10-01-30 Public Displays of Pretense Justice: (1) US v City of Los Angeles et al and US Judge Gary Feess in Los Angeles, and (2) SEC v BAC and Judge Jed Rakoff in NYC.

    

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:01:37 -0800
To: "United Nations High Commissioner or Human Rights, US agencies, law school faculty, NGOs, and others"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: (1) Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart  scandal,  and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) at the US District Court, Los Angeles; (2) Judge Jed Rakoff, US Banking Regulation and SEC v BAC (1-09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, NYC.
January 30, 2010

United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights
Basel International Banking Accords Committee
By Email

Dear UN High Commissioner and Members of the Basel International Banking Accords Committee:

Please accept the continued correspondence, copied below, as further evidence in support of my previous message, requesting that you consider sending international observers to Los Angeles County, California, in re: Large scale Human Rights abuses and failure of Banking Regulation.

The dialogue below provided confirmation by an experienced attorney of my claims of defective commencing records in litigation of US v City of Los Angeles  et al.  Such litigation was purported to be the US government's response to the discovery of still ongoing large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California.  The evidence showed that it was a display of pretense justice for public consumption, nothing more.

The dialog below also provided good foundation for my repeated requests for copies of the summons in SEC v Bank of America Corporation, a case that was purported to be the hallmark of United States banking regulation in the past year.  Litigation of SEC v BAC, where summons are concealed in apparent violation of the law, is similarly likely to be a display of pretense justice for public consumption, nothing more.

I would be glad to provide additional information upon request.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
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!


CC:
1) International central banks - analysis departments
2) United States banking and financial markets regulators
3) US Congress and NGOs
4) Media
5) Attorneys, prosecutors, judges

At 17:14 1/30/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:14:46 -0800
To: lawsters
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart
  scandal,  and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
X-ELNK-Trace: 4747f65194a8dec2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52932ee0f10d6359f9c3de3dad07cc9348350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 71.104.189.21

Dear Brad:

This sounds very much as a cop-out.  You were the one who claimed to be an experienced attorney, who was very familiar with the conduct of United States Judge Gary Feess.  You were the one who started this thread, by bringing up the case of United States Judge Gary Feess and his conduct relative to the Rampart scandal as an example of upright conduct by a United States judge. Now you don't have time to figure out if what you said was true or false.

My position that no summons was issued was founded in the docket of the US District Court itself.
"COMPLAINT filed Summons(es) Not Issued".
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-us-v-city-of-la_00-et-al-a-docket-09-04-26.pdf

I read your comments as confirming my position that commencing records in the case of US v City of LA et al were defective, and that the case was meant to be a priori null litigation.  In other words, it was simply a show, or display of pretense justice for public relation consumption.

Contrary to what a naive reader may conclude from your writing, survey of United States court records across the United States showed fraud by the courts relative to issuance of summons as commonplace practice. 

For example, another high visibility litigation in a United States Court, underway today, which was repeatedly reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc, is SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) at the court of Judge Jed Rakoff, US District Court, NYC.  Conditions there are a bit different.  The docket claimed that summons was issued. However, the summons, as issued by the clerk,  was never docketed, in violation of FRCP.  Upon inquiry, senior staff at the clerk's office in NYC stated: "It is not the practice here" (docketing of summons). Moreover, no execution of summons was noted in the docket.

Access to the summons and to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings)  was repeatedly requested in writing from the Clerk of the Court pursuant to First Amendment and Nixon v Warner Communications Inc (1978).  Access was denied by the US District Court, NYC, with no explanation at all. Likewise, attorneys for SEC and Bank of America Corporation refused to share copies of what by law were public records.

Therefore, request was recently forwarded to Brian Moynihan, President of Bank of America Corporation, who doubled as former General Counsel of Bank of America Corporation, to provide copies of such public records.  No response was received so far. 

Under current circumstances, a reasonable person, upon review of data from United States Courts across the country, would most likely conclude that litigation of SEC v Bank of America Corporation, like US v City of LA et al was and is simply a show, or display of pretense justice for public relations consumption.

The case of SEC v BAC also clearly demonstrates the tight linkage between lack of integrity at the courts, lack of integrity at banking regulation, and the current financial/ integrity crisis. It also demonstrates the use of CM/ECF - the case management system of the United States courts for the concealment of public records and running of false court actions.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
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 05:10 PM 1/30/2010, Brad wrote:

Mainly because I am working this weekend on some writing projects and interviewing clients, I don't know some of the issues you raised, some don't seem real because, for example, a summons must be issued or the case doesn't begin.
As for the other issues you raise, you have me at a disadvantage because I don't have the time to verify what you wrote, while I did find it very interesting since over 100 defendants were released by Writs filed by the DA of LA County and by order of Judge Larry Fidler.
   I am impressed with your level of involvement, but as I said, I don't have the time to spend as I am in the process of making  a living right now.  Perhaps Wolf or someone with more time on their hands.  Good research job though.- Brad

NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.


