10-11-13 Welcome India - Last New Visitor! // Bienvenido India - El Visitante Mas Reciente!

               

Last New Visitor India Visited November 13, 2010

10-11-12 Internment Camps in the United States // Campos de internamiento en los Estados Unidos

  
Copied from:
http://www.constitution.org/abus/intern/intern.htm
Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society
See also:
[1]10-06-04 ACLU Objects to Federal Bureau of Prisons "Communication Management Units"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32762916/
[2] 09-12-17 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - Review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/
[3] 09-09-29 American Police Force Corporation Takes Over Small Town Police Force and Prisoner-Less Jail
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42234718/

Internment Camps in the United States

Many people think that talk of American "internment camps" is just paranoid conspiracy mongering, but such camps have played a significant role in government activity for more than 200 years.

1. Indian Final Solution — This is about the forcible eviction of the Cherokee from their Eastern homelands to internment camps, later to be called "reservations", in the Western states. Similar stories can be told about most native American tribes.
2. American Indian Reservations and Trust Areas — Official documentation on current reservation system.
3. Policing on American Indian Reservations: A Report to the National Institute of Justice, Stewart Wakeling, Miriam Jorgensen, Susan Michaelson, Manley Begay, et al.
4. Internment Records of Confederate Soldiers in the American Civil War
5. The Pacification Of The Philippines, Chapter 3 of The U.S. Army And Irregular Warfare.
6. Uprising of '34 — In 1934 there was a strike of U.S. textile workers. The response of the U.S. government was to call out the National Guard to round them up and put them in internment camps. This is the transcript of the POV program on PBS on this episode in U.S. history. See Press Clippings and Transcript and a commentary.
7. The Japanese-American Internment of 1942-45 — Suspected of disloyalty, they were rounded up and confined for the duration of World War II.
8. Internment in the United States during World War II, December 7, 1941 - July 1948 — German and Italian nationals were interned as well.
9. Japanese Internment During World War II — Another collection of links on this episode.
10. A Psychohistorical Analysis of the Japanese American Internment, by Alison Dundes Renteln — Academic study.
11. Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Japanese internment constitutional, and although the trial verdict was later overturned, the Supreme Court decision has not been.
12. A National ID System: Big Brother's Solution to Illegal Immigration — Cato Institute policy analysis of this proposal that has grave implications for civil liberties for illegal immigrants, who are systematically interned without trial, as well as for others.
13. Abstract of The United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, Operation Garden Plot.
14. Operation Garden Plot — Result of FOIA inquiry, image files.
15. Gulag Amerika: State-by-State Index — Compilation of links.
16. FEMA and PDD-25 — Introduction to the relationship between the two.
17. Project Megiddo — Document from FBI site, now on ours, detailing their plans for suppressing civil dissent.
18. NWO Intelligence Update — Sell DOD government manual, Operation Garden Plot.
19. Operation Garden Plot, Joint Task Force Los Angeles (JTF-LA) — From Federation of American Scientists (FAS).
20. Operation Cable Splicer, a sub-plan of Operation Garden Plot, by Army civil affairs groups — Investigator's report.
21. Do Hamdi and Padilla Need Company?, by Anita Ramasastry — Findlaw article on these detention cases.
22. Ashcroft Internment Camps Threat to Citizenry, by Charles Levendosky, Casper Star-Tribune
23. Internment, at Whose Florida — Links to numerous articles.
24. Welcome to Hell: The Bush administration plans internment camps for citizens, by Scott Loughrey
25. Camps For Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision, by Jonathan Turley, first appeared in Los Angeles Times
26. Comments on the Hamdi and Padilla cases, by Glenn Reynolds, author of Free to Die for their Country: The Story of the Japanese American Draft Resisters in World War II.
27. What's Next... Concentration Camps?, by Anis Shivani, Counterpunch.
28. General Ashcroft's Detention Camps, by Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice.
29. Plans for Civilian Internment: Stalag 17 American Style, by Mary Louise.

