SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829): Notice to SEC and BAC of intent to intervene, and offer to confer

Timely response requested by Friday, September 18, 2009, 5:00 pm

TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Please take notice. Following the September 14, 2009 Memorandum Order [i] by the Honorable Jed Rakoff, please be informed of my intent to further explore conditions at the U.S. District Court, NY, aiming to intervene in the action. I therefore also offer hereby to confer in re: Case Management Plan, required by the Court in the same Order, so that no delays would be later incurred.

No doubt, I was delighted to notice in the September 14, 2009 Order, wording such as:

"the proposed Consent Judgment was a contrivance designed to provide the SEC with the facade of enforcement" .

The Proposed Settlement was "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate."
...

The Court considered SEC less than eager to inflict penalties on BAC and its senior executives. It is only common sense to make the inevitable next logical step: SEC and BAC came to court on friendly terms - SEC not truly intending to enforce the law, and BAC not truly intending to comply with the law. It was unlikely that the Court would be able to compel adversary between such friends. Since the U.S. justice system was founded on the adversarial principle, it was also unlikely that instant proceedings would materialize as effectual litigation, unless conditions were generated that would allow at least one additional party, truly adversarial, to step in on a level playing field.
...
I therefore copy below the ending of the August 30, 2009 letter, verbatim:
Please fax and/or email ... copies of the following records, together with a declaration by a Custodian
of Records in this regard:

1. NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) of all papers filed by parties and of all
orders filed by the Court in this action so far (each NEF is about 1-2
pages long, for a total of about a dozen records), both as PDFs and as
digital files such as they are displayed in CM/ECF. Copies of the records
themselves are not requested.

2. Summons, as issued by clerk.

3. Summons, as an executed record.

The litigation records in SEC v BAC, as they were so far published, must be
deemed uninformative and confusing, vague and ambiguous ...
...
The only change is in timing the request for Friday, September 18, 2009, 5:00 pm, and adding to it a request for response in re: the offer to confer by that time as well.

Dated: September 16, 2009 Joseph H Zernik





By:___________________

Joseph H Zernik

Pro Se


The complete letter can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-16-notice-to-parties-of-intent-and-offer-to-confer-s.pdf


[i] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-09-15-doc-22-memorandum-opinion-reject-proposed-settlement-try-feb-2010-no-blue-header-imprints.pdf

Request for USC Credit Union Chairman of the Board - review records produced by USC CU senior management as the purported legal foundation...

September 15, 2009

.

Jerald M. Jellison, Ph. D.

Chairman of the Board

USC Credit Union

.

Dr Jellison:

.

As part of your consideration of my request in an email letter, sent last night, to engage in grievance

resolution, [i] I request the following:

.

A. I again request that USC Credit Union produce to me the records that the USC Credit Union

deemed as the legal foundation for actions that were taken in my accounts, with no authorization, with

no notification, and which caused me devastating harms. I again request that such production be by a

Custodian of Records, who was duly authorized by the Board of Directors, and that the production be

accompanied by:

1) A Declaration of Custodian of Records, pursuant to California law.

2) A record documenting the appointment of such Custodian of Records by the Board of

Director

B. I previously filed a complaint with the USC Credit Union Supervisory Committee, part of the Internal

Audit structure, in this matter. I was informed that upon review, no wrong was found in the conduct of

USC Credit Union and its staff. I therefore, also request that the following records be produced by the

Custodian of Records:

1) Any Internal Audit Record of USC Credit Union, where there may be mention of any account

bearing the name of Joseph H Zernik, including, but not limited to business, personal, or loan

accounts, including, but not limited to records of the Supervisory Committee.

2) Any External Audit Record of USC Credit Union, where there may be mention of any account

of Joseph H Zernik, as above.

3) Any report filed by USC Credit Union with its Banking Regulator - California Department of

Financial Institutions, where there may be mention of any account of Joseph H Zernik,

as above.

C. I previously repeatedly requested that USC Credit Union comply with the law and regulations

relative to electronic transactions and their authentication, including, but not limited to the operation of

fax machines. I request that the Custodian of records provide any records that indicate what the

current policy and practice are at USC Credit Union in this regard.

D. I also request that the records that may be prepared by USC Credit Union in response to A, B, C,

above, together with records that USC Credit Union produced in the past in response to the same

requests, listed in D:1-3, below, be forwarded to the USC Credit Union Independent Auditor, and that

the Independent Auditor be requested to provide a report upon review of such records.