At 04:18 PM 1/30/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:
From: joseph zernik
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 4:18:37 PM
Subject: Re: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)

Dear Brad:

I provided you a set of facts, which as an attorney, you should not have any dificulty to refute, if they were false.  Instead, you resort to generalities - "that Gary Fees has a spotless reputation with about every attorney I know". 
Why not stick to the facts in a matter that you were the first to bring up -- Judge Gary Feess and his track record in the Rampart Scandal.

Joseph Zernik
___________________

Facts or Fiction?
Basic facts in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769), as claimed by non-attorney Joseph Zernik, challenging any and all of the attorneys, recipient of this message, to prove him wrong on the facts in the matter.

a) As an attorney, do you agree that the findings of large scale abuse of rights under the color of law in Los Angeles County, California, in the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), and large scale false imprisonments, were unprecedented, and that such false imprisonments were described, based on data from the year 2000, by PBS Frontline, as follows? [1]

Nearly 100 convictions have been overturned as a result of Perez's testimony. Most

of these cases involve arrests made by Perez; some involve wrongful convictions

identified by Perez and corroborated by investigators. The District Attorney's office

has filed 64 writs and attorneys representing defendants have filed 22 others that,

unopposed by the DA's office, have been granted by the Court.[1] Another 13

writs that have been granted involve juveniles. Meanwhile, defense attorneys

continue to review as many as 15,000 cases that may have involved misconduct by

police officers, particularly those implicated in wrongdoing by Perez. The Public

Defenders Office alone is examining more than 8000 cases.

b) As an attorney, do you agree that Erwin Chemerinsky, founding Dean of UC Irvine Law School, was and is an acclaimed constitutional scholar, and that in his 2000 paper in Guild Pract, titled The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County he stated: This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states...  and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted? [2]

c) As an attorney, do you agree that US v City of LA et al was a landmark case that  eventually, through the Consent Decree was the key (and in fact - the only) federal response to such findings as described in (a) and (b), above?

d) As an attorney, do you agree that plaintiff in US v City of LA et al  was US Attorney Office for Central District of California, and the case was overseen by none other than the most senior US officer in that office during that period - US Attorney Alejandro Mayorkas (today Director of US Immigration and Citizenship Services), and that numerous attorneys were listed for Defendants and various Intervenors in the case.

e) As an attorney, do you agree that no summons was issued in the case US v City of LA et al, and that the June 2001 Consent Decree of June 2001 was never entered?

f) As an attorney, do you agree that the June 2001 Consent Decree in the case US v City of LA et al, was never an honest, valid, and effectual decree of the United States Court, since it was never entered, and therefore, it could never be enforced?

g) As an attorney, do you agree that Judge Gary Fees, during his tenure as Overseer for Civil Rights in LA (2001-2009), never affected the release of a single falsely convicted victim of the Rampart Scandal?

h) As an attorney, do you agree that periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers was one of the central provisions of the June 2001 Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al?

i) As an attorney, do you agree that the provision of the June 2001 Consent Decree US v City of LA et al relative to periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers was never enforced by Judge Gary Feess during his tenure as Overseer for Civil Rights in LA (2001-2009)?

j) As an attorney, do you agree that the case of US v City of LA et al was never sealed?

k) As an attorney, do you agree that there was and there is no legal foundation for denial of access to court records in US v City of LA et al pursuant to First Amendment to the US Constitution and Nixon v Warner Communications et al (1978) ?

l) As an attorney, do you agree that such conduct by Judge Gary Feess, i.e. presiding in a case with no summons, where the Consent Decree was never entered, then serving for almost a decade as Overseer for Civil Rights in LA, pursuant to a Consent Decree, which had never been entered, and therefore, was unenforceable, then failing to enforce the key provisions of the Consent Decree, and failing to initiated any corrective actions relative to the large-scale false imprisonments in LA County, upon review should be deemed Fraud and Deceit on the court and on the people, and Willful Misconduct by United States Judge Gary Feess?

m) As an attorney, do you agree that through such conduct, in fact, United States Judge Gary Feess, not only failed to conduct himself as Overseer for Civil Rights in Los Angeles, but in fact, was central to the ongoing abuse of rights under the color of law of the 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County, California?