10-11-12 Welcome Belgium - Last New Visitor! // Bienvenido Bélgica - Visitantes Mas Reciente!

        

Last New Visitor Belgium Visited November 12, 2010

10-11-12 Outcome Document of the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the United States by the Human Rights Council Working Group: Calling upon the United States to ratify and comply with Human Rights treaties and conventions, abolish the death penalty, guarantee the right for habeas corpus, criminalize and prosecute torture, close Guantanamo Bay...

Outcome Document of the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the United States by the Human Rights Council Working Group - Calling upon the United States to ratify and comply with Human Rights treaties and conventions, abolish the death penalty, guarantee the right for habeas corpus, criminalize and prosecute torture, close Guantanamo Bay...

Los Angeles, November 12 - The Working Group of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations released the Informal Outcome document of the 2010 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States. [1]  Following the UPR protocol, the document will be formally adopted in the Regular Session of the Human Rights Council in March 2011.

The document, dated November 10, 2010, was classified as: "Distr.: Limited". Excerpts from the document are copied below.  The Outcome document calls upon the United State to:

• Ratify various Human Rights treaties and conventions, which the United States failed to ratify so far.
• Abolish the death penalty, or impose a moratorium on its execution. 
• Universally guarantee the right for habeas corpus.
• Criminalize torture through enactment of federal law, and prosecute the perpetrators of torture.
• Cease assassinations by contractors.
• Safeguard the rights of children, workers, immigrants, and migrant workers.

 Human Rights Alert's submission for the 2010 UPR of the United States was incorporated in the HRC staff report, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California.

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] 10-11-10 Human Rights Working Group: Outcome Document of the 2010 UPR of the United States: Wg.6 9 l.9 Usa
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42157366/

Excerpts from the November 10, 2010 Outcome document of the 2010 Universal Review of Human Rights in the United States:

