September 9, 2009
The Honorable Jed Rakoff
Courtroom: 14B
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Judge Rakoff:
Enclosed is my affidavit in the case of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829), providing my
opinion relative to the question raised by Your Honor:
within carefully prescribed limits, to determine whether the proposed
Consent Judgment settling this case is fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the public interest
Additionally, I would like to provide the Court my observation that the Affidavit
provided by Prof Joseph Grundfest (Dkt #10) should be deemed invalid as such, on
its face, for the following reason: Its notary acknowledgement was and is invalid -
nowhere did the Notary Public, Elsie M Willhalm, affirm that the affidavit was
subscribed by Prof Joseph Grundfest before her.
_____/s/ Joseph H Zernik_______________
Joseph H Zernik
________________________________________________________
Figure 1: My property at 320 South Peck Drive ,Beverly Hills, California, now wrongfully occupied by Nivie Samaan.
III. Summary of Opinion
2. In November 2007, I was forced to leave my home under credible, albeit allegedly unlawful threat of force by the LA Sup Ct. In December 2007 my home, my property (Fig 1) was subjected to purported sale by the LA Sup Ct, and Grant Deeds were issued, which were opined as Fraud by veteran, decorated FBI agent James Wedick. To this date I never received a penny from the purported proceeds from the sale of the property. Funds were held by the LA Sup Ct for almost two years with no foundation in the law, and the court engaged in transactions, including monetary transactions with CFC and BAC, which upon review should be deemed money laundering. Such alleged violations of my Human Rights and the law, including the penal code, were perpetrated through concerted efforts of CFC, BAC - including their highest officers, holding direct reporting duties, judges of the LA Sup Ct, and two large law firms –Bryan Cave, LLP and Sheppard Mullin, LLP.
3. My case was not unique at all. The only thing unique about it was the meticulous documentation of the various alleged violations of the law and of Human Rights, and of the refusal of U.S. government and its law enforcement system to provide Equal Protection and Fair Tribunals pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ratified International Law.
4. My case reflected the failure of the U.S. government to protect the basic Human Rights of 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, who were subjected for at least a quarter century to an LA Superior Court that perpetrated Human Rights abuses of historic proportions – as in the continued false confinement of the estimated 10,000 Rampart –FIPs, almost exclusively blacks and Latinos, a decade after their innocence was determined, and alleged frequent real estate frauds by the courts.
5. Sustain, the case management system of the LA Superior Court was alleged as the enabling tool of a racket.
6. My case, and instant case, combined, reflected the refusal of U.S. government and its justice system to honestly address the causes underlying the current financial crisis, or to enforce the law relative to CFC and BAC. The U.S. banking regulation system was largely documented in my case as dysfunctional. SEC, BAC, and Prof Joseph Grundfest were all familiar with the issues at the time that they filed papers in instant case. Therefore, Prof Joseph Grundfest’s statement that BAC was and is a “highly regulated” entity was false and misleading. In fact, the entire filing of this case by SEC and BAC could be deemed as an attempt to demonstrate true banking regulation enforcement action, where in fact, SEC has consistently refused to engage in true enforcement actions in re: CFC and BAC.
7. From public perspective the nature of instant proceedings was indeterminate. There was no way for the public at large to decipher what they stand for: No summons was executed, summons as issued by clerk was not docketed, there is no documentation of due assignment to a judge, and public access to NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) was denied.
8. Conditions reflected in instant proceedings were not unique at all. The U.S. Courts completed the installation of a dual docketing system, Pacer, and CM/ECF, separate and unequal, where the courts could segregate parties at will. Those segregated into Pacer (attorneys who were not authorized by the court, pro se filers, and invariably all prisoners who filed petitions) were unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records from the large volume of invalid and ineffectual records that were posted online, since they were denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). Therefore, litigations were conducted under such conditions - where one party, but none of the others, was left in the dark relative to the validity and effect of various records posted in the docket by the court during litigation. Such conditions in litigations in U.S. Courts, were likely to be found by International Human Rights Courts to be extreme violation of Human Rights by the U.S. Government and U.S. Courts.
9. Such conditions at the courts as seen in Sustain and Pacer vs CM/ECF, were part of the larger problem, designated “Digital Pollution” – the U.S. government and public corporations were engaged in alleged massive fraud on each other, on themselves, on the U.S. public, and on the international community, through the widespread operation of large computer systems that were invalid – or otherwise put – where logic was never verified and was false and deliberately misleading.
