10-01-05 Appeal of decision by Office of US Comptroller of the Currency to close complaint against Union Bank - on collusion in real estate fraud.

Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
 
January 5, 2010
Customer Assistance Group
Office of Comptroller of the Currency
By fax: 713 336 4301

RE: Case #0094775, Union Bank, National Association

Dear Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:

In my phone conversation today with a Customer Assistance Group specialist, I was told that OCC closed my complaint referenced above, following the response by Union Bank.   I am writing to appeal the decision to close my complaint against Union Bank.

In November-December 2007, Union Bank engaged in transactions in my mortgage account without my authorization, and with no notice to me at all.  Such transactions and communications ended up in real estate fraud against me, as opined by a fraud expert second to none - highly decorated FBI veteran  - James Wedick. He was decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director. [1] My losses exceeded $2 millions.

Starting mid 2008, I have repeatedly requested that Union Bank provide me copies of the records of my account, documenting the transactions and communications of Union Bank with others (which excluded me) regarding my account.  However, Union Bank so far refused to allow me to see the records of my own account.

Now, in response to a complaint to OCC, Union Bank provided a narrative, again with no records whatsoever.

The appeal requests again that Union Bank provide the records of transactions and communications in my account in November-December 2007.
 
Sincerely,

Joseph Zernik

CC:
1) Kevin Bailey, Deputy Comptroller of the Currency, and US representative to the Basel Committee
2) Basel Accords Committee on international banking

Linked Records:
[1] Resume of Mr James Wedick, and opinion letter regarding real estate fraud in conjunction with the Union Bank transactions, which were the subject of the complaint.
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf

10-01-04 Asking Sheriff Lee Baca to retract false papers regarding coerced hospitalization of attorneys who filed complaints against corrupt judges.

   

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:32:22 -0800 joseph zernik wrote: 

Subject: January 4, 2010 - Asking Sheriff Lee Baca to retract false and deliberately misleading papers regarding the arrest and booking of Attorneys Fine and Gottschalk - two attorneys who filed complaints pertaining to widespread corruption of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges, and were subsequently hospitalized by the Sheriff.

January 4, 2010

Hi [ ]:

I believe that my January 4, 2010 letter made the situation clear regarding Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles County:
a) Sheriff Lee Baca has no true warrants and he has no booking papers in the case of either attorney Richard Fine or Ronald Gottschalk, two experienced attorneys who filed complaints regarding widespread corruption of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and were subsequently hospitalized.  Richard Fine, perfectly healthy for all we know, is by now hospitalized for 10 months by the Sheriff.
b) Sheriff Lee Baca kept in the case of Richard Fine other papers that were false and deliberately misleading (a "remand order"), which he claimed were the legal foundation for the arrest, but he would not produce a copy of such papers.
c) Instead, Sheriff Lee Baca provided, in lieu of the California Public Records of arrest and booking of these attorneys - dishonest, invalid, ineffectual derivatives - false and deliberately misleading printouts from the Sheriff's fraudulent computer system.   These were not any valid legal records at all. Not even by a long shot. They were simply fraudulent computer printouts.  However, the Sheriff insisted on delivering such papers to me again and again, by fax, by mail.

The simplest fraud to demonstrate was that in both cases the printouts claimed that the actions against the attorneys were by the Los Angeles Municipal Court - when no such court existed for almost a decade.  Moreover, even three months after I started repeatedly requesting that the Sheriff eliminate such fraudulent information, the Sheriff insists on repeatedly producing such fraudulent information to me in lieu of the California Public Records.

In short
The Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County runs a fraudulent computer systems, and insists on distributing fraudulent printouts from such systems. The case of the Sheriff is particularly disturbing, because it is a system that is directly employed for false imprisonment of persons.  The Sheriff was engaging in the wrongdoing ad hominem -- on the bodies of the persons.  The level of corruption is just mind-blowing.  As indicated in my letter to the Sheriff - it is by now obvious that he is running the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County as what must be deemed a corrupt organization.  Key personnel in his office were involved in the production of the fraudulent papers and the false arrest and booking of the two attorneys - the very core personnel that were charged with the safeguard of the integrity of the Sheriff's jail system.

Truly,

        

Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music! 

At 17:16 04/01/2010, Anonymous wrote:

The Public Records Act requires that they give you the records that they have.  Do you think they haven't given what they have?  or do you think that what they have (and have given you) is inaccurate?  or both?

