Última nuevo visitante
República Checa
Last New Visitor
Czech Republic
Visited September 12, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
10-09-09 Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow, Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review Asked for Acknowledgement of Receipt of Paper Submitted to the Journal.
Martha Minow, Dean
Harvard Law School
Los Angeles, September 9 – In letter [1] to Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow, Professors Lani Guinier, Randal Kennedy, and Deborah Ramirez – members of the Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review - Human Rights Alert (NGO) repeated its request that the journal acknowledge receipt of a paper, authored by Joseph Zernik, PhD, recently submitted to the journal, titled: Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts – An Urgent Call of Legislative Action.
Previous requests for acknowledgement of receipt by the journal itself remained unanswered. [2]
The letter also included the Abstract of the paper, which documented and opined large-scale fraud in design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF – the online public access s and case management systems of the US district courts and courts of appeals.
The paper documented a series of cases, where such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of pretense court minutes, orders, and judgments, as part of pretense of judicial review. The public at large, and the harmed parties in particular, could not discern such facts in the online public access systems as designed and operated by the courts.
The paper further outlined a series of necessary corrective legislative actions - first and foremost - comprehensive review and the establishment of publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons and with it – restoration of the clerks’ accountability for integrity of dockets and counsel appearances. The paper also noted that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also likely to be required. Such actions were opined as likely to restore access to the courts and the rule of law, and with it - the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.
The letter [1] also included the Author’s Biography. The biography was short on formal computer science training, and showed no evidence of legal education at all. However, the biography showed that Dr Zernik analyzed and opined fraud in a number of government and corporate large database systems over the past decade, and that his opinions were supported in part or in full by top experts in the relevant fields.
Dr Zernik previously opined dishonest manipulation of the online public access system of the California Commission on Teacher’s Credentialing, coordinated with destruction of electronic pupil educational records at the Special Education Department of the Beverly Hills, California, Unified School District. A lengthy double-investigation by the California Department of Education finally concluded: “The School District is out of compliance and in violation of the law”.
In early 2007, large-scale financial institution fraud was opined by Dr Zernik, enabled by EDGE - the underwriting monitoring system of Countrywide Financial Corporations, and related liabilities to the US Taxpayer at hundreds of billions of dollars were projected. Such opinions, filed then with FBI, were materialized a year later with the collapse of the Corporation, resulting in considerable losses to the US Treasury. Fraud opined by Dr Zernik regarding a number of individual underwriting records of Countrywide Financial Corporation was supported by opinions of renowned US fraud expert and litigation support consultant Robert Meister, who operates throughout the United States.
Dr Zernik also previously opined fraud in Sustain – the case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Two manuscripts authored by Dr Zernik were reviewed by Prof Eli Shamir, Department of Computer Science, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, whose contributions to computer science from its earlier stages included the development of fundamental tools in language analysis. Prof Shamir issued a qualified opinion that “credible evidence” was produced of possible “fraud” by court staff was enabled by the system, and called upon US-based computer science experts to investigate the system.
Additionally, fraud was opined by Dr Zernik in conduct of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, relative to pretense Receiverships employed by the Court for taking the properties of individuals or corporations with no legal foundation. In Dr Zernik’s opined that such conduct was enabled and facilitated in operations of Sustain combined with the online public access system of the Court. Dr Zernik’s opinion in this regard was fully supported by opinion of FBI veteran, fraud expert James Wedick, who had been decorated by US Congress, FBI Director, and US Attorney General for his achievements in law enforcement. Mr Wedick opined “fraud being committed” and “investigation should be immediately instituted”. [italics in the original –jz]
Further fraud was opined by Dr Zernik in operations of the Los Angeles County, California, online Inmate Information Center, which permitted indefinite false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, jails. A scholarly paper, analyzing and opining the fraud in the system, titled “Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems” was recently published by the peer-reviewed, new computer science/informatics journal - International Journal of Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining. The editorial board of the Journal lists computer scientists, including Dr Alexander Troussov, whose current interests include the employment of graph theory and other mathematics and informatics tools in large-scale data mining combined with implementation of expert systems on complex, comprehensive systems of interconnected objects, images, persons, events, and related knowledge bases. Combined, the Editorial Board of the Journal lists scholars from six European nations and Canada.
Fraud was opined by Dr Zernik in PACER & CM/ECF, in another paper, peer-reviewed and published in the same Journal, titled “Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts”.
It should be noted that in contrast with the array of high-reputation experts, who supported Dr Zernik’s analysis and opinions, the Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review is managed and edited by law school students alone.
Dr Zernik expressed his disappointment by the fact that leading law journals in the United States refused to acknowledge receipt of a paper by a qualified author for due review, “I would leave it for the academic community to opine whether such conduct is, or is not, consistent with basic standards of academic integrity and management of academic journals.”
Human Rights Alert (NGO) [4] is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
LINKS:
[1] 10-09-09 Harvard Dean Minow, Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review Asked for Acknowledgement of Receipt of Paper Submitted to the Journal.
[2] 10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
Los Angeles, September 8 - following the publication in a computer science journal of papers, [1] which focused on analyzing invalidity of the case management and online public access systems of the courts in the US, particularly – PACER & CM/ECF, another paper, [2] was submitted by Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) for review by top-tier US law journals, showing the harmful effects of the operation of such systems in the US. Harvard and Yale based law journals, to which the paper was submitted, refused so far to acknowledge receipt of the paper for peer-review. The paper included a series of individual case studies, and analyzed from the legal perspective. It documented what was opined as serious Human Rights violations by the courts, through the issuance of abusive, yet invalid and void orders and judgments. A reasonable person would conclude that such orders and judgments were in violation of the law. However, the judges probably falsely felt they were not engaged in corruption - since such orders and judgments were invalid and void on their faces – unsigned by a judge or unauthenticated by a clerk. Albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties in particular could not discern these facts. The paper also proposed key legislative measures that were required for correction of such conditions at the US courts, first and foremost - subjecting all such systems to legally and publicly accountable validation (logic verification) through legislative action. The paper also suggested that once full access to the electronic records of the courts was restored, and such systems were examined in detail, there would be a need to establish in the US a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, since the number of judges involved in such conduct was so large, that it would not be possible to prosecute them all.
