10-03-21 OAK and NFOJA Claim US Conspiracy to Abuse Rights, while Claiming NO Violation of Rights // OAK y NFOJA reclamación EE.UU. conspiración para violar los derechos, aunque sin pretender Violación de los Derechos

Dear All:

Please notice the March 18, 2010 Message #1, copied below, originating from OAK, the umbrella organization of NFOJA. which presumably went to a much larger distribution.

Please also notice on the same date the March 18, 2010 Message #2, copied below, which was issued directly by NFOJA

In Message #1, a claim of Conspiracy to Abuse Rights is listed, and contributions for filing with the US and the UN are solicited.  

In Message #2, copied below, originated directly from NFOJA., a statement was included that no claim of violation of Human Rights would be made in the submission to the UN.

This message is addressed to Attorney Zena Crenshaw, who issued such conflicting messages.  This message is also copied to Paula Michaud, since like Attorney Zena Crenshaw, she is listed as one of the organizers of OAK.

Based on such conflicted public notices and solicitations, and absent a reasonable explanation, a reasonable person would be hard pressed to give OAK and NFOJA any credit as legitimate organizations committed to the safeguard of Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights in the US.

This message would be also forwarded to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, with the suggestion that such conduct as shown below may undermine the integrity of the filings forwarded to the UN as part of the periodic Universal Review.
~~jz

MESSAGE NO 1: FROM UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION OAK

X-MSK: CML=0.001000
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:26:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: OAK
Reply-To: do-not-reply@oak4change.ning.com
To: "jz12345@earthlink.net"
Subject: Proposed Submission on the State of Human Rights in America
X-XN-MessageType: MSG_MES_NETWORK
X-XN-UUID: e02fb8e4-7948-4474-b98e-ed7ea9fdf947
X-XN-Super-Happy-Header: zlfXMN9Z9wezq3CCnRadTii64vZJwoLerfqiBpSbaVQbnv*HKXEuD9eo6Nhlo7uJt-oU28EnHmuZr7SYxfyGhQvJxe4tri*thw3tuS6sZbETQUXvp5*9Is9wvY*IoBAjrwLl9asw6sPT*uI3W-Q5z84-7wpTiG6nt9ya1DawKStHNCucwqd0Am5aGeZxPKv5higX9BQ6eSB6N4GmfmUGA2PJ-dVTbSVstC97QqTihFjYAvkXCaYUJI7Z4-TC6tsWWBb2k7D4VYx7zy9tT9VFR1CCbta3b*ElGz1*C0DDurnJeUWAWt*u7Mkj4rsOeXf1
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

OAK
Organizations Associating for the Kind of Change America Really Needs
A message to all members of OAKHello: 

As you may know, the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights will review the United States’ human rights record in November 2010. 

The U.S. State Department is soliciting comments from citizens, advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations on the human rights record of the United States. 

National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP) is preparing comments for consideration by and hopefully submission with its sister organizations: National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA); the legal reform organization POPULAR, Inc. (Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored); and OAK, a national consortium of grassroots advocates (Organizations Associating for the Kind of Changes America Really Needs). 

The joint submission would go directly to: 

1. The U.S. State Department as requested; 

2. The U.N.’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review; 

3. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder pursuant to POPULAR’s current campaign for fervent prosecution of 18 U.S.C. sections 241 (conspiracy to violate federal rights) and 242 violations (violation of federal rights under color of law); and 

4. Appropriate members of Congress as part of OAK’s Grass On The Hill Day 2010.CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

Visit OAK at: http://oak4change.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
To control which emails you receive on OAK, click here 

MESSAGE NO 2: FROM AFFILIATE ORGANIZATION NFOJA

By: Zena Crenshaw Loga...
Group Organizer
Washington, DC

Posted Mar 18, 2010 7:13 PM

http://www.meetup.com/NFOJA-meetup/messages/boards/thread/8786433#34571955

Hello:

As you may know, the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights will review the United States’ human rights record in November 2010.

The U.S. State Department is soliciting comments from citizens, advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations on the human rights record of the United States.

National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP) is preparing comments for consideration by and hopefully submission with its sister organizations:National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA); the legal reform organizationPOPULAR, Inc. (Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored); and OAK, a national consortium of grassroots advocates (Organizations Associating for the Kind of Changes America Really Needs).