Records produced by USC Credit Union so far, relative to the conduct in accounts of Joseph H Zernik,

and the appointment of Custodian of Records:

1) June 13, 2008 - Production by Ms Christine Schwarz - VP/Real Estate Loans. [ii]

2) June 25, 2008 - Production by Mr Gary Perez - President/CEO [iii]

3) July 6. 2009 - Production by Mr Ralph Ramirez, COO, of December 15, 2008 Minutes of the

USC Credit Union Board of Directors, in re: Appointment of a Custodian of Records. [iv].

E. Finally, I request that you provide a statement on the record, after review of the records that may be

prepared in response to A-D, above:

1) Including your opinion in re: independence and efficacy of Internal and External Audit

functions, and Integrity of Operations at USC Credit Union;.

2) Including your opinion regarding each and every one of the records that were produced in D:1-

3, above (they total about 10).

3) Including a new copy of the record in D:3 , above, December 15, 2008 Minutes, where your

signature is not redacted, with a respective statement:

a) Whether it was or was not your authentic hand-signature, and

b) In case it was your signature - whether signing such December 15, 2008 Minutes of the

Board was or was not consistent with the safeguard of the Integrity of Operations at USC

Credit Union.

Surely, you realize that the integrity of operations of U.S. financial institutions, is now the focus of

interest at home and abroad. Furthermore, I claim that events, which originated in Los Angeles

County, California, were central to the development of the financial crisis that the U.S. is experiencing

now. Moreover - such events were the outcome of lawlessness in Los Angeles County, patronized by

FBI and U.S. Department of Justice. [v] It was the very same lawlessness that permitted and permits

the continued false confinement of the Rampart-FIPs - a Human Rights disgrace of historic

proportions.

______/s/_____________

Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD

Member

USC Credit Union

A complete copy can be veiwed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-15-request-for-chair-jellison-to-review-records-produced-by-senior-management-as-foundation-for-conduct-s.pdf

Request for USC Credit Union Chairman of the Board - please engage in grievance resolution...

September 14, 2009

.

Jerald M. Jellison, Ph. D.

Chairman of the Board

USC Credit Union

.

Dr Jellison:

.

We have never met, I believe, and I could not remember ever communicating with you before either.

However, searching my email, sure enough, there was a message there from 1998, related to a

request I received for an opinion on potential changes in admission tests to enhance creativity among

the student population of a major institution abroad... where Ed Ransford referred me to you. I have

since left USC, and my publications veered off into fine literature, including co-editing with Moshe

Lazar (USC), and with introduction by Arnold Band (UCLA) a collection of early modern middleeastern

stories in English translation, [i] which won favorable reviews in the LA Times and elsewhere,

and then - the same in French translation by commission for the official press of the Calvinist Church

of Switzerland. [ii]

.

It appeared though that I have never communicated with you on the issue at hand:

I have been member and deposit account owner since ~1991. I am aggrieved by conduct of USC CU

and its staff, and I am writing to seek good-faith resolution. Events that are directly relevant were

initiated at the end of November 2007. The damages caused through the conduct of USC CU by now

exceed $ 2 million dollars. My life since that time is consumed with financial hardships and

harassment by various parties (not USC CU). Had USC CU complied with the law in November-

December 2007, I would have been spared this ongoing ordeal.

...

E. Request to engage in a good-faith grievance resolution:

I was and am a Credit Union member by conviction, not only by convenience. I asked for it before, but

was declined, however, my previous request was not forwarded directly to the Board:

Please let me know if there is a grievance procedure in the bylaws of the Credit Union that would allow

us to engage in a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute.

.

It is my belief that the conduct of Ms Schwartz, Mr Perez and Mr Loritz was based primarily on Los

Angeles business rationale, which was logically valid on its face. It was obvious that I faced major

hurdles in securing even my most basic Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration - ratified

International Law. Therefore - I was possibly deemed fair game. The risk appeared minimal at best,

and there could be even rewards to be reaped.

.

In contrast, I approach the Board as those who have the ultimate duty for the safeguard of the integrity

of operations. Moreover, the Board should also take into consideration the fact the credit union carries

the USC name and logos. This story, moving along its own course, is not something that the USC

brand-name should be tied into, surely not featured in as a key offender.

.

In case there is any opening for a dialogue towards resolution, please let me know, at least as a

preliminary intent, by September 21, 2009.

.

Sincerely,

______/s/_____________

Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD

Member

USC Credit Union

The complete letter can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-14-request-to-usc-cu-chair-of-board-to-engage-in-resolution-s.pdf

OH WHAT A DAY!