The paper was submitted to six top-tier legal papers in the areas of Human Rights and Law and Technology - the most relevant fields, based at Harvard and Yale Universities:
The paper was submitted to six top-tier legal papers in the areas of Human Rights and Law and Technology - the most relevant fields, based at Harvard and Yale Universities:
Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Harvard International Law Journal, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, and Yale Law and Technology Journal. In each case submission was conducted both through the online submission systems [3] and through direct email. In five of the cases, the journal editors refused to acknowledge receipt of the papers. In the sixth case, an email was received informing the author that the journal was "currently closed for submissions". When asked when the journal would be "open for submissions" - no response was provided. None of the journals claimed that the paper was irrelevant relative to their respective stated areas of coverage, or that the paper was subjected to any kind of review and was rejected.
Conduct of the Harvard, Yale law journals should raise concerns regarding the state of Free Speech and Academic Freedom in the US.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) [4] is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
LINKS/ATTACHMENTS
[1] Papers recently published:
a) Joseph Zernik, Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010)
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-1-prisons-pending-publication-s.pdf b) Joseph Zernik, Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
[2] Paper submitted for review by Harvard, Yale law journals:
Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts – An Urgent Call of Legislative Action
Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Abstract
Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance. Papers, recently published in computer science journal, likewise, outlined the invalidity of digital case management and online public access systems that govern the courts, jails, and prisons in the United States, and documented large-scale abuse of such systems. Invalid case management and online public access systems were claimed as key to deterioration of integrity of the justice system, which was previously opined in official, expert, and media reports. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of pretense court records, as part of pretense of judicial review. A series of case studies documented that the respective orders or judgments were either unsigned or unauthenticated in the digital case management systems, albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties in particular, could not discern such facts in the online public access systems as designed and operated by the courts. Moreover, a “chain reaction” effect was documented, where the US courts, up to the Supreme Court of the United States engaged in pretense review of cases originating from lower courts. Corrective legislative actions were outlined, which were urgently needed - first and foremost - comprehensive review and the establishment of publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons and with it – restoration of the clerks’ accountability for integrity of dockets and counsel appearances. Full enforcement of the law was called for regarding counsel, when engaged in conduct that was opined as fraud intended to pervert justice. Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also likely to be required. Such actions were likely to restore access to the courts and the rule of law, and to safeguard Human Rights in the digital era.
Key Words
Liberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, California, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Court Dockets, Prisoners’ Registration
[3] ExpressO online submission system:
Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Abstract
Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance. Papers, recently published in computer science journal, likewise, outlined the invalidity of digital case management and online public access systems that govern the courts, jails, and prisons in the United States, and documented large-scale abuse of such systems. Invalid case management and online public access systems were claimed as key to deterioration of integrity of the justice system, which was previously opined in official, expert, and media reports. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of pretense court records, as part of pretense of judicial review. A series of case studies documented that the respective orders or judgments were either unsigned or unauthenticated in the digital case management systems, albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties in particular, could not discern such facts in the online public access systems as designed and operated by the courts. Moreover, a “chain reaction” effect was documented, where the US courts, up to the Supreme Court of the United States engaged in pretense review of cases originating from lower courts. Corrective legislative actions were outlined, which were urgently needed - first and foremost - comprehensive review and the establishment of publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons and with it – restoration of the clerks’ accountability for integrity of dockets and counsel appearances. Full enforcement of the law was called for regarding counsel, when engaged in conduct that was opined as fraud intended to pervert justice. Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also likely to be required. Such actions were likely to restore access to the courts and the rule of law, and to safeguard Human Rights in the digital era.
Key Words
Liberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, California, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Court Dockets, Prisoners’ Registration
[3] ExpressO online submission system:
[4] Human Rights Alert (NGO) web sites:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/calling-upon-the-un-human-rights-council-to-issue-an-honest-and-effectual-2010-report-on-the-us/
10-09-07 EU Banks Are Still Wobbly
EU Banks Are Still Wobbly
By Mike Whitney
September 07, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- The EU banking system is in big trouble. That's why European Central Bank (ECB) head Jean-Claude Trichet continues to purchase government bonds and provide "unlimited funds" for underwater banks. It's an effort to prevent a financial system meltdown that could plunge the eurozone back into recession.
This is from Bloomberg News: "Banks led stocks lower (on Tuesday) on concern they’ll require more capital to compensate for holdings of bonds in Europe’s weakest economies. Germany’s banking association said yesterday that the nation’s lenders need to raise $135 billion....“Banks still face problems in regards to their capital ratios,” said Michael Koehler, head of strategy at Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg in Mainz, Germany. “Investors will keep worrying about a possible double dip in the next few weeks.” ("Stocks, U.S. Futures Fall, Bonds Rally on Europe Debt Concern", Stephen Kirkland, Bloomberg)
EU banks and other financial institutions presently hold nearly 1 trillion euros of public and private debt from Greece, Spain and Portugal. (although estimates vary) All three countries are in deep distress and face sharp downgrades on their sovereign debt. The potential losses put large parts of the EU banking system at risk. Trichet knows this, which is why he continues to support the teetering system with "unlimited funds". Trichet's emergency assistance has nothing to do with restoring "the monetary-policy transmission mechanism", as he says. That's deliberately misleading. The ECB's actions are a straightforward bailout of the banks and bondholders.
From Bloomberg again:
"Even after a 750 billion euro ($960 billion) bailout for the weaker economies in the euro zone, investors are skittish about sovereign debt -- and about the banks that hold the region’s government bonds.