At 05:07 PM 1/4/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

Hi [ ]:
I wonder what you make of this, and whether you would be willing to write a letter to the Sheriff. jz

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:04:03 -0800
To: webemail@lasd.org, "Sheriff Lee Baca"<13232676600@efaxsend.com>, "Sheriff's Headquarters Bureau" ,,
From: joseph zernik
Subject: 10-01-04 RE: December 29, 2009 letter by Sheriff Lee Baca - request for correction of false and misleading information regarding Arrest, Booking and Bail of Attorneys Fine and Gottschalk.

Lee Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County, California
By fax:
By email:

The favor of a response within 5 business days was requested

Dear Sheriff Baca:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 29, 2009, [1] regarding my ongoing requests, since mid-October 2009, that the Sheriff comply with California Public Records Act and provide access to arrest and booking papers of inmates Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk. Both were attorneys who had filed complaints pertaining to alleged widespread corruption of the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, both were arrested by the Sheriff, with no warrants at all, and both were held under coerced hospitalization in what appeared as a thinly veiled procedure to cover up the fact that neither was ever legally booked. In parallel, your office has repeatedly provided me with false and misleading responses to requests for records. 

Please accept this letter as a kindly request:
a)      That you correct the false and misleading information published online by your department, and
b)      That you provide me with honest, valid, and effectual records, if any existed.  If none existed, request is that you retract the false papers provided so far, and provide none instead, but avoid propagating any additional false records.

You December 29, 2009, letter repeated the denial of access to any honest, valid, and effectual arrest and booking papers, stating The Public Records Act does not require that a public entity create a record in order to respond to a request for information.  The conclusion was inevitable that no such honest, valid, and effectual records existed.

However, the fact that no honest, valid, and effectual records existed to support the legal foundation of the arrest and holding of the two attorneys, did not provide a license for the Sheriffs Department to propagate, repeatedly, false and misleading records instead.

You again forwarded false and misleading records that Richard Fine was arrested at the Municipal Court of San Pedro when no such agency existed for almost a decade, and after I have repeatedly alerted you to the false nature of such information since mid October 2009.

In addition - this time false and misleading information was forwarded regarding Ronald Gottschalk as well:
a)      That he was released on bail of $0.00.  Atty Gottschalk repeatedly stated that his bail amount was around $500,000. 
b)      That his case was heard by the Los Angeles Municipal Court, while no such court existed for almost a decade.

In sum:
Your office published online false information regarding both attorneys.  Your office previously transmitted such false and misleading information to me by wire.  The recent letter repeated the transmission of such false and misleading information this time by USPS First Class mail.  Conduct of your office relative to such false and misleading information involved only not one person, but what appeared to be the core organization of your office Executive Assistant, the Legal Department, and Risk Management Bureau, and the Discovery Unit.  Such accumulating evidence raised concerns regarding the nature of the organization under your stewardship.

Let me repeat my request:
a)      Please correct the false information published online by your department, and
b)      Please provide me with honest, valid, and effectual records, if any existed, that were the legal foundation for the arrest and booking of Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk.  If none existed, request is that you retract the false papers provided so far, and provide none instead, but avoid propagating any additional false records.

Truly,
  

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/24782428/09-12-29-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-Response-Re-Arrest-Booking-Papers-s  

CC:
1)      Office of the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor
2)      International Red Cross  - as part of a complaint regarding false, coerced hospitalizations of political dissidents in Los Angeles County, California

10-01-04 Why on earth should anybody care at all about Zernik v Connor et al?

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:33:13 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Clarifications for Mr Harrington: RE: 10-01-04 RE: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

Dear Mr Harrington:

I was sorry to find you irritated.  The reason that I thought that others might be interested were the following:
a) In Zernik v Connor et all, defendants included 10 judges of the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and Countrywide's Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels, as well as others.  They were alleged to have involved violations of the law, amounting to racketeering.
b) The case at the United States Court was unique, in that I have recently managed to gain access to records that were denied elsewhere, and which provided definitive proof of the large scale fraud in operation of PACER & CM ECF.  I believed that anybody who had business before any United States Court should be interested in the details of such alleged fraud.
In short -
a) The allegation was that the standard approach of United States Courts and United States Courts of Appeals in response to cases involving judicial corruption - was to employ fraud in PACER & CM/ECF, of the type that was dubbed "Kozinski Fraud", as perpetrated on the falsely jailed Richard Fine, and which was recently also demonstrated in part by Scott Huminski as employed by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
b) Such fraud was directly tied to denial of access to court records, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) rights in courts across the United States.