The joint submission would go directly to:

1. The U.S. State Department as requested;
2. The U.N.’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review;
3. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder pursuant to POPULAR’s current campaign for fervent prosecution of 18 U.S.C. sections 241 (conspiracy to violate federal rights) and 242 violations (violation of federal rights under color of law); and
4. Appropriate members of Congress as part of OAK’s Grass On The Hill Day 2010.

Please note that there are very specific, intricate guidelines for our submission, accessible by visiting: Dept. of State

You should familiarize yourself with those guidelines as there won't be much time to evaluate our proposed submission before OAK’s lobby day in late April 2010.

In accord with those guidelines and our technical / organizational capabilities, NJCDLP:

• Will not purport to prove any specific human rights violations by or in the U.S.:
• Will commend the Justice Department’s recent “Symposium On Indigent Defense” and expansion to include prominent Harvard law professor, Laurence H. Tribe, leading the department’s efforts to increase legal access for the poor;
• Note that in addition to criminal law proceedings, such efforts should address so-called child protective services and family courts; and
• Confirm that despite such efforts, the U.S. demonstrates inadequate respect for underlying human rights by persisting for decades to:

(1) generally exempt municipal, state, and federal prosecutors as well as judges from criminal prosecution under Title 18 U.S.C. section 242;
(2) require alleged victims of unlawful bias, discrimination, and / or retaliation – often emotionally and/or financially devastated individuals – to run a gauntlet of costly, protracted civil proceedings for relatively rare vindication;
(3) generally relegate so many constituents to state and federal legislators that only wealthy and otherwise influential constituents enjoy access to these purported representatives;
(4) tout major media as an effective check on government when relatively few Americans generally direct or otherwise influence news content;
(5) defy prudent priorities in the prosecution, incarceration, or other sanction of many government critics through processes triggered by anonymous sources and/or riddled with irregularities;
(6) allow America’s judiciary to essentially control all government processes by which the conduct of its judges are evaluated; and
(7) diminish prudent access by private American citizens to grand juries and jury trials.

Feel free to post questions and / or comments about the foregoing outline.

Please also submit relevant documentation, proof, and/or proposed solutions to any or all of the underlying human rights dilemmas.

Time is of essence. Please try to provide your input by no later than Friday – April 2, 2010.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal,
Executive Director and Board Member for
NJCDLP and POPULAR; NFOJA Administrator;
and Member of OAK’s Board of Managers 

Edited by Zena Crenshaw Logal on Mar 18, 2010 9:31 PM

By: joseph zernik  Posted Mar 19, 2010 2:08 AM  

http://www.meetup.com/NFOJA-meetup/messages/boards/thread/8786433#34578942

Hi Val, Hi Zena:

As noted in communication with Zena elsewhere, I believe that there is more than sufficient evidence, based on exhaustive litigation and/or social science research, and/or (not mentioned above) official government reports, to prove large-scale violations of Human Rights, at least in Los Angeles County, California.

In that I refer first and foremost to the case of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons). [1] PSB Frontline [2] estimated between 8,000 - 16,000 thousand persons, almost elusively black and latinos, about a third of them still juveniles at that time (1998-2000), who were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to long prison terms, in what was similar to the current "cash for kids" scandal in Luzerne County, PA. However, in Los Angeles, a decade later, only 200 of them, at most, were released. A government report in 2006 - the Blue Ribbon Review panel (2006) [3] concluded "innocent people remain in prison". It also documented that police, prosecutors, and the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, in concerted conduct, prevent the release of the victims. The Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended an "external investigation", which the US agencies are refusing to institute. FBI and US DOJ, through years of complaints and requests refused to take any action in this regard.

Second - the case of Richard Fine [4] - 70 year old former US prosecutor - was extensively litigated and is uniquely documented. He has been held in solitary confinement in a hospital room for over a year, following exposing that ALL judges of Los Angeles County took "not permitted" payments of ~$47,000 per judge, per year (which still go on today). On February 20, 2009, the California Governor signed dubious "retroactive immunities" to all such judges, in a state where the Constitution prohibited retroactive laws. On March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was taken by the Sheriff's Department Warrant Detail - all be it - with no warrant and with no conviction/judgment/sentencing ever entered at all. Richard Fine has been held by the Sheriff ever since.