A default by Greece could trigger the collapse of banks with large sovereign-bond holdings, says Konrad Becker, a financial analyst at Merck Finck & Co. in Munich. “A default by one EU country would lead to an evaporation of trust in banks,” he says. “If investors aren’t willing to invest in banks anymore, then many banks will go bust in months, not years.” ("Europe's Banks Stressed By Sovereign Debts Regulators Ducked", Bloomberg)
The ECB provides billions of euros per week to maintain the illusion that the market is wrong about the true value of the sovereign bonds. But the market is not wrong, the ECB is wrong. The value of Greek bonds (for example) has dropped precipitously. They are worth less, which means the banks need to take a haircut and write down the losses. More liquidity merely hides the problem.
This is from Reuters:
"Despite the open-arms approach, outstanding ECB lending has fallen more than a third since the start of July to 592 billion euros.... Liquidity remains abundant though. Over 120 billion euros was deposited back at the ECB overnight, the latest figures show."
So, overnight deposits are increasing because the wholesale funding market is on the fritz, while--at the same time--the ECB has had to lend more than half a trillion euros to stabilize the wobbly and under-capitalized banking system. This is progress?
Interbank lending has been falling, but bond yields in the distressed countries continue to rise. That means there's more trouble ahead. It also means Trichet's plan is not working. Time for another bailout.
Trichet has kept the ECB's benchmark lending rate at rock bottom (1%) for 17 months, depriving savers of desperately needed interest income. The policy is designed to increase the yield-curve so the banks can make more money. The low interest rates are not passed on to workers or households (who still pay 18% on their credit cards), but to banks that borrow money at nearly-zero rates. It's another cash giveaway. The policy curtails spending and depresses demand. When savers slash spending, GDP shrinks, and the economy goes into recession. The real economy is being savaged to help the banks pull themselves out of the red.
Trichet has recently joined the Austerians in calling for more belt tightening. Here's a quote:
"With hindsight, we see how unfortunate was the oversimplified message of fiscal stimulus given to all industrial economies under the motto: “stimulate”, “activate”, “spend”! … there is little doubt that the need to implement a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation strategy is valid for all countries now."
Sure, austerity for workers and welfare for the banks. If Trichet is really worried about fiscal deterioration, he should stop diverting capital into broken financial institutions. He should force the banks to seek funding in the markets and stop allowing them to use the ECB as a crutch. That's how the system is supposed to work.
This is from Calculated Risk:
"Was there much sovereign stress in the European bank stress tests?
No...The haircuts are applied to the trading book portfolios only, as no default assumption was considered, which would be required to apply haircuts to the held to maturity sovereign debt in the banking book.” (Calculated Risk)
The stress tests were a fraud. The sovereign debt (bonds) have already slipped in value, but the losses remain concealed behind a wall of ECB liquidity. This is a very nontransparent and corrupt system. Trichet needs to be replaced with someone who is more forthcoming and committed to restoring public confidence.
September 07, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- The EU banking system is in big trouble. That's why European Central Bank (ECB) head Jean-Claude Trichet continues to purchase government bonds and provide "unlimited funds" for underwater banks. It's an effort to prevent a financial system meltdown that could plunge the eurozone back into recession.
This is from Bloomberg News: "Banks led stocks lower (on Tuesday) on concern they’ll require more capital to compensate for holdings of bonds in Europe’s weakest economies. Germany’s banking association said yesterday that the nation’s lenders need to raise $135 billion....“Banks still face problems in regards to their capital ratios,” said Michael Koehler, head of strategy at Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg in Mainz, Germany. “Investors will keep worrying about a possible double dip in the next few weeks.” ("Stocks, U.S. Futures Fall, Bonds Rally on Europe Debt Concern", Stephen Kirkland, Bloomberg)
EU banks and other financial institutions presently hold nearly 1 trillion euros of public and private debt from Greece, Spain and Portugal. (although estimates vary) All three countries are in deep distress and face sharp downgrades on their sovereign debt. The potential losses put large parts of the EU banking system at risk. Trichet knows this, which is why he continues to support the teetering system with "unlimited funds". Trichet's emergency assistance has nothing to do with restoring "the monetary-policy transmission mechanism", as he says. That's deliberately misleading. The ECB's actions are a straightforward bailout of the banks and bondholders.
From Bloomberg again:
"Even after a 750 billion euro ($960 billion) bailout for the weaker economies in the euro zone, investors are skittish about sovereign debt -- and about the banks that hold the region’s government bonds.
A default by Greece could trigger the collapse of banks with large sovereign-bond holdings, says Konrad Becker, a financial analyst at Merck Finck & Co. in Munich. “A default by one EU country would lead to an evaporation of trust in banks,” he says. “If investors aren’t willing to invest in banks anymore, then many banks will go bust in months, not years.” ("Europe's Banks Stressed By Sovereign Debts Regulators Ducked", Bloomberg)
The ECB provides billions of euros per week to maintain the illusion that the market is wrong about the true value of the sovereign bonds. But the market is not wrong, the ECB is wrong. The value of Greek bonds (for example) has dropped precipitously. They are worth less, which means the banks need to take a haircut and write down the losses. More liquidity merely hides the problem.
This is from Reuters:
"Despite the open-arms approach, outstanding ECB lending has fallen more than a third since the start of July to 592 billion euros.... Liquidity remains abundant though. Over 120 billion euros was deposited back at the ECB overnight, the latest figures show."
So, overnight deposits are increasing because the wholesale funding market is on the fritz, while--at the same time--the ECB has had to lend more than half a trillion euros to stabilize the wobbly and under-capitalized banking system. This is progress?
Interbank lending has been falling, but bond yields in the distressed countries continue to rise. That means there's more trouble ahead. It also means Trichet's plan is not working. Time for another bailout.