For all the reasons listed above, I thought some people might be interested in the subject.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

 At 12:26 04/01/2010, you wrote:

Why on earth am I getting a blow-by-blow on some obscure case, Zernik v. Connor, from a Google group that I was surreptitiously subscribed to (without my consent)?  Would everyone here like to receive a blow-by-blow on my ten year Marriage of Harrington case and its progeny from the Colorado state courts?

If it is your attempt to promulgate useful information and heighten public awareness, let me be the first to inform you that your efforts are an abysmal failure.  If you want to be effective, give us the highlights once a month with a summary or give us a concise two sentence caption with a link, should we want to learn more.

Seriously, my Inbox has been swelling to the point of obscurity and absurdity with the deluge of prolix and sometimes incoherent rambling from certain members of this purported group.

Please remove me from this list.

. . . with kind regards,

Sean L. Harrington
http://knowyourcourts.com

---

10-01-04 Requesting clarification from Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court - re- legal foundation for operation of PACER & CM/ECF

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;

Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-01-04           RE:   1) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

2) US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)

3) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

4) In re: Fine (2:09-mc-00129)

          Requesting clarification re denial of access to court records.

The favor of a response within 10 business days was requested.

TO Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, United States Court, Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, by certified mail, and by email to <terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov> and <Dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov>.

Dear Clerk Nakisi:

Thanks again to Ms Dawn Bullock for her help and her patience during my visit to the Clerk’s Records Department on December 29, 2009.   During that visit, I submitted a written request to access court records pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). [1]

The vast majority of my requests to access court records, to inspect and to copy, were denied.  I am writing to request a written explanation for such denial of access:

1)       My requests to access records from four different paper court files (referenced above), even my own case, were denied. Deputy Clerk John initially claimed that the paper filings were destroyed immediately upon scanning. When I suggested that it could not possibly be the case, he tracked back. Nevertheless - I was denied access to any paper court file records.

2)       My requests to access electronic court file records in CM/ECF - specifically - the Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) of the same four court files, were likewise denied - even in my own case - with no explanation at all.

3)       My requests to access records, which documented the shredding of the claimed-to-be-shredded paper court files, were likewise denied - with no explanation at all.

4)       My requests to access (to obtain copies) paper printouts of electronic court file – the NEFs in the same four cases, were likewise denied, with the exception of printouts of the NEFs in my own case, Zernik v Connor et al, which I was provided by Ms Bullock, and for which I thanked her.

5)       Ms Bullock and I had a detailed technical discussion in re:

a)      The legal foundation, if any, for the operation of CM/ECF at the US Court for the Central District of California;

b)      The specific function of the NEFs in that system, and its legal foundation, if any;

c)      Denial of public access to the NEFs, and its legal foundation, if any.

6)       Ms Bullock stated that the foundation for the operation of CM/ECF at the California Central District was in the General Order 08-02.  From memory, I told her that such order was unusual among the General Orders - since it had no name of a judge who authored it, let alone a signature, and likewise, had no attestation by a clerk. Therefore, I questioned its validity and effect.  Ms Bullock checked it up, apparently found my recollection to be correct, and then told me that she would get back to me on the issue.

7)       Ms Bullock likewise stated that the denial of access to NEFs, except in one's own case, was founded in General Order 08-02. I challenged her from memory on that issue as well. I stated from memory that NEFs were mentioned only in one or two paragraphs of the order, but no reference was made to access, only to the NEFs function as certifying court records, and also as authenticating service and entry of parties' papers, and of court orders and judgments. Again - Ms Bullock said that she would research the matter.

8)       Ms Bullock stated that the denial of access to NEFs resulted from the fact that personal information was included in them. I challenged that answer, since the same information was also provided in the Parties and Attorneys page – which was publicly accessible. Ms Bullock agreed with me on that point.

9)       I also asked about the rules pertaining to issuing or not issuing of a valid NEF for a given record filed at court. The response was that an NEF was automatically issued any time a clerk scanned or posted a record into the PACER docket. I challenged that notion. It would have to be researched as well.