  

Joseph Zernik
Not an attorney, not even by a long shot.

[1] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
[2]  http://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/01-05-01-Rampart-FIPs-Rampart-First-Trial-PBS-Frontline-Rampart-False-Imprisonments-s

At 11:30 AM 1/30/2010, Brad wrote:

All I can tell you Wolf is that Gary Fees has a spotless reputation with about every attorney I know who knows him or appeared before him.  He has a reputation as a hard worker and he has been very hard on the LAPD.  Chief Bratton, before he left to go back to New York, took the consent decree very seriously.
   In fact, if Zernick is correct about the courts failure to enter a judgment I am sure the attorneys for the City of LA and the LAPD would be all over that defect, in a NY minute.
   Cops, Judges, Lawyers, crooks, are all like the rest of us, subject to whether or not our bodies are working correctly, whether or not the chemical factory known as the Human Body is making enough of what it needs to operate normally.  No human being is perfect or even approaches it.  The problem is that we expect perfection and some people think they are perfect or at least better than others, which of course is folly.
    I have met so many Judges on and off the bench that I can tell you for sure that they are far different people off the bench.  In fact I have appeared before a Judge who was my former supervisor when I was an extern at the LA City Attys office and she treated me like any other lawyer in the room, but I perceived she was a bit, just a bit less strict with me, but she didn't show it.
    The reason we have appeal courts is to correct errors that judges make.  If the prejudice or bias is up and down the court system there is the federal courts.
     I like to give People v. Faretta as a perfect example.  Farretta wanted to defend
himself. Trial court said he didn't have that right.  Farretta appealed.  A unanimous appeal court denied Farretta his right to defend himself in pro per.  Farretta appealed.  The Calif Supremes unanimounsly ruled Farretta had no right to defend himself without a lawyer (Notice the lawyer bias favoring lawyers.)
  The US Supreme Court overruled all the California Courts unanimously 8-0 (Justice Thurgood Marshall was out sick that day.).
     How could our courts and judges be so wrong unanimously, without so much as a dissent?  They are lawyers bias towards lawyers and bias against pro pers.  There are some good reasons for it, but a right is a right and if someone wants to exercise it they have that right.  It's just that simple.  However the Judges know better because they have more education in the law.  So My question for them is, "If you are so smart why have so many of you gone wrong?". - Brad
NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.
On January 30, 2010 John wrote
From: John
To: lawsters
Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 8:44:28 AM
Subject: RE: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)

A very good defense of Judge Fees, Brad.  I earnestly hope that he deserves it.

Wolf

---

On January 30, 2010 Brad wrote

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:39:59 -0800
From: crusaderjd@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
To: lawsters

I am not saying Judge Fees is a perfect Human or a Perfect Judge, but I have appeared before him and he courteous to the parties and the lawyers.
    During the Rampart Consent Decree, Judge Fees sent out monitors to make crime reports to see how the LAPD handled them.  In Some divisions they refused to take crime reports from minors and minorities, even keeping one minor until 10pm then arresting him for a curfew violation.
    These violations by the LAPD of the Consent Decree orders resulted in the overseer of the Federal Courts on the LAPD to extend two more years.
    Now we have some other scandals brewing with the LAPD.  Three cops were caught on video planning how to make false charges and a false complaint against a suspected gang member for drugs the suspect didn't have on his person.  The case was dismissed, the cops are on suspension pending an investigation.
     I am not saying Gary Fees is a super judge, but he works very hard, has put some really bad people into prison with his sentencing, and he has done quite a bit of work to try and make the LAPD more honest.  If you see him on the bench he looks really tired and some days totally exhausted from the work he does.  I really don't expect him to live a long time at the pace he is keeping.
     From everyone I have spoken to Gary Fees is tough but fair and has a good reputation amongst lawyers.  Lawyers are judges worst critics and especially is the judge is unfair, an idealog (left or right), or the judge make stupid rulings.  Fees is not perfect but he does his best and trys to be as honest and impartial as possible.
     When you appear before lots of judges you get a sense about them.  Sometimes I like appearing before tough judges, because if you get them on your side of the legal or fact issues they are tough on the other side when you win.  But generally speaking, everyone appreciates a judge who is courteous, calm, and knows the law before deciding the case.  All cases resolve themselves one way or the other.  Sometimes the winner dies before collecting the judgment.  That happened where I work recently.  The Plaintiff died just before trial.
     When you deal with other human beings you also deal with those pesky emotions.   Right Mr. Spock? - Brad 

NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.