Trichet has kept the ECB's benchmark lending rate at rock bottom (1%) for 17 months, depriving savers of desperately needed interest income. The policy is designed to increase the yield-curve so the banks can make more money. The low interest rates are not passed on to workers or households (who still pay 18% on their credit cards), but to banks that borrow money at nearly-zero rates. It's another cash giveaway. The policy curtails spending and depresses demand. When savers slash spending, GDP shrinks, and the economy goes into recession. The real economy is being savaged to help the banks pull themselves out of the red.
Trichet has recently joined the Austerians in calling for more belt tightening. Here's a quote:
"With hindsight, we see how unfortunate was the oversimplified message of fiscal stimulus given to all industrial economies under the motto: “stimulate”, “activate”, “spend”! … there is little doubt that the need to implement a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation strategy is valid for all countries now."
Sure, austerity for workers and welfare for the banks. If Trichet is really worried about fiscal deterioration, he should stop diverting capital into broken financial institutions. He should force the banks to seek funding in the markets and stop allowing them to use the ECB as a crutch. That's how the system is supposed to work.
This is from Calculated Risk:
"Was there much sovereign stress in the European bank stress tests?
No...The haircuts are applied to the trading book portfolios only, as no default assumption was considered, which would be required to apply haircuts to the held to maturity sovereign debt in the banking book.” (Calculated Risk)
The stress tests were a fraud. The sovereign debt (bonds) have already slipped in value, but the losses remain concealed behind a wall of ECB liquidity. This is a very nontransparent and corrupt system. Trichet needs to be replaced with someone who is more forthcoming and committed to restoring public confidence.
10-09-07 Sentencing Terrorism Suspects to Death -- Without Trial
Sentencing Terrorism Suspects to Death -- Without Trial
By Anthony D. Romero and Vincent Warren
September 07, 2010 "Washington Post" - - September 3, 2010 -- Since 2001, the United States has been carrying out "targeted killings" in connection with what the Bush administration called the "war on terror" and the Obama administration calls the "war against al-Qaeda." While many of these killings have been carried out on battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq, our government has increasingly been employing lethal force in places far removed from any zone of armed conflict, effectively carrying out executions without trial or conviction. Some of the individuals on the government's kill lists are U.S. citizens.
On Monday, our organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of targeted killings that take place outside zones of armed conflict. We did not do this lightly. But we simply cannot accept the proposition that the government should have unchecked authority to carry out extrajudicial killings, including of U.S. citizens, far from any actual battlefield. Nor can we accept the contention that the entire world is a battlefield. In protecting this country from the threat of terrorism, the government cannot jettison the rights that Americans have fought for more than two centuries to safeguard.
In zones of armed conflict, targeted killing can be a lawful tactic. But outside the context of armed conflict, targeted killing is legal only as a last resort and in the face of a truly imminent threat to life -- and then only because the immediacy of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. Outside these narrow circumstances, targeted killing amounts to the imposition of a death sentence without charge, trial or conviction. Notably, Anwar al-Aulaqi, the cleric whose rights are at issue in the lawsuit we filed on Monday, has not been charged with a crime, but he has reportedly been the target of almost a dozen missile strikes in Yemen. While the government might argue that targeted killings in Pakistan along the border regions of Afghanistan are connected to the armed conflict there, it can hardly make that argument with regard to Yemen, which is far removed from any armed conflict.
The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious. Without it, we cannot be assured that the people the government kills are individuals who presented a threat to the country. Indeed, over the past decade, our government has repeatedly labeled men terrorists only to find out later -- or to be told by a federal judge -- that the evidence was overstated, wrong or nonexistent. If we invest the government with unchecked authority to impose death sentences on people who have never been convicted of or even charged with a crime, it is inevitable that innocent people will be executed.
The conduct of our government heavily influences the practices of other countries. The United States would in all likelihood not endorse the authority it claims for targeted killings if it were asserted by other countries. Americans would surely be appalled if another country claimed the right to send a drone after a declared enemy in Wyoming.
The government has the tools it needs to address the threat posed by suspected terrorists, including Americans, who find refuge in other countries. It can indict suspected terrorists and seek their extradition. It can seize their assets. It can share intelligence with other countries so that they can charge and try suspected terrorists. It can provide financial and technical support to other countries' law enforcement and intelligence services. In a truly extraordinary case, the government may have no choice but to use lethal force to address a threat that is both grave and imminent. But if we are to preserve anything resembling the rule of law, the government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens must be limited to such grave and imminent threats.
The Obama administration's program of targeted killings appears to be far broader than the law permits. The administration has refused to disclose crucial information -- such as the standard under which individuals are added to kill lists, the circumstances in which individuals may be targeted outside the context of armed conflict, and the number of Americans on the lists. According to news reports, names are added to kill lists after a secret bureaucratic process, and at least some names have been on the lists for months. Whatever else may be said about this approach, it is plainly not limited to individuals who present an imminent threat.
Many Americans rightly reacted with alarm when the Bush administration claimed worldwide authority to detain suspected terrorists -- including U.S. citizens -- without charge or trial. We should react with similar if not stronger alarm to the Obama administration's claim of worldwide authority to kill suspected terrorists without charge or trial. A wrongly imprisoned suspect may eventually be set free. But there is no recourse from a missile.
Anthony D. Romero is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Vincent Warren is executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
By Anthony D. Romero and Vincent Warren
September 07, 2010 "Washington Post" - - September 3, 2010 -- Since 2001, the United States has been carrying out "targeted killings" in connection with what the Bush administration called the "war on terror" and the Obama administration calls the "war against al-Qaeda." While many of these killings have been carried out on battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq, our government has increasingly been employing lethal force in places far removed from any zone of armed conflict, effectively carrying out executions without trial or conviction. Some of the individuals on the government's kill lists are U.S. citizens.