10)    I also raised the question regarding the display of general orders of the Court online. It was always the same exact 50 general orders that were available on display for public viewing and access, for at least two years. However, it was obvious that in fact, the total number of general orders of the court was much larger. Ms Bullock was not clear on that issue. However, in response to my request she promised to provide me a printout of the index of standing orders covering the period from 2001-2009. She stated that such period would cover all general orders pertaining to electronic filing at the California Central District.

11)    In general, although I was not an attorney, not even by a long shot, I believed that the issues discussed above had to be founded in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in Rules of Court, but not in General Orders, let alone “unofficial manual” of CM/ECF.  I therefore also requested clarification regarding the legal foundation for any of the specific rules of the operation of electronic filing, as practiced in the Central District of California.

Ms Bullock told me that I could expect a written response soon after the beginning of the new years, and I am writing to repeat my request for such written response on the matters listed above.

Respectfully,

Dated: January 04, 2010                

La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California                             Joseph H Zernik

                                                                                                By: ______________
                                                                                                JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                                                                PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                                                Fax: 801.998.0917
                                                                                                Email jz12345@earthlink.net

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681508/Zernik-v-Connor-CM-ECF-09-12-29-Request-and-Response-in-attempt-to-gain-access-to-records-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-s

10-01-04 Requesting clarifications from Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the United States Court - whether docket of Zernik v Connor et al was an honest, valid, and effectual docket of the court...

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:01:23 -0800
To:
From: joseph zernik
Subject: 10-01-04 RE: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);The favor of a response within 10 business days was requested.

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net                                 

Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-01-04        RE: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

Requesting clarification re authority of persons who entered transactions in the docket.

The favor of a response within 10 business days was requested.

TO Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, United States Court, Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, by certified mail, and  by email to [ ].

Dear Clerk Nakisi:

Happy New Year, and thanks again to Ms Dawn Bullock for her help and her patience during my visit to the Clerks Records Department on December 29, 2009.   Review of the docket and the NEFs demonstrated that a number of persons executed transactions in the docket of the above referenced case.  However, none of them was identified by name. Moreover, nowhere was any statement found to the effect that such transactions, and such docket were in fact executed by Deputy Clerks, by authority of Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi. 

I therefore request the following clarifications through statements on the record by Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court:
1)      That dt did/did not refer to Ms Donna Thomas.
2)      That Ms Donna Thomas was/was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk during the period covered by the docket of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).  In case Ms Thomas was indeed authorized, please provide the date of her appointment as Deputy Clerk.
3)      That transactions by Ms Donna Thomas in the docket of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) were/were not executed by authority of Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court.
4)      That the refusal on March 5-7, 2008, by Chris Sawyer, Pro Se Clerk, to issue summonses prepared by Plaintiff in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), and his issuance instead of summonses prepared by Chris Sawyer, Pro Se Clerk, himself, which were docketed under the complaint (Dkt #1), and notated in the unnumbered second docket slot, was/was not by authority of Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court.
5)      That all other transactions in this docket, which were executed by court personnel, were/were not executed by authority of Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court.
6)      That the docket of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), as displayed  in PACER was/was not deemed by the Clerk of the Court an honest, valid, and effectual docket of the United States Court, pursuant to United States law.
Respectfully,
Dated: January 04, 2010         
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California                     Joseph H Zernik                                                                        

                                                                                      

                                                                 By: ______________
                                                                 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                                 PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                 Fax: 801.998.0917
                                                                 Email
Attached: Digitally signed copy of this letter. 

10-01-03- Overview of PACER & CM/ECF - the largest shell game fraud in the history of mankind...

Please notice the large-scale fraud in United States courts across the country - in operation of PACER & CM/ECF the courts' dual case management and public access systems.


The Fraud:

1. The U.S. Courts have completed the installation, with no authority at all, of the dual systems, Pacer & CM/ECF, separate and unequal, where the courts can segregate parties at will. 
2. Those segregated into Pacer (attorneys who are not authorized by the court for a given case, and invariably all pro se filers and all prisoners who file petitions) are unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records among the large volume of invalid and ineffectual records posted online, since they are denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). 
3. Therefore, litigations are conducted under such conditions - where some parties, but not others, are left in the dark relative to the validity and effect of any records posted in the docket by the court during litigation. 
4. Such conditions in litigations in United States Courts, are likely to be found by International Human Rights Courts to be extreme violation of Human Rights by the United States Government and United States Courts.  