Ratification And Compliance With Treaties And Conventions:
92.1. Ratify without reservations the following conventions and protocols:
CEDAW; the ICESCR; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families; the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; the Statute of the International
Criminal Court; those of the ILO; the United Nations Declaration on
Indigenous Peoples, and all those from the Inter-American Human Rights
System (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela);
92.2. Continue the process to ratify CEDAW and adhere to the other human
rights fundamental instruments, such as the Statute of Rome of the
International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and the International
Convention for the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearance
(France);
92.3. Ratify, until the next universal periodic review, ICESCR, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Protocols I and II of the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, ILO Conventions no. 87 (on freedom of
association) and no. 98 (on the right to collective bargaining) as well as
withdraw the reservation made to article 4 of the International Convention on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Russian Federation);
92.4. Ratify ICESCR and its Optional Protocol; the first Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, CEDAW, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Optional Protocol to the Convention
against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
(Spain);
92.5. Continue its efforts to realise universal human rights by a) ratifying
CEDAW; b) becoming a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child; c) acceding to ICESCR; d) ratifying the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Canada);
92.18. Ratify additional human rights treaties such as the ICESCR; the
Convention of the Rights of the Child; the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and the Convention
on Rights of Persons with Disabilities in order to further strengthen their
support to the United Nations Human Rights mechanisms (Netherlands);
92.16. Endeavour to ratify international instruments that USA is not party, in
particular among others the CRC, OP-CAT; CEDAW; and Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court (Costa Rica);
92.18. Ratify additional human rights treaties such as the ICESCR; the
Convention of the Rights of the Child; the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and the Convention
on Rights of Persons with Disabilities in order to further strengthen their
support to the United Nations Human Rights mechanisms (Netherlands);
92.33. Swiftly ratify CEDAW (Finland); Ratify CEDAW (Democratic
People�s Republic of Korea, Ghana, Netherlands, New Zealand); Become a
party to CEDAW (Australia);
92.35. Ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a
matter of priority (New Zealand); Become a party to the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Australia);
92.36. Proceed with the ratification process of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court at the earliest possible (Cyprus);
92.42. Accede to the universal core treaties on human rights and those of
inter-American system, in particular the recognition of the jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court on Human Rights (Brazil);
92.43. Consider the signing, ratification or accession, as corresponds, of the
main international and Inter-American human rights instruments, especially
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Uruguay);
92.44. Withdraw all reservations and declarations on the international
instruments to which it is a party that undermine its obligations or the purpose
of the treaty (Spain);
92.45. Withdraw reservations, denunciations, and interpretations of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against
Torture, that undermine their compliance, and accept their individual
procedures (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela);
92.46. Withdraw reservations to the Convention against Torture (Brazil);
92.48. Take the necessary measures to consider lifting the United States
reservation to article 5, paragraph 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights that bans the imposition of the death penalty for crimes
committed by persons under 18 (France);
92.49. Consider the withdrawal of all reservations and declarations that
undermine the objective and spirit of the human rights instruments, in
particular reservation to article 6 paragraph 5 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights that bans the imposition of the death penalty to
those who committed a crime when they were minors (Uruguay);
92.50. Withdraw the reservation to article 6, paragraph 5 of the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and consider further to
abolish the death penalty in all cases (Austria);
92.53. Respect the ruling of the International Court of Justice of the Hague,
of 27 June 1986, which orders the United States Government to compensate
Nicaragua for the terrorist acts that the people of Nicaragua suffered on those
years from the part of the American President Ronald Reagan (Nicaragua);
92.54. Take appropriate action to resolve the obstacles that prevent the full
implementation of the Avena Judgment of the International Court of Justice
and, until this occurs, avoid the execution of the individuals covered in said
judgment (Mexico);
92.55. Repeal the amendment which allows for slavery as a punishment
(Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela);
92.56. Repeal the norms that limit freedom of expression and require
journalists to reveal their sources, under penalty of imprisonment (Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela);
92.61. Unconditionally abolish its extraterritorial legislation on human rights
and other related matters against other countries including the �North Korea
Human Rights Act�, as these legislations represent flagrant breach of their
sovereignty and insulting violations of the dignity and the rights of the people
(Democratic People�s Republic of Korea);
92.66. Enact a federal crime of torture, consistent with the Convention, and
also encompassing acts described as �enhanced interrogation techniques�
(Austria);
92.70. Take appropriate legislative and practical measures to improve living
conditions through its prisons systems, in particular with regard to access to
health care and education (Austria);
92.71. Consider raising to 18 years the minimum age for the voluntary
recruitment to the armed forces, and explicitly define as a crime the violation of
the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (Uruguay);
92.72. Establish a national human rights institution, in accordance with the
Paris Principles (Egypt, Germany, Ghana, Sudan, Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela);
92.73. Implement recommendations of the United Nations human rights
bodies concerning the establishment of an independent national human rights
institute in line with the Paris Principles (Russian Federation); Taking
necessary steps to establish an independent national human rights institution,
in accordance with Paris Principles, in order to strengthen human rights at
federal and state level in addition to the local level. (Qatar); Establish an
independent national human rights institution in accordance with Paris
Principles, to monitor compliance with international standards and to ensure
coordination in implementing its human rights obligations between federal,
state and local governments (Republic of Korea); Establishment of an
independent national human rights institution compliant with Paris Principles
at federal level with appropriate affiliated structures at state level (Ireland);
92.74. That a human rights institution at the federal level be considered in
order to ensure implementation of human rights in all states (Norway);
92.90. Respond and follow-up appropriately the recommendations
formulated to the United States by the Special Rapporteur for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism
(Mexico);
92.91. Accept individual applications procedures provided for in human
rights instruments (Denmark);
92.92. In view of its positive cooperation with special procedures of the
Human Rights Council, extend an open standing invitation to these procedures
(Costa Rica); Issue a standing invitation to the Special Procedures of the
Human Rights Council (Austria); Issue an open and standing invitation to the
Special Procedures (Spain); Extend a standing invitation to all special
procedures (Netherlands);
92.95. Undertake studies to determine the factors of racial disparity in the
application of the death penalty, to prepare effective strategies aimed at ending
possible discriminatory practices (France);
92.96. Take appropriate legislative and practical measures to prevent racial
bias in the criminal justice system (Austria);