Third - the evidence is overwhelming for racketeering of southern California judges, at least in Los Angeles County, in real estate litigations, in litigations pertaining to Los Angeles County, and more. Credible evidence for racketeering by San Bernardino County judge is also available. Judges of San Diego County were previously convicted for racketeering.

In Sum: In view of all of the above, an a priori decision by NFOJA not to claim any Human Rights violations by the US in such UN review, absent some better reasonable explanation, remains incomprehensible.

Joseph Zernik

LINKS:
[1] http://www.scribd.com...

[2] http://www.scribd.com...

[3] http://www.scribd.com...

[4] http://www.scribd.com...

Por favor note que el 18 de marzo 2010 Mensaje # 1, con copia a continuación, originarios de Oak, la organización paraguas de NFOJA, en la misma fecha que el 18 de marzo 2010 Mensaje n º 2, a continuación, que fue emitido directamente por NFOJA. En el Mensaje n º 1, que presumiblemente iba a una distribución mucho más amplia, una reivindicación de conspiración para violar los derechos en la lista, y las contribuciones para la presentación con los EE.UU. y la ONU se solicitan.
En 18 de marzo 2010 Mensaje n º 2, copiado a continuación, se originó directamente de NFOJA., Una declaración que se incluyó ninguna reclamación de violación de los Derechos Humanos se hizo en la presentación.
Tales avisos públicos en conflicto y solicitudes, a falta de una explicación razonable, que una persona razonable sería difícil dar OAK y NFOJA ningún crédito como organizaciones legítima, comprometida con la salvaguardia de los Derechos Humanos, constitucionales y de derechos civiles en los EE.UU..
Este mensaje se transmitió asimismo a la Alta Comisionada de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, con la sugerencia de que tal conducta como se muestra a continuación puede poner en peligro la integridad de los documentos presentados remitido a la ONU como parte del examen periódico universal.
~ ~ jz

10-03-21 Richard Fine: Quest for the NEFs in the Habeas Corpus petition // Richard Fine: Quest for the fondos nacionales en la petición de hábeas corpus

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:59:45 -0700
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Richard Fine: The quest for the NEFs of the Habeas Corpus petition at the US District Court LA's - insights from the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California

Hi Attorney Gottschalk, Hi All:

Thanks to Attorney Gottschalk for generously providing a copy of the February 23, 2010 Request For Courtesy Notice of NEF's, (Docket #34) in Case of Borrower Ronald Gottschalk (2:10-bk-10876-VK). [1]  The paper, which was provided by Atty Gottschalk was not likely to be directly relevant to the issue of denial of access to court records in the Richard Fine habeas corpus petition.  However, it was of interest, since it provided additional insights into the practice of NEFs - authentications/ certifications by the clerk - as part of electronic public access (PACER) and case management/ electronic court filing (CM/ECF) at the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California in particular, and the US courts in general.  The paper provided by Attorney Gottschalk, and related forms of the US Bankruptcy Court, found online, supported the previous findings relative to implementation of PACER & CM/ECF - demonstrating denial of access to authentications/certifications instruments of US court records to parties and to the public, who were not authorized to access CM/ECF in disregard of First Amendment rights.

SPECIFIC NOTES:
1) The Form [2] a completed example of which was provided by Attorney Gottschalk in his February 23, 2010 Request For Courtesy Notice of NEF's, as well as the respective "Instructions" [3] were unusual among the Forms of the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, in missing a Form ID #, and also failing to spell out the legal foundation for the implementation of such form by the Court.

2) The Form [2] and the respective "Instructions" [3], failed to appear among the online list of forms designated by numbers as forms of the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California. [4] Instead they appeared in a separate online list, designated "Court Forms" with no specific court name to it [5]

3) The Form stated unpublished local rules of court in its lower portion.  Such rules, invalid as they were likely to be, would have precluded the use of such form for gaining access to the NEFs by the public or by any parties who were not authorized as CM/ECF users: "This form can only be filed electronically via the Courts CM/ECF system... Requests for a courtesy NEF will not be accepted at the Intake window."

4) Review of the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California suggested that the court now has two classes of forms and rules.  The first is "Official" forms and rules, which were adopted in compliance with the law, and the second was Unofficial forms and rules.