Thanks, Ron, for forwarding to me the news....

Judge Rejects SEC, BofA Settlement Over Merrill Takeover

Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff on

Monday rejected the proposed $33 million settlement

between the Securities and Exchange Commission and

Bank of America stemming from the bank's takeover of

Merrill Lynch & Co.

"...the proposed Consent Judgment was a contrivance designed to provide the SEC with the façade of enforcement..."

Rakoff said the consent judgment "is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate."

Request for due notice for purorted proceeding in purported case of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

RE: REQUEST FOR A DULY REQUIRED NOTICE FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 PURPORTED

PROCEEDING IN PURPORTED CASE OF SAMAAN v ZERNIK (SC087400)

Timely response requested no later than Thursday, September 17, 2009, 5:00 pm.

TO JOHN A CLARKE, CLERK OF THE COURT, TO THE COURT, AND TO

PURPORTED PARTIES AND COUNSEL AS LISTED ABOVE:

In the online "Case Summaries", published online by the LA Superior Court,

albeit - with a disclaimer warning the public that such publication was not a court

record and should not be relied upon, I recently noticed a listing of a purported

"Future Proceeding" in purported case of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400).

I therefore wrote to the Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court, John A Clarke, and

requested that:

a) In case he held that the case was and is a valid,effectual case of the LA Superior

Court - that he take actions to ensure that it was duly noticed, in a timely manner,

by a Deputy Clerk, pursuant to his authority as Clerk of the Court.

b) In case he held that the case was NOT and is NOT a valid, effectual case of the

LA Superior Court - that he take actions to ensure:

i. That false and misleading information be removed from the online

publication titled "Case Summaries".

ii. That no Deputy Clerk be present in such purported proceeding on

September 23, 2009.

iii. That no Deputy Clerk enter any additional minute orders in such

purported file.

Clerk John A Clarke failed to respond at all.

I therefore write herein again a request addressed to the purported parties listed

above, to the Court, and to John A Clarke, Clerk of the Court:

a) Request is that each and every one of the parties and the Clerk of the Court

respond with a statement on the record, in re: the matter at hand, indicating their

standing in it, with the foundation in the law.

and/or

b) Request is that each and every one of the parties and the Clerk of the Court

respond in a statement on the record, indicating whether they considered Samaan

v Zernik (SC087400) was and is a valid, effectual case of the Superior Court of

California for the County of Los Angeles, or whether they considered it was and is

NOT such a valid, effectual case.

and/or

c) That one of the parties listed as recipients of this note, who may consider the

purported case was and is a valid, effectual case of the Superior Court of

California for the County of Los Angeles, please notice the Future Proceeding, as

duly required by law.

Timely response requested no later than Thursday, September 17, 2009, 5:00 pm.

Dated: September 15, 2009 Joseph H Zernik

BY:__/s/_Joseph H Zernik__

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

Purported Defendant and Cross-

Complainant

in pro se

List of Addressees:

Mohammad Keshavarzi, Esq.

Sheppard, Mullin. Richter & Hampton LLP

333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448

Facsimile: 213.620.1398

E-Mail: MKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com

(by fax and by email)

Purported Counsel for Plaintiff, Nivie Samaan

John W. Amberg, Esq.

Jenna Moldawsky, Esq..

Bryan Cave LLP

120 Broadway, Suite 300

Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386

Telephone: (310) 576-2100

Facsimile: (310) 576-2200

E-Mail: jwamberg@BryanCave.com

E-Mail: jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com

Purported Outside-Counsel for Non-Party Countrywide Home Loans, Inc,

and/or

Countrywide Financial Corporation

and/or

Bank of America Corporation

(by fax and by email)

Sanford Shatz, Esq.

Todd A. Boock., Esq,

Legal Department

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc,

and/or

Countrywide Financial Corporation

and/or

Bank of America Corporation

Telephone: (818) 871-6045

Facsimile: (818) 871-4669

E-Mail: Todd_Boock@Countrywide.Com

E-Mail: sandy_shatz@countrywide.com

Purported Counsel for Non-Party Countrywide Home Loans, Inc,

and/or

Countrywide Financial Corporation

and/or

Bank of America Corporation

􀁺 Page 2/4 September 15, 2009

(by fax and by email)

Sandor Samuels

Associate General Counsel

Bank of America Corporation

E-Mail: sandor_samuels@countrywide.com

As Associate Counsel of Bank of America Corporation

Also in his capacity as: Purported Person in Interest

(by email)

Pasternak Pasternak & Patton

Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton

1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: 310 553 1500

Facsimile: 310 553 1540

E-Mail: djp@paslaw.com

Purported Receiver

(by fax and by email)

Michael Wachtell, Esq.