The solution: 
We must demand publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of such systems in the courts - pursuant to federal and states Rulemaking Enabling Acts.  


Linked Records:  

1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24732941/10-01-03-Notice-of-Electronic-Filing-Nef  
2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24730966/10-01-02-Zernik-v-Connor-et-al-2-08-cv-01550-Minutes-Orders-Judgment-as-served-by-Court-on-Plaintiff  
3. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24680732/09-12-29-Declaration-in-re-Gaining-access-to-NEFs-Notices-of-Electgronic-Filings-United-States-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Zernik-v-Connor-et-al  
4. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681508/09-12-29-Request-n-Response-Records-Us-Crt-La-s  
5. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681397/10-01-01-Table-Summary-of-Nefs-in-Zernik-v-Connor  
6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24731943/10-01-02-Zernik-v-Connor-Invalid-Ineffectual-Orders-n-Judgment-as-Served-by-Us-Court-s

The Usual:

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.

10-01-03 Introduction and invitation to participate in Rulemaming by Thomas E Baker

"...the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will continue to be the outstanding system of procedure in the world."

          AN INTRODUCTION TO FEDERAL COURT

                       RULEMAKING PROCEDURE

                               by Thomas E. Baker*

            Toward the end of September 1990 at a closed meeting in

Washington, D.C., the Judicial Conference of the United States

passed on a substantial set of proposed amendments to the rules of

practice and procedure of the federal courts. The new appellate rules

authorized local circuit rules on electronic filing,   required a jurisdictional

statement in the appellant's brief and eliminated some

inconsistencies in the notice rules for admiralty appeals.3 The new

civil rules related to pretrial scheduling orders, discovery in international

litigation, claims of privilege, subpoenas of nonparties,

alternate jurors, the standard for entry of judgment as a matter of

law, procedures for special masters and substitution for a judge

who is unable to continue.  Most important, a completely redrafted

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4: (1) authorized service as provided

by the state in which a defendant is served, as well as the forum

state; (2) permitted nationwide personal jurisdiction in federal question

cases; (3) emphasized and encouraged waivers of actual service;

and (4) clarified and economized service of process by and on the

federal government, The most substantial changes occurred in bank-

ruptcy procedure, where the rules have been redrafted in wholesale.

         These reforms were made necessary, in large part, by far-reaching

recent legislation: the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees,

and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 198613 and the Retiree Benefits

Bankruptcy Protection Act of 1988,J4 Even the Official Bankruptcy

Forms have been redrafted.

...

V. AN INVITATION

My last entreaty addressed to my lawyer-reader is to become

involved in the rulemaking procedure. My principal reason for writing

this article is to demystify the procedure so that attorneys will accept

this invitation. Suggestions and recommendations on any of the

federal rules may be sent to:

                               Mr. James E. Macklin, Jr.

                                            Secretary

              Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

            Administrative Office of the United States Courts

                              Washington, D.C. 20544

The standard procedure is to acknowledge in writing such suggestions

and recommendations and to refer them to the appropriate Advisory

Committee.

Lawyers should take the time to read, study and respond to the

proposed rules during the commentary period. Urge the appropriate

committee of your bar associations or take it upon yourself to appear

and testify at the public hearings. Members of the bar, obviously,

have an important stake in changes in federal procedure and, necessarily,

bear a public responsibility to contribute their expertise.

               In closing, I cannot improve on the exhortation of a young,

somewhat hyperbolic procedure professor, who in 1954 was just

beginning his own involvement in rulemaking: "If the careful work

of the Committee is followed by real participation and informed

comment from the bar, the amendments finally adopted should ensure

that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will continue to be the

outstanding system of procedure in the world."[69]

____________

* Professor of Law, Texas Tech University; B.S. cum laude, Florida State University,

1974; J.D. with high honors, University of Florida, 1977. By appointment of Chief Justice

William H. Rehnquist, the author serves on the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The views expressed herein are those of the

author alone. A previous version of this article appeared in the Texas Lawyer. See Baker, An

Invitation to Get Involved, Texas Lawyer, Sept. 3, 1990, at 22, col. I.

The full article was posted at:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-91-01-01-baker-thomas-e-introduction-to-federal-rule-making.pdf

69. Wright, Amendments to the Federal Rules: The Function of a Continuing Rules

Committee, 7 VAND. L. REv. 521, 555 (1954).