On The Death Penalty:
92.118. A national moratorium on the death penalty is introduced with a view
to completely abolish the penalty and, before such a moratorium is introduced,
to take all necessary measures to ensure that any use of the death penalty
complies with minimum standards under international law relating to the death
penalty such as under article 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (Sweden);
92.119. Consider the possibility of announcing moratorium on the use of the
death penalty (Russian Federation);
92.120. Establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty at the federal
and state level as a first step towards abolition (United Kingdom); Establish a
moratorium on executions on the entire American territory, with a view to a
definitive abolition of the death penalty (Belgium); Establish, at all levels, a
moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolish the death penalty
(Switzerland); Adopt a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view
to abolishing capital punishment in federal and national legislations (Italy);
Establish a moratorium to the death penalty with a view to its abolition
(Uruguay); Impose a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the
death penalty nationwide (New Zealand); Work towards a moratorium on
executions with the view to abolishing the death penalty, in conformity with
General Assembly resolution 62/149, adopted on 18 December 2007
(Netherlands);
92.121. Take all necessary measures in order to impose a moratorium on the
use of the death penalty, with a view to abolishing it both at the federal and
State levels (Cyprus);
92.122. Abolish the death penalty and in any event, establish a moratorium as
an interim measure towards full abolition (Australia); Abolish capital
punishment and, as a first step on that road, introduce as soon as practicable a
moratorium on the execution of death sentences (Hungary); That steps be
taken to set federal and state-level moratoria on executions with a view to
abolish the death penalty nationwide (Norway);
92.123. Impose a nationwide moratorium on executions and commute existing
death sentences to imprisonment term with a view to abolish the capital
punishment entirely (Slovakia);
92.124. Consider abolishing death penalty (Turkey);
92.125. Abolish the death penalty (Germany);
92.126. Implement at the federal level a moratorium on executions (France);
92.127. Begin a process leading to the ending of the death penalty punishment
(Ireland); Pursuing the process to abolishing the death penalty (Holy See);
92.128. Abolish as soon as possible the death penalty in the 35 Federal States
where this brutal practice is authorized (Nicaragua);
92.129. Study the possibility for the Federal Government of campaigning in
favour of applying the United Nations Moratorium on the death penalty
(Algeria);
92.130. Establish a de jure moratorium of the death penalty at the federal level
and in the military justice, in view of its abolition and as an example for the
States that still retain it (Spain);
92.131. That, until a moratorium is applied, steps be taken to restrict the
number of offences carrying the death penalty (Denmark);
92.132. A review of federal and state legislation with a view to restricting the
number of offences carrying the death penalty (Norway);
92.133. Abolish the death penalty, which is also applied to persons with mental
disabilities and commute those which have already been imposed (Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela);
92.134. End the prosecution and execution of mentally-ill persons and minors;
(Cuba);
92.135. Extend the exclusion of death penalty to all crimes committed by
persons with mental illness (Ireland);