Buchalter Nemer

1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500

Los Angeles, California 90017-2457

Telephone: (213) 891-0700

Facsimile: 213.630.5760

E-Mail: mwachtell@buchalter.com

Purported Counsel for Mara Escrow

(by fax and by email)

Kathryn E. DiCarlo, Esq.

Cummings, McClorcy, Davis, Acho & Associates, P.c.

3801 University Avenuev, Suite 560

Riverside. CA 92501

Telephone: 951.276.4420

Facsimile: 951.276.4405

E-Mail: kdicarlo@cmda-law.com

Purported Attorney for ADR Services, Inc.

(by fax and by email)

Robert Shulkin, Esq.

Legal Department

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage

11611 San Vicente Blvd, 9th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90049

Telephone: 310 820 6888

Facsimile: 310 447 1902

E-Mail: robert.shulkin@camoves.com

Purported Counsel for Cross-Defendants

Michael Libow and Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage

(by fax and by email)

John A Clarke

As an Individual

And also in his capacity as

Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court

Superior Court of California

For the County of Los Angeles

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012-3014

Telephone: 213 974 5050

Facsimile: 213 621 7952

E-Mail: jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org

Clerk of the Superior Court of California

For the County of Los Angeles

(by fax and by email)

Copy of the complete communication can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-15-email-request-notice-sept-23-2009-purported-proceeding-s.pdf

Affidavit of opinion was forwarded to the Honorable Jed Rakoff in re: Proposed Settlement in SEC v BAC at the U.S. Court in NYC.

A. From the cover letter

September 9, 2009

The Honorable Jed Rakoff
Courtroom: 14B
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Judge Rakoff:

Enclosed is my affidavit in the case of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829), providing my
opinion relative to the question raised by Your Honor:
within carefully prescribed limits, to determine whether the proposed
Consent Judgment settling this case is fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the public interest

Additionally, I would like to provide the Court my observation that the Affidavit
provided by Prof Joseph Grundfest (Dkt #10) should be deemed invalid as such, on
its face, for the following reason: Its notary acknowledgement was and is invalid -
nowhere did the Notary Public, Elsie M Willhalm, affirm that the affidavit was
subscribed by Prof Joseph Grundfest before her.

_____/s/ Joseph H Zernik_______________
Joseph H Zernik

________________________________________________________

B. From The Affidavit

Figure 1: My property at 320 South Peck Drive ,Beverly Hills, California, now wrongfully occupied by Nivie Samaan.

III. Summary of Opinion

2. In November 2007, I was forced to leave my home under credible, albeit allegedly unlawful threat of force by the LA Sup Ct. In December 2007 my home, my property (Fig 1) was subjected to purported sale by the LA Sup Ct, and Grant Deeds were issued, which were opined as Fraud by veteran, decorated FBI agent James Wedick. To this date I never received a penny from the purported proceeds from the sale of the property. Funds were held by the LA Sup Ct for almost two years with no foundation in the law, and the court engaged in transactions, including monetary transactions with CFC and BAC, which upon review should be deemed money laundering. Such alleged violations of my Human Rights and the law, including the penal code, were perpetrated through concerted efforts of CFC, BAC - including their highest officers, holding direct reporting duties, judges of the LA Sup Ct, and two large law firms –Bryan Cave, LLP and Sheppard Mullin, LLP.

3. My case was not unique at all. The only thing unique about it was the meticulous documentation of the various alleged violations of the law and of Human Rights, and of the refusal of U.S. government and its law enforcement system to provide Equal Protection and Fair Tribunals pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ratified International Law.

4. My case reflected the failure of the U.S. government to protect the basic Human Rights of 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, who were subjected for at least a quarter century to an LA Superior Court that perpetrated Human Rights abuses of historic proportions – as in the continued false confinement of the estimated 10,000 Rampart –FIPs, almost exclusively blacks and Latinos, a decade after their innocence was determined, and alleged frequent real estate frauds by the courts.