On Monday, our organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of targeted killings that take place outside zones of armed conflict. We did not do this lightly. But we simply cannot accept the proposition that the government should have unchecked authority to carry out extrajudicial killings, including of U.S. citizens, far from any actual battlefield. Nor can we accept the contention that the entire world is a battlefield. In protecting this country from the threat of terrorism, the government cannot jettison the rights that Americans have fought for more than two centuries to safeguard.
In zones of armed conflict, targeted killing can be a lawful tactic. But outside the context of armed conflict, targeted killing is legal only as a last resort and in the face of a truly imminent threat to life -- and then only because the immediacy of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. Outside these narrow circumstances, targeted killing amounts to the imposition of a death sentence without charge, trial or conviction. Notably, Anwar al-Aulaqi, the cleric whose rights are at issue in the lawsuit we filed on Monday, has not been charged with a crime, but he has reportedly been the target of almost a dozen missile strikes in Yemen. While the government might argue that targeted killings in Pakistan along the border regions of Afghanistan are connected to the armed conflict there, it can hardly make that argument with regard to Yemen, which is far removed from any armed conflict.
The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious. Without it, we cannot be assured that the people the government kills are individuals who presented a threat to the country. Indeed, over the past decade, our government has repeatedly labeled men terrorists only to find out later -- or to be told by a federal judge -- that the evidence was overstated, wrong or nonexistent. If we invest the government with unchecked authority to impose death sentences on people who have never been convicted of or even charged with a crime, it is inevitable that innocent people will be executed.
The conduct of our government heavily influences the practices of other countries. The United States would in all likelihood not endorse the authority it claims for targeted killings if it were asserted by other countries. Americans would surely be appalled if another country claimed the right to send a drone after a declared enemy in Wyoming.
The government has the tools it needs to address the threat posed by suspected terrorists, including Americans, who find refuge in other countries. It can indict suspected terrorists and seek their extradition. It can seize their assets. It can share intelligence with other countries so that they can charge and try suspected terrorists. It can provide financial and technical support to other countries' law enforcement and intelligence services. In a truly extraordinary case, the government may have no choice but to use lethal force to address a threat that is both grave and imminent. But if we are to preserve anything resembling the rule of law, the government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens must be limited to such grave and imminent threats.
The Obama administration's program of targeted killings appears to be far broader than the law permits. The administration has refused to disclose crucial information -- such as the standard under which individuals are added to kill lists, the circumstances in which individuals may be targeted outside the context of armed conflict, and the number of Americans on the lists. According to news reports, names are added to kill lists after a secret bureaucratic process, and at least some names have been on the lists for months. Whatever else may be said about this approach, it is plainly not limited to individuals who present an imminent threat.
Many Americans rightly reacted with alarm when the Bush administration claimed worldwide authority to detain suspected terrorists -- including U.S. citizens -- without charge or trial. We should react with similar if not stronger alarm to the Obama administration's claim of worldwide authority to kill suspected terrorists without charge or trial. A wrongly imprisoned suspect may eventually be set free. But there is no recourse from a missile.
Anthony D. Romero is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Vincent Warren is executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
10-09-04 Papers published in peer-reviewed computer science journal documenting fraud in US justice system computers
Los Angeles, September 4 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, had two papers published in a peer-reviewed computer science journal, one documenting invalidity and fraud in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Information System, and the other documenting invalidity and fraud in the US Courts’ case management and online public access systems, PACER & CM/ECF:
1) Zernik, Joseph: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010) [1]
2) Zernik, Joseph: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, and Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) [2]
Human Rights Alert (NGO) is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
LINKS:
[1] http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-1-prisons-pending-publication-s.pdf
[2] http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
Monday, August 30, 2010
10-08-30 Fraud Opined in Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts
Patrick Leahy - Chair, US Senate Judiciary Committee
Fraud Opined in Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts
An Urgent Call of Legislative Action
Los Angeles, August 30 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, submitted paper for peer-review and consideration for publication in top-tier law journals, opining large-scale fraud in case management and online public access systems of the courts in the United States. Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance. Likewise, the current study outlined conditions of digital case management and online public access systems that govern the courts, jails, and prisons in the United States and documented large-scale abuse of such systems.
Los Angeles, August 30 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, submitted paper for peer-review and consideration for publication in top-tier law journals, opining large-scale fraud in case management and online public access systems of the courts in the United States. Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance. Likewise, the current study outlined conditions of digital case management and online public access systems that govern the courts, jails, and prisons in the United States and documented large-scale abuse of such systems.
Material deficiencies were identified in all systems, which were examined. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of invalid court records as part of pretense of judicial review. Invalid case management and online public access systems were described, which enable collusion between judges and large financial institutions in pretense court proceedings, which undermined any prospect of effective banking regulation in the United States.
Moreover, a "chain reaction" effect was documented, where the US courts, up to the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged in pretense review of cases originating from pretense actions of the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles.
Corrective actions were outlined, which were urgently needed - comprehensive review and the establishment of publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons.
The paper further called for restoration of public access to judicial records, which were now concealed in case management systems of the courts, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. The paper further claimed that only upon restoration of public access to such records, the full scope of judicial misconduct in the United States would be exposed. Therefore, the paper also called for the establishment of Truth and Reconciliation Commission - for review of conduct of the judiciary in the United States. Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate's Judiciary Committee previously proposed the establishment of such commission for review of conduct of the US Department of Justice.
The paper opined that such actions were likely to affect restoration of effective banking regulation, access to the courts, the rule of law, and the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.