Conduct In Iraq And Afghanistan: Torture, killing of civilians, assassinations, war crimes
92.136. Take legal and administrative measures to address civilian killings by
the US military troops during and after its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by
investigating and bringing perpetrators to justice and remedying the victims
and to close its detention facilities in foreign territories like Guantanamo,
including CIA secret camps (Democratic People's Republic of Korea);
92.137. Prosecute the perpetrators of tortures, extrajudicial executions and
other serious violations of human rights committed in Guantanamo, Abu
Ghraib, Bagram, the NAMA and BALAD camps, and those carried out by the
Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA (Cuba);
92.138. Heed the call of the High Commissioner to launch credible
independent investigations into all reliable allegations made to date of
violations of international human rights law committed by American forces in
Iraq, including extrajudicial killings, summary executions, and other abuses
(Egypt);
92.139. That measures be taken to eradicate all forms of torture and illtreatment
of detainees by military or civilian personnel, in any territory of
jurisdiction, and that any such acts be thoroughly investigated (Norway);
92.140. Stop the war crimes committed by its troops abroad, including the
killings of innocent civilians and prosecute those who are responsible (Cuba);
92.141. Halt immediately the unjustified arms race and bring to justice those
responsible for all war crimes and massacres against unarmed civilians,
women, children as well as acts of torture carried-out in prisons such as Abu
Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo (Nicaragua);
92.142. Halt selective assassinations committed by contractors, and the
privatization of conflicts with the use of private military companies (Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela);
92.143. End the use of military technology and weaponry that have proven to
be indiscriminate and cause excessive and disproportionate damage to civilian
life (Egypt);
92.147. Conduct thorough and objective investigation of facts concerning use
of torture against imprisoned persons in the secret prisons of United States of
America and detainees of the detention centres in Bagram and Guantanamo,
bring those who are responsible for these violations to justice, and undertake
all necessary measures to provide redress to those whose rights were violated,
including payment of necessary compensation (Russian Federation);
92.148. Take measures to ensure reparation to victims of acts of torture
committed under United States� control and allow access to the International
Committee of the Red Cross to detention facilities under the control of the
United States (Brazil);
92.149. Observe the Amnesty International 12 points program to prevent
torture perpetrated by government agents (Ecuador);
92.152. Prevent and repress the illegitimate use of violence against detainees
(Belgium);

Other:
92.154. End the unjust incarceration of political prisoners, including Leonard
Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal (Cuba);
Detentions, Guantanamo Bay, Special Renditions:
92.155. Close Guantanamo and secret centers of detention in the world, punish
agents that torture, disappear and execute persons who have been arbitrarily
detained, and compensate victims (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela);
92.156. Expedite efforts aimed at closing the detention facility at Guantanamo
Bay and ensure that all remaining detainees are tried, without delay, in
accordance with the relevant international standards (Egypt); Proceed with the
closure of Guantanamo at the earliest possible date and bring to trial promptly
in accordance with the applicable rules of international law the detainees held
there or release them (Ireland);
92.157. Quickly close down Guantanamo prison and follow the provision of the
United Nations Charter and the Security Council Resolution by expatriating
the terrorist suspect to their country of origin (China);
92.158. The closure of Guantanamo prison as the detention conditions violate
the UDHR and ICCPR and the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) and all other related human rights instruments (Sudan);
92.159. Close without any delay all detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay
as President Barack Obama has promised (Viet Nam);
92.160. Find for all persons still detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention
center a solution in line with the United States obligations regarding the
foundations of international and human rights law, in particular with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Switzerland);
92.161. Halt all transfer detainees to third countries unless there are adequate
safeguards to ensure that they will be treated in accordance with international
law requirements (Ireland);
92.162. Redouble its efforts to address sexual violence in correction and
detention facilities as well as to address the problem of prison conditions, with a
view to preserving the rights and dignity of all those deprived of their liberty
(Thailand);
Large Scale Imprisonments, including, but not limited to detention of immigrants:
92.177. Ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by persons deprived of their
liberty, including by way of ensuring treatment in maximum security prisons in
conformity with international law (Sweden);
92.178. Ensure the enjoyment of the right to vote both by persons deprived of
their liberty and of persons who have completed their prison sentences
(Sweden);
92.179. Review of alternative ways to handle petty crime and of measures to
improve the situation of inmates in prisons (Algeria);
92.180. Incorporate in its legal system the possibility of granting parole to
offenders under 18 sentenced to life imprisonment for murder (Switzerland);
Renounce to life in prison without parole sentences for minors at the moment of
the actions for which they were charged and introduce for those who have
already been sentenced in these circumstances the possibility of a remission
(Belgium); Prohibit sentencing of juvenile offenders under the age of 18
without the possibility of parole at the federal and state level (Austria); Cease
application of life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders and to
review all existing sentences to provide for a possibility of parole (Slovakia);
92.181. Enact legislation to ensure that imprisonment is only used as a last
resort when sentencing all juvenile offenders and provide systematic resocialisation
support (Austria);
92.182. Incarcerate immigrants only exceptionally (Switzerland);
92.183. Investigate carefully each case of immigrants� incarceration
(Switzerland);
92.184. Adapt the detention conditions of immigrants in line with international
human rights law (Switzerland);
92.185. Ensure that migrants in detention, subject to a process of expulsion are
entitled to counsel, a fair trial and fully understand their rights, even in their
own language (Guatemala);
92.186. Ensure the right to habeas corpus in all cases of detention (Austria);