5. Sustain, the case management system of the LA Superior Court was alleged as the enabling tool of a racket.

6. My case, and instant case, combined, reflected the refusal of U.S. government and its justice system to honestly address the causes underlying the current financial crisis, or to enforce the law relative to CFC and BAC. The U.S. banking regulation system was largely documented in my case as dysfunctional. SEC, BAC, and Prof Joseph Grundfest were all familiar with the issues at the time that they filed papers in instant case. Therefore, Prof Joseph Grundfest’s statement that BAC was and is a “highly regulated” entity was false and misleading. In fact, the entire filing of this case by SEC and BAC could be deemed as an attempt to demonstrate true banking regulation enforcement action, where in fact, SEC has consistently refused to engage in true enforcement actions in re: CFC and BAC.

7. From public perspective the nature of instant proceedings was indeterminate. There was no way for the public at large to decipher what they stand for: No summons was executed, summons as issued by clerk was not docketed, there is no documentation of due assignment to a judge, and public access to NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) was denied.

8. Conditions reflected in instant proceedings were not unique at all. The U.S. Courts completed the installation of a dual docketing system, Pacer, and CM/ECF, separate and unequal, where the courts could segregate parties at will. Those segregated into Pacer (attorneys who were not authorized by the court, pro se filers, and invariably all prisoners who filed petitions) were unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records from the large volume of invalid and ineffectual records that were posted online, since they were denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). Therefore, litigations were conducted under such conditions - where one party, but none of the others, was left in the dark relative to the validity and effect of various records posted in the docket by the court during litigation. Such conditions in litigations in U.S. Courts, were likely to be found by International Human Rights Courts to be extreme violation of Human Rights by the U.S. Government and U.S. Courts.

9. Such conditions at the courts as seen in Sustain and Pacer vs CM/ECF, were part of the larger problem, designated “Digital Pollution” – the U.S. government and public corporations were engaged in alleged massive fraud on each other, on themselves, on the U.S. public, and on the international community, through the widespread operation of large computer systems that were invalid – or otherwise put – where logic was never verified and was false and deliberately misleading.

Figure 2. Page 1 of Samaan's Loan Application (1003) filed with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, and opined by fraud expert as fraud. (Appendix H,I)

The complete Affidavit can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-09-affidvait-joseph-zernik-in-sec-v-bac-s.pdf

The Appendices can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-09-affidvait-joseph-zernik-in-sec-v-bac-appendices-s.pdf

09-09-07 Request for timely responses from Stanford Law Faculty

Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:54:41 -0700

To: "Stanford Law Faculty"

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Time is of the essence! Peer review of Prof Grundfest Affidavit (Dkt #10) in

SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) and related questions.

Bcc:

September 7, 2009

To: Stanford Law Faculty

From: Joseph Zernik

RE: Peer review of Prof Grundfest Affidavit (Dkt #10) in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-

06829) and related questions. Time is of the essence, since letter to the

Honorable Jed Rakoff is due by the deadline of September 9, 2009.

Your response or comments are requested in re: the following matters:

1) Peer review of Prof Grundfest Affidavit (Dkt #10) in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) in

support of Proposed Settlement, in particular the statement that Bank of America

Corporation was a "highly regulated" entity.

2) Public records that both Prof Grundfest and SEC were fully aware of, e.g under

Borrower William Parsley Houston, TX (4-05-bk-90374) , Dkt# 256-260, provided

credible evidence of various alleged criminalities by Countrywide Financial

Corporation, and later - by Bank of America Corporation, and of refusal by SEC to

enforce the law.

3) The U.S. Courts have installed a dual docketing system, Pacer, and CM/ECF,

separate and unequal, where the courts can segregate parties at will. Those

segregated into Pacer are unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records

from the large volume of invalid and ineffectual records posted online, since they are

denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). Conducting litigations

under such conditions may be found by International Human Rights Courts to be

extreme violation of Human Rights by the U.S. Government and U.S. Courts, and the

largest ever "shell game" fraud.

I would be grateful for a timely response by individuals faculty members, or group(s),

regarding the matters above.

Joseph Zernik

______________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:22:59 -0700

To:

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Time is of the essence. Please let me know if you intend to

respond to any of my requests.

Prof Grundfest:

Please let me know if you intend to respond to any of my requests.

Time is of the essence, since I intend to have my letter to the

Honorable Jed Rakoff delivered by the deadline of September 9,

2009.

Joseph Zernik

Request for Individual Members of U.S. Congress to Extend Welcome Statements to International Visitors

First step in honestly addressing the problems in the U.S. justice system and the U.S banking regulatory system, underlying the current financial crisis.

Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:04:32 -0700
To: Joseph zernik
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Request for U.S. House and Senate individual members, accountable as such, to extend public welcome statements to international observers, or international study groups, or international visitors to observe conditions prevailing under the current financial crisis.
Bcc: U.S. Congress NGOs & Others

TO: Individual members of U.S. Congress, accountable as such

FROM: Joseph H Zernik, of the People of the United States, and of the People of Los Angeles County, California

Dr Joseph H Zernik, Resident of Los Angeles County, California, herein publicly addresses the individual members of the U.S. Congress, with a request to extend their individual public welcome statements to international visitors, who may wish to observe the U.S. justice system, the U.S. banking regulatory system, and conditions in Los Angeles County, California, or elsewhere in the U.S.A., under the current financial crisis.

WHEREAS, events that are centered in Los Angeles County, California, including, but not limited to events related to individuals who are Dr Joseph Zernik, Ms Diane Frazier, Att Richard Fine, and the estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs, elaborated and credibly evidenced below, all stemmed from the alleged collapse of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California;

WHEREAS, such events are also directly related to the causes of the current financial crisis, including, but not limited to the collapse of Los Angeles County-based Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC);

WHEREAS, credible evidence was provided of alleged perversion of justice, combined with deference to the courts by CFC and Bank of America Corporation (BAC);

WHEREAS, credible evidence was provided of the refusal of FBI, US Department of Justice, and other U.S. law enforcement agencies to enforce the law;

WHEREAS, credible evidence was provided of the failure of the court system in the U.S. to address grievances by an individual against alleged corporate racketeering by CFC and BAC, including, but not limited to: (1) LA Superior Court, (2) U.S. District Court LA, (3) U.S. Court, District of Columbia;

WHEREAS, members of the U.S. House and Senate were routinely informed of such conditions in the past two years, and failed in their efforts to provide assistance;

WHEREAS, such events demonstrate alleged FAILURE OF U.S. GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH AND GUARANTEE EQUAL PROTECTION, COMMON LAW RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS - TO INSPECT AND TO COPY, FAIR TRIBUNALS, AND OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS - RATIFIED INTERNATIONAL LAW;

WHEREAS, credible evidence demonstrates that the U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NOT READY, WILLING, ABLE, TO EXERT EFFECTIVE REGULATION OF U.S. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, albeit, it is imperative to re-establish international confidence in the U.S. banking regulatory system in order to emerge from the current crisis;

WHEREAS, extending a welcome to international visitors may be the first step in honestly addressing the problems in the U.S. justice system and the U.S banking regulatory system, underlying the current financial crisis.

THEREFORE, individual members of the U.S. Congress, accountable as such, are called upon, particularly those who represent California, or Los Angeles County, or those sitting on Judiciary, Banking, Financial Services, and Oversight Committees, to extend their individual public welcome statements to international observers, or international study groups, or international visitors, who may be interested in visiting the U.S.A., particularly California and Los Angeles County, and observe conditions prevailing under the current financial crisis.

Signed here, in Los Angeles County, California, on the 5th of September, 2009


_____/s/ Joseph Zernik____________________

Joseph H Zernik


CC:

1) Stanford Law Faculty.

2) Basel Committee

3) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights

4) Chinese Embassy, Washington DC

5) Attorneys for SEC

6) Attorneys for BAC

7) PriceWaterhouse
Independent Auditor of BAC

The complete letter with attached links to evidence can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-05-request-us-congress-welcome-study-groups-s.pdf

Request for Prof Joseph Grundfest to please produce an opinion in re: Is Bank of America Courporation a "highly regulated" entity?

To be posted

General Tommy Franks Provides a Show and Tell of Integrity of Operations at Bank of America Corporation

General Tommy Franks refused to say a word about Integrity of Operations at Bank of America Corporation, where he had served on the Audit Committee. Instead, he provided a Show-and-Tell.

Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:48:52 -0700

To: admin@tommyfranks.com, boryshanskyj@sec.gov, lewism@sec.gov, schen@cgsh.com,

lliman@cgsh.com, grundfest@stanford.edu, "ATTENTION: THOMAS MAY",

17043444100@efaxsend.com, , " Audit Committee:D Paul

Jones; Thomas J. May, Chair; Donald E Powell" , " Executive

Committee Kenneth D Lewis, Charles K Gifford, Walter E Massey

Chair", " Edward OKeefe, Neil A Cotty, Joe L Price"

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Demand for the "Legal Team of BAC' to produce by Monday, September 7, 2009, 5:00pm,

the "Restraining Order" that they informed General Tommy Frank about. Request for Prof Grundfest to

propose remedial action .