Two pervious papers, peer-reviewed and pending publication by international computer science journals opined fraud in the Los Angels County, California, Sheriff's Department "Inmate Information Center" - the online public access system - which enabled unlawful imprisonments, [1] and in PACER & CM/ECF - case management and public access system of the US District Court, Central District of California - which enabled the conduct of pretense court actions. [2]
Expert opinion previously issued by an international Computer Science expert, based on manuscripts authored by Dr Zernik, which analyzed Sustain - the case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, stated "credible evidence" of "fraud" and called for review of the system by US-based Computer Science experts. [3]Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
Key Words
Liberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Prisoners' Registration
LINKS
[1] A peer-reviewed paper, opining fraud in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department "Inmate Information Center":
Data Mining as a Civic Duty - Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems - pending publication, SONET2010
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-1-prisons-pending-publication-s.pdf
[2] A peer-reviewed paper, opining fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the US District Court, Central District of California:
Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courtshttp://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
[3] Qualified opinion of Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, regarding fraud in Sustain - case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30454036/Key Words
Liberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Prisoners' Registration
LINKS
[1] A peer-reviewed paper, opining fraud in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department "Inmate Information Center":
Data Mining as a Civic Duty - Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems - pending publication, SONET2010
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-1-prisons-pending-publication-s.pdf
[2] A peer-reviewed paper, opining fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the US District Court, Central District of California:
Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courtshttp://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
[3] Qualified opinion of Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, regarding fraud in Sustain - case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:
Friday, August 27, 2010
10-08-27 RE: Richard Fine - request for restoration of access to justice filed with Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, USDOJ
Laurence Tribe_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Richard Fine
10-08-27 RE: Richard Fine - request for restoration of access to justice, and for corrective actions re: publicly and legally accountable validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, jails, and prisons
Executive Summary
Los Angles, August 27 – request [1] was filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine. The request was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative.
Richard Fine, had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by California judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (“pardons”) for all judges in Los Angeles County, California.
Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, “Sentencing Proceeding” for contempt was conducted on Richard Fine at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which was never validly recorded by the Court. Instead, the Court published false and deliberately misleading online records. The request claimed that the March 4, 2009 “Sentencing Proceeding” was only a pretense, which was never deemed a valid court proceeding by the Court itself.
On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit no judgment/conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on holding him under false and deliberately misleading online inmate registration records, stating that he was arrested and booked on location and by authority of the non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”.
The request detailed Richard Fine’s attempts to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court – Central District of California, through the US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States. In all United States courts involved, no valid judicial records were ever entered by the courts. Court minutes, judgments, mandate, decisions were either not signed by the judges and/or not authenticated by the clerks of the respective courts. Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online by all courts involved, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid judicial review, and that his petitions, appeal, and applications to the various US courts were duly denied. Therefore, the request claimed that Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review at the US courts – National Tribunals for Protection of Rights.
The request further provided documentation and/or expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and online public access systems of all courts involved, as well as the Sheriff’s Department. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of invalid court records, as part of pretense of judicial review:
a) Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk was never invoked, and where the clerks were unaccountable for validity of the records;
b) Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisors was never invoked, and where records supervisors were unaccountable for validity of the records;
c) All agencies involved in the matter published online false and misleading records, while public access to public records was denied, and
d) All courts, which were inspected, failed to publish local rules, establishing procedures governing the implementation, validation, and use of case management and online public access systems at the courts.
Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to accord due process in acceptance, review, and response on the request for restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice. With it, Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to initiate corrective actions through comprehensive review and publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons.
The request claimed that any action by Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe to affect the restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice and to establish by law the validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, would affect substantial impact on restoration of access to justice in the United States, the rule of law in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond, and the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the United States.
LINKS:
[1] 10-08-27 Request for Restoration of Access to Justice Filed With Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe in re: Richard Fine s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36516113/
Monday, August 23, 2010
10-08-22 Letter to Prof Laurence Tribe: PRACTICAL OVERVIEW: The alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) and failure of US banking regulation // Carta al Profesor Laurence Tribe: visión práctica: El presunto Los Angeles Judicial Raqueta (LA-JR) y la insuficiencia de la regulación bancaria de EE.UU.
Laurence Tribe
Harvard Law Professor
Special Counsel
US Department of Justice
RE: PRACTICAL OVERVIEW:
The alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) and failure of US banking regulation
Prof Laurence Tribe
Senior Counsel
Access to Justice Initiative
US Department of Justice
Dear Prof Tribe:
In case you have no time to review the records attached to my complaints, previously filed with your office, and to study the history of the LA-JR over past decades, you may find the following Practical Overview a helpful guide.
The Overview was originally written in response to comment by an online reader, who blamed today's Attorney General ERIC HOLDER for conditions now prevailing in Los Angeles County, California. Needless to say, the problem is decades old.
The Overview emphasizes the transition of the court and financial institutions into the digital era, and failure of the US government to adequately manage the transition, as key to accelerated breakdown of lawful government frameworks.
I would be glad to provide you detailed evidence in support of the statements below.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
CC:
1) United Nations Human Rights Council
2) Basel Accords Committee
3) US Congress Banking and Judiciary Committees
________________
A PRACTICAL OVERVIEW
The Alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) and Failure of US Banking Regulation
GENERAL
The following is not intended as advocacy for US Attorney General ERIC HOLDER. However, one must realize that problem is decades old, and confronting the LA-JR and failing US banking regulation is a tall order.
The LA-JR controls the largest county court in the United States (~600 judges and commissioners), and the most populous county in the country (>10 millions residents), which according to FBI brought us, and the world at large, the current financial crisis. Already in the early 2000s, FBI reports concluded that Los Angeles County was "The epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud, which is a high national priority to fight".