In Sum:
Therefore, the practices of the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, relative to NEFs, were similar to those documented at the US District Court, Central District of California. Those who were already permitted access to the NEFs and who were served copies of the NEFs by email by the Court, were permitted to gain access to additional copies of the NEFs.  However, those who were denied access to the NEFs to start out, were not allowed to remedy such Denial of Access to Court Records through the practice offered to others in the September 2008, unnumbered form of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, titled: REQUEST FOR COURTESY NOTIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC
FILING (NEF), which also failed to provide the legal foundation for such practice.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Attorney Gottschalk's contribution would be complemented by the following records:

a) The authentication/certification of the Request was missing from the record that Atty Gottschalk generously provided.  The February 23, 2010 Request for Courtesy Notice of NEFs  was electronically filed. [1]  Therefore, an NEF had to be issued by the Court to Attorney Ramesh Singh by email, in response. The NEF that was issued to Att Ramesh Singh in response to his request for NEFs, would make the paper that Atty Gottschalk generously provided an honest, valid, and effectual court record.

b) The effect of the Request would be of interest: In case Atty Gottschalk indeed gained access to any NEFs through such Request.  Only the copies of the NEFs are of interest, and not the respective court papers.

~~jz

LINKED:

[1] February 23, 2010 Request For Courtesy Notice of NEF's, (Docket #34) in Case of Borrower Ronald Gottschalk (2:10-bk-10876-VK):
http://inproperinla.com/10-02-23-gottschalk-2-10-bk-10876-vk-us-crt-bk-cent-dist-ca-request-for-copies-of-nefs.pdf

[2] Blank Form for Request for NEFs, as found online at the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California site:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-unofficial-form-unnumbered-request%20for%20nefs.pdf

[3] Instructions for the Form for Request for NEFs, as found online at the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California site:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-instructions-for-unofficial-form-unnumbered-request%20for%20nefs.pdf

[4] List of forms that were designated and numbered as Local Forms of the US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-list-of-local-bankruptcy-rules-and-forms.pdf

[5] List of forms that were designated "Court Forms":
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-list-of-court-forms.pdf

At 08:44 AM 3/20/2010, Attorney Gottschalk wrote:
Request For Courtesy Notice of NEF's- Dr Z can you file a similar form for Richard Fine documents in US District Court or any other NEF you request

 