Bcc:

1) General Tommy Franks:

It was you who made that false statement, not the Legal Team of BAC. Please

retract your statement if you cannot produce the document.

You are yet to utter a word regarding integrity of operations at BAC. But then

again, you gave us a show and tell.

2) Attorneys for BAC:

I am forwarding this note to Attorneys for SEC and BAC, with a demand that

BAC Attorneys produce for General Franks, who was duped by them, the

"Restraining Order" by Monday, September 7, 2009, 5;00 pm.

___________________________________________________________

From: General Tommy Franks

At 09:29 AM 9/4/2009, you wrote:

Sir. I have referred this the BAC legal team, who will deal with

this.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

___________________________________________________________

From: joseph zernik

Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:54:45 -0700

To:

Subject: Demand that General Tommy Franks provide the

documentation within 48 hours for his statement about a Restraining

Order, or retract it as false.

September 4, 2009

General Tommy Franks:

Getting back to your last statement: Whether it was you, or an employee

on your behalf, let me repeat my demand that you produce a copy of a

valid, effectual Restraining Order within 48 hours, or retract your false

statement. And let me add to it also the demand that you produce a valid

Dismissal Order of a Complaint, or retract that statement as well.

Otherwise, it appeared that you entirely forgot that the focus of the Audit

Committee was on the integrity of operations. Could you please make

any statement whatsoever, on that aspect of Bank of America

Corporation operations?

...

Joseph Zernik

__________________________________________________________

September 3, 2009

...

Your statement below is false and deliberately misleading.

...

I demand that you either retract such false statement, as appears below,

or else produce that Restraining Order that you just mentioned within

the next 48 hours.

...

Joseph Zenrik.

___________________________________________________________

From: General Tommy Franks

At 07:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:

Sir. Understand BAC has a restraining order against you, which

prohibits you from contacting anyone at Bank of America,

including its directors. Your complaints have been dismissed by

the courts. So pls do not contact Gen Franks again regarding

BAC business.

�

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

_______________________________________________

From: joseph zernik

Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:54:41 -0700

To:

Subject: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell

Address" by General Tommy Franks, upon departure from the

BAC Audit Committee

September 3, 2009

... it seems to me that events took place under his watch, which

should have been reviewed by the Audit Committee and publicly

reported to both investors and the public at large. Refusing to

make any statement at all, in a matter the holds substantial

risks to both share-holders and the public at large, is

inconsistent with his duties.

...

Refusal to make any statement at all may be seen by the public

at large as "taking the Fifth" - as used in layperson's language.

...

Joseph Zernik

_______________________________________________

From: General Tommy Franks

At 12:36 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:

Sir. Thanks for your note to Gen Franks. I will review this with him,

but know he will not be able to, or be inclined to write such a letter.

He has not responded to, or publicly commented to anyone

regarding his time with BAC. Additionally, he travelling until 12 Sept.

Thanks.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

_______________________________________________

-----Original Message-----

From: jz12345@earthlink.net

Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:05:15

To:

Subject: tommyfranks.com Contact Form Submission

Thursday 09/3/2009

...

TO: General Tommy Franks

FROM: Joseph Zernik

RE: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by Admiral Joseph

W Frueher, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee

Copied below is my request, addressed to Stanford Law faculty, for peer-review of an

Affidavit (Dkt #10) provided by Prof Joseph Grundfest in proceedings of SEC v BAC

(1:09-cv-06829), at the U.S. District Court, Manhattan.

...

I likewise request that you, and a separate request is forwarded to Admiral Joseph

Frueher, provide a public written statement - a "Farewell Address" - as culmination of

your duties, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee. [1]

The recent changes in the roster of the BAC Audit Committee, were only one indicator of

the transformation of BAC during the period that the two of you served on the Audit

Committee, with the mergers with Countrywide Financial Corporation ( CFC) and with

Merrill Lynch as the hallmarks. Regarding the former merger - BAC was granted a waiver

on deposit limits, and your input is requested as to the prudence of such waiver from

national security perspective. Regarding the latter merger, NY Attorney General Andrew

Cuomo wrote the April 23, 2009 letter to the U.S. Senate, [2] which led to calls in media

for criminal indictments of both BAC and U.S. officers, including Ben Bernanke - Chair of

the FRB, and Kenneth Lewis - Chair of BAC. Matters were described in such letter that

would have required review by the BAC Audit Committee, and separately - by U.S.

regulatory agencies.

...