The direct links between top management at Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), which triggered the current crisis and the LA-JR are fully documented below. [1] The direct links between the LA-JR and Brian Moynihan, President of Bank of America Corporation (BAC) - CFC successor, are likewise documented below. [1]
A. KEY EVENTS IN EVOLUTION OF THE LA-JR AND BREAKDOWN OF US BANKING REGULATION (1980-2010)
1) IRAN CONTRA SCANDAL - ~1982-1992
CIA and FBI were involved in wholesale drug trafficking, where the target was Los Angeles County, California. One aspect of the scandal, which was entirely overlooked in the 1997 US Department of Justice Special Report in the matter, was any discussion of the outcome - collusion by federal and local justice system agencies in large-scale violations of the law. It is claimed that the Iran-Contra Scandal created conditions, which compromised any prospect of rule of law in Los Angeles County, California, for decades to come.
2) SUSTAIN ~1985
SUSTAIN and other computerized case management systems at the Los Angeles Superior Court are deemed invalid. Main features of the systems are similar to those listed below under PACER & CM/ECF.
The Los Angeles Superior Court was at the forefront of installation of case management systems, which led to further precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts. Such systems are deemed the enabling tools of the LA-JR in its current manifestation in both the civil and criminal divisions. The systems were installed during the tenure of today's California Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE in leadership positions at the Los Angeles courts.
SUSTAIN, which is now used also in other state courts in the United States, was developed and is maintained by the Los Angeles County based DAILY JOURNAL - the largest legal newspaper in California.
3) COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CFC) ~1990s-2000s
The evidence is overwhelming of evolution of Los Angeles County-based CFC into a corrupt organization, and the tight collusion between CFC and the LA-JR. [1] It is claimed that CFC would not have evolved the way it did, absent the infrastructure of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California.
4) RAMPART SCANDAL INVESTIGATION - 1998-2000
Large-scale corruption of the courts and large-scale false imprisonments were covered up by US agencies, by permitting the local Los Angeles County agencies to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate their own corruption.
5) LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF OVERSEER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS - 2001-2009
Operation of the Office under US Judge GARY FEESS must be deemed upon review as further cover up of massive corruption.
6) PACER & CM/ECF - 2000s
The online public access and case management systems of the US courts are deemed invalid, as detailed in a paper, peer-reviewed by an international, academic, computer science conference. [2] The systems enabled the conduct of pretense litigations and the online publication in PACER of pretense minutes, orders, and judgments of the courts.
All US district courts and US Courts of Appeals, which were examined, without exception:
a) Failed to publish Local Rules of Court, detailing the nature of valid signatures by judges and by clerks in the system.
b) Employed the systems to curtail public access to court records, in apparent violation of the common law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy, which was re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court as First Amendment right in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). The most common documents, which are hidden from public access, are the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) - which the courts deem today as authentication/attestation by the Clerk.
c) Implemented authentication/attestation records (NEFs/NDAs), which must be deemed invalid on their faces, as to form.
Combined, the defects listed in a)-c), above, inherently undermined the central role of the Clerk of the Court as an accountable check and balance in the safeguard of integrity of the courts.
7) E-SIGN ACT - 2002
It is claimed that the law, as enacted, and failure/inability of US government to promulgate the law, left the nature of signatures largely undefined in the digital era. Such conditions are claimed as central in deterioration of integrity of both the courts and financial institutions.
8) COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CFC) COLLAPSE - 2008
The collapse of CFC in January 2008 ushered in the current financial crisis. The US directed merger of CFC with BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION (BAC) must be deemed upon review incomprehensible.
Contrary to the current focus on investigation of events related to the coerced merger of BAC with MERRILL LYNCH, the earlier merger of BAC and CFC should be the focus of attention. Refusal of US agencies and senior US officers to liquidate CFC, and the forced merger of CFC with BAC led the evolution of BAC into a corrupt organization, with fully documented, direct links to the LA-JR. [1]
B. KEY PATRONIZERS OF THE LA-JR:
1) Some, but not all at the US DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, including, but not limited to:
CARLA WOEHRLE - US Magistrate;
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS - US Judge;
JOHN WALTER - US Judge;
AUDREY COLLINS - Chief Judge;
TERRI NAFISI - Clerk of the Court.
2) Some, but not all at the US COURT OF APPEALS, 9TH CIRCUIT, including, but not limited to:
ALEX KOZINSKI - Chief Judge
RICHARD PAEZ - Circuit Judge
RICHARD TALLMAN - Circuit Judge
MARY M SCHROEDER - Circuit Judge
ANDREW KLEINFELD - Circuit Judge
A WALLACE TASHIMA - Circuit Judge
N.R. SMITH - Circuit Judge
STEPHEN REINHARDT - Circuit Judge
STEPHEN S TROTT - Circuit Judge
KIM M WARDLAW - Circuit Judge
MOLLY DWYER - Clerk of Court
3) Some, but not all at the US Supreme Court, including, but not limited to:
WILLIAM SUTER - Clerk of the Court
DANNY BICKELL - Court Counsel
4) US ATTORNEY OFFICE & FBI BRANCHES, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA;
5) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS - former US Attorney, Central District of California (today Director of US Department of Justice Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services);
6) KENNETH KAISER - Assistant Director of FBI for Criminal Investigations;
7) KENNETH MELSON - former Director of US Attorneys Office at US Department of Justice (today Director of US Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives);
8) GLENN A FINE - US Department of Justice Inspector General.
In contrast, you would find US Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN fighting for over a decade to compel the US Attorney Office to institute effectual Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division in southern California, and US Representative DIANE WATSON a strong supporter of the cause.