Nature of the Document:
93. The response of the United States of America to these recommendations will be
included in the outcome report adopted by the Council at its sixteenth session.
94. All conclusions and/or recommendations contained in the present report reflect
the position of the submitting State(s) and/or the State under review. They should not
be construed as endorsed by the Working Group as a whole.

10-11-11 Welcome Urugay - Newest Country! // Bienvenido Urugay - el país más reciente !

        

Newest Country Uruguay Last Visited November 11, 2010

10-11-11 Did Judge JED RAKOFF engage in IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT? Further discussion on OAK board

US Judge JED RAKOFF
SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829): Did US Judge JED RAKOFF engage in IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT?

Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 58 minutes ago
Someone expressed confusion about the L. A. court system. With problems in the federal district court, southern district of New York, I would hope that the media covering the case looks into problems with attendant paperwork. Very few journalists went to law school, not like Bill Curtis on CBS TV who covered the Charlie Manson trial.
Andrew


Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA just now
Hi Dr Jackson:
I am glad that we got some of the minor confusion and distraction out of the way:
a) The paper, which was published in computer science, peer-reviewed journal opined computer fraud in the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF from coast to coast.
b) Also a previous example - the habeas corpus of Richard Fine - opined as Fraud on the Court as well - was in a US District Court. Therefore, California budget deficits were irrelevant there, and are irrelevant in the case of SEC v BAC as well. In fact, PACER and CM/ECF were implemented in a decade long project of the Administrative Office of the US Courts, which was concluded a couple of years ago, at the estimated cost of low $ billions. For the same money, one could easily design a valid and honest system. A system where all authentication records are concealed from public access is not cheaper, possibly more expensive. Regardless, there were numerous features in design of the systems that were indicative of deliberate intent to mislead - hence fraud.
c) As you know, I am not an attorney either. The review in the paper, recently submitted for a peer-reviewed international law journal, was not a legal review, but of clerical nature. You did not have to be a rocket scientist to look at the docket of SEC v BAC at the US District Court in New York to figure out that it did not resemble any kind of valid litigation. One should assume that legal reporters of major media outlets at least are experienced at looking at dockets. Furthermore, media were repeatedly informed during the litigation of its fraudulent nature. Regardless, such media continued to report the case as if there was no concern regarding validity and integrity of the records.
JZ


Hi again Dr Jackson:
Let's get back to the core issue -
CONDUCT OF JUDGE JED RAKOFF IN SEC v BAC
Not being an attorney - I believe that conduct of Judge Rakoff - a judge of the highest reputation - in the case of SEC v BAC was of the type that is Impeachable Misconduct. Similar conduct by Judge Manuel Real at the US District Court, Central District of California, in a case that had minimal public policy significance, led to the initiation of Impeachment Proceedings at the US Congress.
A plausible explanations for conduct of media is in concern regarding retaliation. Attorney Steven Yagman exposed and complained about the conduct of Judge Manuel Real. Within a few months Attorney Yagman landed in federal prison for several years - on tax evasion of the order of $100,000, which some claimed would have been resolved with fines in other cases. In his sentencing hearing he quoted Kafka "a cage went looking for a bird",,,
It is the standard treatment of whistleblowers in the US in recent years...
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine's case provided yet another example. He exposed and rebuked the fact that all judges in Los Angeles County, California, took for 10 years "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"), which required the enactment of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.
Richard Fine landed in 18 months of solitary confinement with no warrant, no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered in his case.
Most journalists are probably not that brave...
JZ 