Joseph Zernik

_______________________________________

[1] Such Farewell Address is requested in explicit reference to the January 17, 1961

General Dwight D Eisenhower Farewell Address upon leaving the office of U.S.

President.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-61-01-17_dwight_d_eisenhower_farewell_address-s.pdf

[2] April 23, 2009 letter to U.S. Senate by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf

_____________________________________________

The complete correspondence with General Tommy Franks can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-04-general-tommy-franks-in-show-and-tell-s.pdf

demand for Clerk Nancy Mayer-Whittington, U.S. Court, DC, to remove docket of Zernik v Melson et al, or clearly mark it as an invalid court record.

Background:

The U.S. Courts have just completed a massive project of installing dual docketing systems - Pacer and CM/ECF - seperate and undqual, where the courts can segregate the parties at will. Those delegated to Pacer cannot distinguish between valid, effectual court records and the large volume of invalid, ineffectual records posted online by the courts.

September 4, 2009

Ms Nancy Mayer-Whittington

Clerk of the Court

Your timely response or action is requested no later than September 17, 2009

Ms Mayer Whittington:

The Court mailed me about a month ago a “conformed” copy of my ex parte

application (Dkt #9). 1 Combined, the copy, and the docketing of that record,

again evidenced the invalidity of the records that the Clerk of the Court

docketed online under such caption.

...

Your handling of my case caused me great harm so far...

...

Please let me know within 10 days, no later than September 17, 2009, how

you would like to address such alleged corruption of trial court litigation

records.

Reasonable resolutions could be:

a) Marking the docket of Melson v Zernik as invalid as a whole, in a way

that would be visible in Pacer by a layperson with no effort, or

b) Removing it from Pacer and CM/ECF altogether.

Regardless, continued posting of false and deliberately misleading records by

the Clerk of the U.S. Court, particularly one in Washington DC, is likely to be

deemed as severe violation of Human Rights per ratified International Law.

Likewise, you may be deemed the offender.

___/s/Joseph Zernik___________

Joseph H Zernik

Los Angeles County, California

The complete letter to Clerk Mayer Whittington can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-04-letter-to-clerk-dc-demand-to-mark-invalid-or-remove-docket-s.pdf

Demand for Clerk Nafisi of U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, to remove docket of Zernik v Connor et al, or clearly mark it as invalid record.

Background:

The U.S. Courts have just completed a massive project of installing dual docketing systems - Pacer and CM/ECF - seperate and undqual, where the courts can segregate the parties at will. Those delegated to Pacer cannot distinguish between valid, effectual court records and the large volume of invalid, ineffectual records posted online by the courts.

In Zernik v Connor et al (2:09-cv-01550) the Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi, in collusion with Magistrate Carla Woehrle and Judge Virginia Phillips, allegedly engaged in the conduct of a false and deliberately miselading litigation - of claims of Civil Rights violations. The goal of such conduct was allegedly to allow continued racketeering by Countrywide Financial Corporation, Bank of America Corproation, and Judges of the LA Superior Court.

In Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) the Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi, in collusion with Magistrate Carla Whoehrle and Judge John Warner, allegedly engaged in the conduct of a false and deliberately misleading litigation - of a habeas corpus petition. The goal of such conduct was allegedly to allow continued false jailing of Att Richard Fine.

Terry Nafisi

District Court Executive and Clerk of Court

terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov

Clerk Nafisi:

Please accept this letter as my request to access court records to inspect and to copy pursuant

to Nixon v Warner Communication, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed

the Common Law and First Amendment rights to access judicial records to inspect and to

copy.

...

This request pertains specifically to NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) including any

digital stamps, or digital signatures, encrypted as series of numbers and characters, which

may be embedded in such NEFs of various records in the following cases:

1) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), and

2) Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914).

...

Enclosed is also the record of our communications in the past two months. We are yet to

cross the line where you allow those who communicate on your behalf to:

a) Identify their professional qualifications as Clerk Deputy – or not, and

b) State that they were communicating on your behalf.

....

Therefore, please be noticed - Ongoing posting of false and deliberately misleading records is

harmful. Please either have such records marked clearly as invalid, so that a layperson would

not mistake them for anything else. Alternatively – entirely remove them from the online

docket.

...

Dated: September 4, 2009

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

___/s/ Joseph Zernik_____

By: Joseph H Zernik

The complete letter to Clerk Nafisi of U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-04-demand-clerk-nafisi-us-court-la-access-court-records-to-remove-or-mark-invalid-s.pdf