10-01-03 WSJ on corruption at the United States Courts - added a comment.

DECEMBER 31, 2009, 8:02 AM ET

Judicial Misconduct: The Mice Guard The Cheese

By Nathan Koppel

Does the federal judiciary do a good enough job investigating misconduct complaints against its fellow judges?

It’s an oft debated topic that gets a particularly detailed airing today in this Houston Chronicle piece.

A spate of recent high-profile complaints against judges, including the sexual-abuse charges against former Texas federal judge Samuel Kent (pictured), has prompted experts and members of Congress alike to call for reforms and more disclosure of federal disciplinary decisions, the Chron reports. (Click here and here for LB coverage of the Kent case.)

Comment added:

by Joseph Zernik

Please notice the large-scale fraud in United States courts across the country - in operation of  PACER & CM/ECF - the courts' dual case management and public access systems:

1) The U.S. Courts have completed the installation, with no authority at all, of the dual systems, Pacer & CM/ECF, separate and unequal, where the courts can segregate parties at will.

2) Those segregated into Pacer (attorneys who are not authorized by the court for a given case, and invariably all pro se filers and all prisoners who file petitions) are unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records among the large volume of invalid and ineffectual records posted online, since they are denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings).

3) Therefore, litigations are conducted under such conditions - where some parties, but not others, are left in the dark relative to the validity and effect of any records posted in the docket by the court during litigation.

4) Such conditions in litigations in United States Courts, are likely to be found by International Human Rights Courts to be extreme violation of Human Rights by the United States Government and United States Courts.

5) The solution: publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of such systems in the courts -- pursuant to the Rulemaking Enabling Act.

10-01-03 Calling for reconsideration of international credit policies towards the United States government

   


Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:42:31 -0500 (EST)
From: jz
To: "Ambassador of the People's Republic of China,Members of the Basel Accords Committee,and Bank of International Settlements (BIS)

Subject: Please reconsider credit policies towards US govenment in view of
 continued recklessness.

January 3, 2010

Dear Ambassador of the People's Republic of China, Members of the Basel Accords Committee, and Bank of International Settlements (BIS):

Copied below is yet another example of the ongoing failure of US banking and financial markets regulators, and the ongoing blatant violations of the law by US financial institutions. Any statements made by United States government officers in testimonies before United States Congress of "shoring up" the United States regulatory system cannot be reasonably taken at face value.  One must accept reality for what it is: The administration of President Obama and United States Congress lost control of United States financial institutions and United States banking and financial market regulatory agencies, which are flaunting their disregard for United States laws, international banking accords, and international credit agreements.

The United States government can no longer plausibly be deemed as either a good-faith party to the Basel Accords or a good-faith borrower in international credit markets. 

Reckless conduct by United States government agencies exposes United States and world financial markets to unknown risks, and those holding reserves in US denominations - to imminent losses on a large scale.  Needless to say, the United States treasury and United States economy are in no position to assume such risks, raising the odds of an imminent catastrophic failure.  

With the dawn of a new decade, it appears that the only measure that would possibly bring the United States government into treating its own citizens and the rest of the world with some degree of integrity would be tightening of credit policies. United States government may argue that such move by lenders would result in immediate untowardly effects.  However, continued flow of credit under current terms must be considered unreasonable in view of the increased and unpredictable risks to lenders. Moreover, continued flow of credit under current terms must be deemed as harmful - since it is seen by United States financial institutions and regulatory agencies as a license to continue their ongoing dishonest, deceptive, reckless conduct. 

An alternative, proactive approach, which should also be considered, would directly link credit polices to demonstrable performance by United States government towards establishing publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of large database management systems at public corporations, at financial institutions, at regulatory agencies, at the United States courts and in correctional facilities. It was the introduction of fraudulent database management systems at all levels over the past three decades, which lends the United States ungovernable today.  

Additionally, the Swiss government should be urged to pass and enforce laws, which would prohibit senior United States government officials (including, but not limited to United States judges) and officers and directors of publicly traded United States corporations from making deposits into numbered Swiss bank accounts while in office. Efforts should be made to keep the personal fortunes of such persons tied to the fate of the United States dollar.

Such actions by lenders would not only stabilize markets and dramatically reduce operational risks, but would also restore the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all who reside in the United States.   

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music! 

