporcione los nombres de los médicos que autorizaron las hospitalizaciones falsas de Richard Fine y Ronald Gottschalk? 
Respetuosamente, De fecha: 09 de febrero de 2010, en La Verne, en el condado de Los Angeles, California
                                                                                    Joseph H Zernik, PhD
                                                                                       
                                                                                    Por: ______________
                                                                                   JOSEPH H Zernik
                                                                                   Teléfono:
                                                                                                              Fax:
                                                                                                              PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                                                             Correo
                                                                                                             Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                                                                                            Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-02-09 Most Dangerous Man in America - the movie

The film focuses on Ellberg's release of the Pentagon Papers, the Dept. of Defense history of the Vietnam War, and the impact of their publication in the New York times on the administration of Richard Nixon.  1971--Daniel Ellsberg, a top-level Vietnam War strategist, concludes the war is based on a decade of lies. He leaks 7,000 pages of top-secret documents to the The New York Times, a daring act of conscience that leads directly to Watergate, President Nixon's resignation and the end of the Vietnam War.

The Most Dangerous Man in America will play at the following locations:

Irvine, CA, Edwards Westpark 8, February 12 - 18, 2010 
Los Angeles, CA, Laemmle Music Hall, February 12 - 18, 2010 
San Francisco, CA, Landmark Embarcadero, Opens February 19, 2010 * 
Berkeley, CA, Landmark Shattuck, Opens February 19, 2010 * 
San Jose, CA, Camera 12, February 19 - 25, 2010 
San Rafael, CA, Rafael Film Center, March 5 - 11, 2010 
San Luis Obispo, CA, San Luis Obispo International Film Festival, March 12 - 21, 2010 
San Diego, CA, Landmark Ken, March 19 - 25, 2010 
Fresno, CA, Fresno Film Works, April 16 - 18, 2010 
Santa Cruz, CA, Santa Cruz Film Festival, May 6 -15, 2010 * 
Mendocino, CA, Mendocino Film Festival, June 4 - 6, 2010 *

Screenings marked with * will include in-person appearances by the filmmakers.