Jed Rakoff - US District Court - New York
SEC v Bank of America (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – opined as pretense litigation and part of the pretense banking regulation in the United States [see post below, dated Nov 6, 2010]
From what I recall, "piercing the corporate veil" is a legal device to get around a type of corporate trickery to limit liability. What largely stopped and partly rolled back the robber baron era were the Sherman (1890) and Clayton (1914) Anti-Trust Acts and the spirit of the Progressive Era under Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. I have complained the DOJ and FTC routinely approve the kinds of mergers the DOJ used to go to federal court to divest and asked my Congressman and Senators if monopoly is a criminal offense in this country anymore.
Andrew
Some commentators note a distaste of some courts for stockholders' derivative actions where shareholders sometimes sue for obcenely large corporate salaries and bonuses. Taxpayers have also complained about their money being used to pay such salaries and bonuses. These points are noted.
Andrew
Hi Dr Jackson:
The point I was trying to make was that it really does not matter what laws US Congress passes any more... For example: In efforts to stem conduct of large corporations in recent decades, which is nothing but a Robber Baron Revival Era, US Congress passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), and more recently the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009).
However, as documented and opined in papers, some recently published in peer-reviewed international journals, and some still pending review, US judges today ignore the law and engage in large-scale Fraud on the Courts, enabled through PACER and CM/ECF.
The case reviewed in the most recent paper involved what was alleged by both SEC and US Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as fraud by BAC on $5 billions. However, SEC filed complaint, where no individual was named as Defendant. And Judge Jed Rakoff - highly reputed as he was - conducted litigation, which based on examination of validity, or lack thereof, of judicial records he issued in the case, was opined in the paper as Fraud on the Court.
Such conduct was contrasted with conduct of the US courts a century ago, which was in fact by most historic accounts credited with "piercing the corporate veil" and bringing the Robber Baron Era to its end: e.g. Benjamin Cardozo in Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co 244 N.Y. 602 (1927).
At that time there was unique historic level of integrity at the US courts. However, of note, Benjamin Cardozo's father was by historic accounts corrupt judge as well...
The paper opined that corruption in the US courts today is of unparalleled historic proportions, since it is structured and built in through the design and operations of PACER and CM/ECF, with no Rules of Court ever published pertaining to procedures of the courts, which are inherent in them.
JZ
SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
The paper, recently submitted for international peer-review, also took to task media, for covering up the corruption. New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Times of London, each published multiple reports on the litigation of SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NY. However, there was no way that such reports were based on review of valid court records, and no media outlet reported on the invalid nature of the court docket and court records in the litigation.
Unique in its plethora of baseless reports on the litigation was the Wall Street Journal.
JZ
LINKS:
[1] 10-11-05 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court Southern District of New York – Wall Street Journal reports
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41615951/
[2] 09-08-11 Rakoff Hands it to BofA, the SEC - Law Blog - Wall Street Journal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41432905/ SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
Hi again Dr Jackson:
I understand your reluctance to comment on the core issue of the paper recently submitted - Fraud on the Court opined in court records in the litigation referenced above.
LINKS:
[1] 10-06-19 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York - Docket Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41088572/
[2] 10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv -06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – Administrative records: a) Civil Cover Sheet, b) Related Transactions Report, c) Pending Statutes Report s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41625345/
[3] 10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York - Notices of Counsel Appearance s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41621993/ 
Someone mentioned they got confused with the many posts on court records. I did see and report on a docket sheet being altered in a nearby county some years back as I had stamped copies of which the docket sheet and court file had no record. This was pointed out to the chief clerk and perhaps others. I already noted past problems with incompatible computer systems in this county which were rectified.
I am not a technical expert or initmately familiar with the situation in L A county, do not know to what extent there is technical or human causation, but do think that resolution of these problems needs investigatory resources. I hope I clarified any confusion.
Andrew
RE: SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
Hi Dr Jackson:
I am not sure why you repeatedly refer to LA County and State of California courts, when the paper pertained to the US courts computer systems - PACER and CM/ECF, and a case at the US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
There is no need to get into "technicalities" either. It should be sufficient for an attorney, like you, to review the docket sheet [1]:
a) There is no summons in the docket;
b) There is no Civil Cover Sheet for the Complaint, which is required for opening a civil docket;
c) There is no evidence of Service of Process, or waiver thereof;
d) There is no pre-trial motion to be found in the docket;
e) There is no evidence of Discovery Disclosures pursuant to FRCP;
f) Expert Affidavits were filed and listed, outside the FRCP pertaining to expert testimonies;
g) The court issued orders unrelated to any motion by parties or by the court itself.
h) The "Related Transactions Report" lists no orders as related to anything else; the "Judgment" is not related to the Complaint either;
i) The "Pending Statuses Report" - lists no statuses opened and no statuses terminated, even after the "Final Consent Judgment";
j) No minutes were entered for proceedings that were listed.
k) At least two proceedings were off the record - not listed at all, but mentioned in other records.
l) No authentication/attestation records by Clerk of the Court appear anywhere in the docket, and the Clerk, Chamber, Plaintiff and Defendant are united in denying access to such records. Therefore, there is no way to ascertain that any of the orders of the judgment are such that command "full faith and credit"
m) All Notices of Appearance by SEC counsel are deemed invalid - they failed to certify that they were Counsel of Record. One is not even signed, but was docketed nevertheless.
-
This was no trivial case of some county court at all: It was one of the most significant in the US in the past year - it was covered dozens of times in WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, and Times of London...
-
Naturally, you could again claim that this is all related to US budget deficit, and "imbeciles" at the courts... However, we are talking here about the court of JED RAKOFF, a judge who is considered one of the US experts on White Collar Crimes, Securities, and Racketeering...
JZ
LINKS:
[1] Docket sheet:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41088572/
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA just now
Jed Rakoff - US Judge
RE: SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
Hi Dr Jackson:
Last but not least -
1) The docket includes an invalid note of "deligation" to US Magistrate Dolinger, who consequently appears nowhere in the docket.
2) The docket includes no evidence at all for Assignment to Judge JED RAKOFF, who consequently led the charade.
jz