________________________________________________________________

At 06:44 03/01/2010, Yolanda Gibson-Michaels wrote:

RE: Re: Urgent Read: SEC Mary Schapiro call to investigate FDIC Inside Trading by Tyler Durden

Mary Schapiro Must Immediately Investigate The FDIC's Confidential Information Leak In Another Blatant Insider Trading Case, Then Resign

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/04/2009 17:39 -0800

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• FINRA
• Fund Flows
• Goldman Sachs
• Insider Trading
• Mary Schapiro
• non-performing loans
• Real estate
• Sheila Bair

The degree of insider trading in this market is getting ridiculous. And the strangest thing is those who are executing on blatantly obvious material, non-public insider information, are no longer concerned the least bit about getting caught as they realize that the "mighty" SEC will do nothing against them, courtesy of the example the SEC has set by finding absolutely nobody "responsible" (except, of course, the regulator's own future employers who thus get immunity from prosecution) for the greatest market heist in history in which over $5 trillion has been transferred from the middle class to the Wall Street oligarchy (future providers of paychecks for SEC staffers).

Today's grotesque example of the SEC's futility to act as even a modest deterrent to insider trading activity: New York Community Bancorp (which, just so happens, is a $602 million recipient of TLGP debt), whose stock surged in the final minutes of trading for reasons (then) unknown. As reader QevolveQ pointed out at 5:30 pm, the activity in both the stock and the calls of the company was many standard deviations away from average and raised major red flags. Those questions were quickly put to rest when it became known at 6:33 pm that NYB would in fact receive FDIC subsidies to acquire newly failed AmTrust Bank in a transaction that would be "immediately accretive to earnings." And how wouldn't it be:

Under the terms of the agreement, the Community Bank did not acquire any of AmTrust Bank’s  non-performing loans serviced by AmTrust Bank or any other real estate owned; construction, land, or development loans; private-label securities, or mortgage servicing rights, nor did it acquire any of the assets or assume any of the obligations of the holding company.

No, those would conveniently be funded by Ms. Bair herself. The cost to the FDIC, and US taxpayers, to make NYB a richer enterprise: $2 billion. This is value that will go straight to the bank's bottom line. As a result of this middle-class subsidy it was a certainty that its shares would spike.
The smoking gun here comes straight from a quick observation of NYB's intraday P/V chart: the jump at 3:24pm on statistically significant volume is a clear signal that someone was fully aware of the soon to be announced transaction:

Furthermore, as QeQ highlights, "8,933 of the Dec 12 calls traded vs. 2,244 OI, finishing +300% on the day." A very solid return for a few hours of trading. The block trades are visible below: one set of 2,500 Dec $12 calls bought at $0.20, followed promptly by two more 2,500 blocks around $0.25. With the stock poised to open much higher than its closing price, someone is sure to make a killing.

It is practically certain that the NYB stock and option transactions came courtesy of a insider tip. And as NYB is both a ward of the state, courtesy of its TLGP umbilical cord, and as the bank would soon become $2 billion richer as a result of some more middle class-to-Wall Street fund flows, it is very likely that the FDIC itself is the source of such leak. We truly hope that one of D.C.'s most ineffective and useless females (if grossly, grossly overpaid for her "work" in 2008) will analyze whether the agency headed by another such female has been responsible for yet more illegal insider trading activity. That the government is only capable of promoting unpunished criminal activity would not surprise anyone at this point. And as this will be one of those cases when everything is handed to the SEC on a silver platter, we don't doubt that some minor scapegoat will be put away to make it seem like the most worthless organization in the world earns its $1 billion annual budget fair and square.

What is chilling is the complete disdain that insider traders now flaunt when it comes to fear of retribution by the "regulators." And when Ms. Mary "$3.3 Million" Schapiro is done catching any and all masterminds behind this dastardly deed, we would all be very grateful if she could leave her keys, her chauffeur, and her masseuse as she packs her banker box full of Wall Street indulgences on the way out of public office once and for all -

Ms. Schapiro, the public does not want you betraying its trust any longer. Now please go work for Goldman Sachs where your continued betrayal of U.S. interests will be welcome and compensated much better than the meager $3.3 million you made at Finra. The sooner you get into a job that requires efforts more consummate with your diminished capacity, the sooner you can continue counting the $5-$25 million in cash payouts you slurped up from FINRA's defined benefit plans.