LINKS
[1] July 11, 2010 complaint filed with SEC and US Controller of the Currency, alleging racketeering by Bank of America Corporation and its President Brian Moynihan at the Los Angeles, California Courts:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32907453/
[2] Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
![[]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5koe6BPqUeIgjYdYS5t9O-51PZ3s_XUQ936bcFOZH1sYyBDW1gpyMjSaksTKQvh0S1Zk6cYZxP_R1YzzK09X2CsCNwxi10JBot1OIweEHcm3EEADIrYVpK5aJ9-BoC4N3jRt8VTTi15U/s400/09-12-11+sig.jpg){kind=small}
Sunday, August 22, 2010
10-08-22 Racketeering Complaint against LA Superior Court Judges Patricia Collins, Lisa Hart-Cole, Others // Queja contra Extorsión LA jueces del Tribunal Superior Patricia Collins, Lisa Hart-Cole, Otros
Judge Lisa Hart-Cole
Los Angeles Superior Court
10-08-22 RE: SC087400- Complaint against then Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI) and others - for public corruption and racketeering by judges, financial institutions, and large law-firms in pretense proceedings at the Court.
Los Angles, August 22 – complaint [1] was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, and Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against former Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI), and Attorney Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer, LLP) - for public corruption and racketeering in pretense proceedings at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Others named as accused in the complaint were Judge Jacqueline Connor, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Judge in Charge of Writs and Receiverships David Yaffe, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, and Court Counsel Fredrick Bennett, who were all alleged as central figures in conduct of a racketeering enterprise at the Court.
In early December 2007, Attorney David Pasternak, acting as pretense “Receiver” on behalf of the Court under Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), was perpetrating real estate fraud, as later opined by highly-decorated FBI veteran, fraud expert James Wedick. Target of the fraud was Beverly Hills property of Complainant Zernik. Judge Jacqueline Connor had instigated the scheme two years earlier.
To accomplish the fraud, collusion by Mara Escrow, a subsidiary of ORI – a large financial institution, was required. However, Complainant alerted Mara’s Senior Escrow Officer Liz Cohen that she was about to perpetrate real estate fraud. Therefore, Ms Cohen refused to collude with Attorney Pasternak and the Court.
On December 7, 2007, to overcome the hurdles, Attorney David Pasternak and others engaged in two pretense “Ex Parte Proceedings” in two separate courthouses on the same morning:
1) In the first “Ex Parte Proceeding”, at the Beverly Hills Courthouse, Attorney David Pasternak, acting as pretense “Receiver” - with no valid and effectual Appointment Order, and Attorney Richard Ormond, on behalf of Mara Escrow, appeared before Judge Lisa Hart-Cole to request Court approval of various documents, never previously seen by Complainant, including, but not limited to:
a. “Grant Deeds”, which were later opined as “fraud”;
b. “Indemnity Agreement” for Mara Escrow – for future criminalities, and
c. Gag Orders – to prohibit pro se Defendant from speech in defense of self with escrow or with the title company, who were conspiring with Attorney Pasternak, the Court, and others to commit real estate fraud.
At the onset, Defendant filed a Peremptory Challenge with Judge Hart-Cole. In the proceeding that ensued, both Judge Hart-Cole and Attorney Richard Ormond refused to disclose the name of the latter, or the identity of the party, which he represented in Court in the proceeding.
Consequently, Judge Hart-Cole issued Minutes of Recusal. However, later she secretly “disposed” of the Minutes in Sustain - the Court’s case management system, effectively eliminating the proceeding from the record.
2) In the second “Ex Parte Proceeding”, at the Santa Monica Courthouse, Judge Patricia Collins introduced Attorney Pasternak as an “Ad Hoc Receiver”. In response to then Defendant Zernik’s objections for abuse of Free Speech and Possession rights in such “Ex Parte Proceeding”, Attorney Pasternak justified the need for the proceeding in his shortage of funds. Judge Collins then pretended in open court to approve Attorney Pasternak’s requests. However, Judge Collins secretly created for the proceeding void registration and void Minutes in Sustain – with no certification by Clerk.
Consequently, on December 17, 2007, Attorney Pasternak concluded the fraud in conveyance of title on the property. However, the fraud in conduct of Samaan v Zernik continues to this date – the case continues to be listed as “Pending” – since no Judgment was ever entered in the case.
The complaint alleged that the mere notion of conducting such proceedings at the Court reflected the impunity of the enterprise.
Pretense “Receiverships” by Attorney Pasternak in other cases at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, were documented in complaints previously filed with the US Attorney Office. The scheme was claimed as part of the larger enterprise, founded in the conduct of pretense proceedings and issuing of pretense minutes, pretense orders, and pretense judgments. Sustain, the case management system of the Court, was alleged as the enabling tool of the racket.
The complaint, was claimed of high public policy significance, since David Pasternak, who was alleged in a series of complaints as a central figure in the enterprise, was former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, former Member of the California Judicial Council, and former President of Bet Tzedek (“The House of Justice”) – a prominent Los Angeles Jewish/legal charity. Therefore, the complaint alleged that his conduct reflected widespread public corruption of both the California courts and the legal profession.
Moreover, the complaint alleged that conduct of Samaan v Zernik was unique in documenting conditions, where the Los Angeles Superior Court was not only permissive and conducive, but also coercive of criminalities by financial institutions. The complaint alleged such conditions - collusion of judges, large financial institutions, and large law-firms in an enterprise - undermined any prospect of establishing effective banking regulation in the United States.
The complaint quoted the official Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006), which concluded that the Los Angeles Superior Court “must be investigated”, and highly decorated FBI veteran, Fraud Expert James Wedick, who opined (2008) “investigation should be immediately instituted”, as well as Congressional Inquiries on FBI and US Department of Justice by the Hon Dianne Feinstein, Senator, (2008, 2010) and the Hon Diane Watson, Congresswoman, (2008) in related matters. Complainant asked the US Department of Justice to institute such investigation and accord equal protection to all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California.
Judges were previously prosecuted for racketeering in San Jose and San Diego, California, and in Cook County, Illinois. Judges are today prosecuted for racketeering in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Judges are also prosecuted in El Paso Texas, and large-scale corruption of the courts and the legal profession is under investigation in Florida. Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe recently warned of deteriorating conditions at the state courts in the US, comparing them to those of “third world” nations.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts in the United States.
LINKS
[1] Complaint
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)