Fecha: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:59:45 -0700 A: lawsters@googlegroups.com De: Joseph Zernik  Asunto: Richard Fine: La búsqueda de los fondos nacionales de la petición de hábeas corpus en los EE.UU. Tribunal de Distrito de Los Ángeles - ideas de la Corte de Bancarrota de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California,
Hi Procurador Gottschalk, Hi all:
Gracias a la Procuraduría Gottschalk por su generosidad aportando una copia del 23 de febrero 2010 Solicitud de Cortesía Aviso de NEF, (Expediente N º 34) en el asunto del Prestatario Ronald Gottschalk (2:10-BK-10876-VK). [1] no el papel, que fue facilitada por Atty Gottschalk era probable ser directamente pertinentes a la cuestión de la denegación de acceso a los registros de la corte en el recurso de hábeas corpus Bellas Richard. Sin embargo, es interesante, ya que proporcionan una visión adicional en la práctica de los fondos nacionales - autenticaciones o certificaciones por el escribano - como parte de acceso pública electrónica (PACER) y la gestión de casos o presentación ante la corte electrónico (CM / ECF) en la Bancarrota de EE.UU. Tribunal de Justicia, Distrito Central de California, en particular, y los tribunales de los EE.UU. en general. El documento proporcionado por el Procurador Gottschalk, y las formas conexas de la Corte de Bancarrota de EE.UU., que se encuentra en línea, con el apoyo a las conclusiones anteriores relativas a la aplicación de PACER & CM / ECF - demostración de la negación de acceso a la autenticación / certificaciones de los instrumentos de registros de la corte EE.UU. a las partes y al el público, que no estaban autorizados a acceder a CM / ECF haciendo caso omiso de los derechos de Primera Enmienda.
Notas específicas: 1) la forma [2] Un ejemplo elaborado de que fue suministrada por el Fiscal en su Gottschalk 23 de febrero 2010 Solicitud de Cortesía Aviso de NEF, así como el respectivo "Manual de instrucciones» [3] eran inusuales entre las formas de la Bancarrota de EE.UU. Tribunal de Justicia, Distrito Central de California, en la falta de un formulario de identificación, y también al no precisar el fundamento jurídico para la aplicación de tal forma por el Tribunal de Justicia.
2) la forma [2] y el respectivo "Manual de instrucciones» [3], no aparecía en la lista en línea de las formas designadas por los números como formas de la Corte de Bancarrota de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California. [4] En su lugar, apareció en una lista en línea por separado, denominado "Tribunal de las formas" sin nombre de la corte que les son propias [5]
3) la forma establecida inéditos normas locales de la corte en su parte inferior. Estas normas, no es válida, ya que era probable que se hubiesen hecho imposible la utilización de dicho formulario para acceder a los fondos nacionales por parte del público ni de terceros que no estaban autorizados como CM / usuarios LEC: "Esta forma sólo se pueden presentar electrónicamente a través de la CM Cortes / sistema ECF ... Las solicitudes de NEF cortesía no se aceptarán en la ventana de admisión ".
4) Revisión de la Corte de Bancarrota de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California, sugirió que el tribunal tiene ahora dos clases de formas y reglas. El primero es "oficial" formas y reglas, que fueron adoptadas en cumplimiento de la ley, y la segunda, las formas no oficiales y las normas.
En suma: Por lo tanto, las prácticas de la Corte de Bancarrota de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California, en relación con fondos nacionales, eran similares a las que se documentan en el Tribunal de Distrito de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California. Los que ya estaban autorizadas para acceder a los fondos nacionales y que se servían las copias de los fondos nacionales por correo electrónico por el Tribunal, se les permitió tener acceso a copias adicionales de los fondos nacionales. Sin embargo, los que se les negó el acceso a los fondos nacionales para empezar, no se les permitió poner remedio a dicha denegación de acceso a documentos judiciales a través de la práctica se ofreció a otros en el septiembre de 2008, forma sin número de la corte de bancarrota de Estados Unidos para el Distrito Central de California, titulado: SOLICITUD DE NOTIFICACIÓN DE CORTESÍA DE ELECTRÓNICA De presentación (NEF), que tampoco proporcionó la base legal para dicha práctica.
NOTAS ADICIONALES:
Contribución fiscal de Gottschalk se complementaría con los siguientes registros:
a) La autenticación o certificación de la solicitud no figura en el registro que Atty Gottschalk generosamente proporcionado. El 23 de febrero 2010 Solicitud de cortesía Aviso de fondos nacionales se presentan electrónicamente. [1] Por lo tanto, un NEF tenía que ser expedido por el Tribunal de Justicia Fiscal Ramesh Singh por correo electrónico, en respuesta. La NEF que fue otorgado a la atención de Ramesh Singh en respuesta a su solicitud de fondos nacionales, haría que el papel que Atty Gottschalk generosamente proporcionado un expediente judicial honesto, válida y eficaz.
b) El efecto de la petición debe ser de interés: En el caso de Atty Gottschalk hecho tuvo acceso a los fondos nacionales a través de dicha solicitud. Sólo las copias de los fondos nacionales son de interés, y no de los documentos judiciales respectivos.
~ ~ jz
Relacionados: 
[1] 23 de febrero 2010 Solicitud de Cortesía Aviso de NEF, (Expediente N º 34) en el asunto del Prestatario Ronald Gottschalk (2:10-BK-10876-VK): http://inproperinla.com/10-02-23-gottschalk-2-10-bk-10876-vk-us-crt-bk-cent-dist-ca-request-for-copies-of-nefs.pdf
[2] formulario en blanco para la solicitud de fondos nacionales, tal como se encuentra en línea en el Tribunal de Quiebras de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California de la web: http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-unofficial-form-unnumbered-request 20nefs.pdf% 20for%
[3] Instrucciones para el formulario de solicitud de fondos nacionales, tal como se encuentra en línea en el Tribunal de Quiebras de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California de la web: http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-instructions-for-unofficial-form-unnumbered-request 20nefs.pdf% 20for%
[4] Lista de las formas que fueron designados y numeradas como las formas locales de la Corte de Bancarrota de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California: http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-list-of-local-bankruptcy-rules-and-forms.pdf
[5] Lista de las formas que fueron designados como "Tribunal formas": http://inproperinla.com/10-03-21-us-bk-cent-dist-ca-list-of-court-forms.pdf
A las 08:44 AM 3/20/2010, Fiscal Gottschalk escribió: Solicitud de cortesía Aviso de NEF's-Dr Z se puede presentar una forma similar para los documentos de Richard Bellas Tribunal de Distrito de EE.UU. o cualquier otra que usted solicite NEF