On January 30, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote:
From: joseph zernik
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 29, 2010 7:12:13 PM
Subject: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)

Hi Brad:

I would like to initiated discussion of only one point from your writing below, under Fact-Based Discussion:

Brad listed here Judge Gary Fees as some kind of positive example, not being a dictator like Judge Manuel Real, if I got it right.  The LAPD Rampart Scandal was mentioned, if I got it right, as one of Judge Gary Fees credentials.

Please notice, and any fact-based comments would be appreciated:

Although Brad did not provide the caption,  US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) is most likely the reason that Brad associated Judge Gary Fees with the Rampart scandal.   One should note that the caption of this landmark case, is one of the key cases that I previously listed as likely to be Kozinski Fraud.  I therefore requested access to court records, to ascertain the facts in the matter. However, the US District Court, to this date, denies access to records of this case, with no legal foundation at all. I  was denied my First Amendment Rights by the US District Court LA.  I was neither allowed access to the paper records, nor to the NEFs.

The reasons that I requested access to the records in the first place, and the reason that following denial of access, I consider it likely to be a Kozinski Fraud were:
a) No summons were issued in this case.
b) The Consent Decree, of June 2001, was never entered.
c) Accordingly, Judge Gary Fees, who later served as "Overseer" for Civil Rights in LA from 2001-2009, pursuant to the purported Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al,  failed to enforce the key provisions of the Consent Decree: (i) access to certain computerized databases, and (ii) Periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers.

In sum: The demeanor of Judge Gary Fees in court may be more pleasant than that of Judge Manuel Real.  However, once First Amendment rights - access to court records -  are restored in LA County, and full evidence is accessible in court records of US v City of LA et al, it is most likely to be found that Gary Fees engaged in Fraud on all 10 millions who reside in LA County in his conduct under such caption and in his conduct as "Overseer". 

Joseph Zernik

P.S. 
1) One should note that we who live in LA County, California, shared the distinction of a federal "Overseer" during the past decade with the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and with prisoners in the California prison system.  It is further alleged, that upon review of the facts in each of the three cases, appointment of "Overseers" by the Justice Department of the Bush administration would be found to have been a fig leaf, nothing more, and none of the three "Overseers" performed his duties.  

2) The fact that access to computerized databases of the justice system in LA was a key provision of the Consent Decree, and the fact that the LAPD refused to comply, lend support to my claims of the central role of such unvalidated computer systems in corruption of the justice system.  At least the framers of the Consent Decree thought so.


At 04:07 PM 1/28/2010, Brad wrote:

I have practiced law in federal courts won two appeals to stop the collection of taxes by CA, been in thousands of Bankruptcy and Tax Court hearings, had a tax court judge apologize to me, and accompanied others into federal court.  I have seen hundreds of federal court hearings and argued before Judge Kozinski.  I have attended about 400-500 IRS audits.  I have gotten 7 houses out of 7 back from the IRS AFTER seizure.  I got the 9th Circuit to Sanction the State of CA $30K for violating the bankruptcy laws.

    From all this experience I can tell you that Federal Judges act very independently.  Some are courteous, others are not.  Some are dictators (Manny Real) and others are not (Gary Fees LAPD Rampart Scandal Fed Judge).

    The truth is that some of these federal judges are political appointees and know the other while others are stupid when it comes to the law or worse not impartial.

    Federal Judges are people.  People are flawed, the point I was making to JZ.  Two judges in Penn. recently were found to be sending innocent young people to a home in which the judges had a financial interest.  The Recent Caperton case in the US Supreme Court is another example.  You put that much power in the hands of a few people and you can expect such examples as a matter of course.

    But in the average case you are before a human being who doesn't know all the law or all the procedures and who didn't get perfect scores on law in their law school.  People or litigants don't like to lose, especially where a lot of money and a lot of power changes hands or there is anger on either or both sides.  Emotion has to be eliminated from the equation and if there is a real problem, like Operation GreyLord in Chicago a few decades ago, where many State Judges were indicted.

    As long as humans make the decisions flaw come out.  I wonder how many would want machines to make the decisions based on the law made by men, and by necessity those laws are fueled by anger to stop other human beings from acting a certain way, such as drunk driving, forgery, presentation of false evidence, and the huge laws sending people to prison for minor crimes as the 3 strikes laws which send people to prison for life for committing minor felonies or Misd/Felony wobblers. - Brad

 

NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:

This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.