10-11-10 More on Judge Jed Rakoff and SEC v BAC at the US District Court, NY - from OAK discussion board //

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 1 day ago

Jed Rakoff - US District Court - New York
SEC v Bank of America (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – opined as pretense litigation and part of the pretense banking regulation in the United States

[see post below, dated Nov 6, 2010]

Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 1 day ago

From what I recall, "piercing the corporate veil" is a legal device to get around a type of corporate trickery to limit liability. What largely stopped and partly rolled back the robber baron era were the Sherman (1890) and Clayton (1914) Anti-Trust Acts and the spirit of the Progressive Era under Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. I have complained the DOJ and FTC routinely approve the kinds of mergers the DOJ used to go to federal court to divest and asked my Congressman and Senators if monopoly is a criminal offense in this country anymore.
Andrew

Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 1 day ago

Some commentators note a distaste of some courts for stockholders' derivative actions where shareholders sometimes sue for obcenely large corporate salaries and bonuses. Taxpayers have also complained about their money being used to pay such salaries and bonuses. These points are noted.
Andrew

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 22 hours ago

Hi Dr Jackson:
The point I was trying to make was that it really does not matter what laws US Congress passes any more... For example: In efforts to stem conduct of large corporations in recent decades, which is nothing but a Robber Baron Revival Era, US Congress passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), and more recently the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009).
However, as documented and opined in papers, some recently published in peer-reviewed international journals, and some still pending review, US judges today ignore the law and engage in large-scale Fraud on the Courts, enabled through PACER and CM/ECF.
The case reviewed in the most recent paper involved what was alleged by both SEC and US Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as fraud by BAC on $5 billions. However, SEC filed complaint, where no individual was named as Defendant. And Judge Jed Rakoff - highly reputed as he was - conducted litigation, which based on examination of validity, or lack thereof, of judicial records he issued in the case, was opined in the paper as Fraud on the Court.
Such conduct was contrasted with conduct of the US courts a century ago, which was in fact by most historic accounts credited with "piercing the corporate veil" and bringing the Robber Baron Era to its end: e.g. Benjamin Cardozo in Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co 244 N.Y. 602 (1927).
At that time there was unique historic level of integrity at the US courts. However, of note, Benjamin Cardozo's father was by historic accounts corrupt judge as well...
The paper opined that corruption in the US courts today is of unparalleled historic proportions, since it is structured and built in through the design and operations of PACER and CM/ECF, with no Rules of Court ever published pertaining to procedures of the courts, which are inherent in them.
JZ

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 21 hours ago

SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
The paper, recently submitted for international peer-review, also took to task media, for covering up the corruption. New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Times of London, each published multiple reports on the litigation of SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NY. However, there was no way that such reports were based on review of valid court records, and no media outlet reported on the invalid nature of the court docket and court records in the litigation.
Unique in its plethora of baseless reports on the litigation was the Wall Street Journal.
JZ
LINKS:
[1] 10-11-05 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court Southern District of New York – Wall Street Journal reports
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41615951/
[2] 09-08-11 Rakoff Hands it to BofA, the SEC - Law Blog - Wall Street Journal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41432905/

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 21 hours ago

SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
Hi again Dr Jackson:
I understand your reluctance to comment on the core issue of the paper recently submitted - Fraud on the Court opined in court records in the litigation referenced above.
LINKS:
[1] 10-06-19 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York - Docket Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41088572/
[2] 10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv -06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – Administrative records: a) Civil Cover Sheet, b) Related Transactions Report, c) Pending Statutes Report s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41625345/
[3] 10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York - Notices of Counsel Appearance s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41621993/

Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 6 hours ago

Someone mentioned they got confused with the many posts on court records. I did see and report on a docket sheet being altered in a nearby county some years back as I had stamped copies of which the docket sheet and court file had no record. This was pointed out to the chief clerk and perhaps others. I already noted past problems with incompatible computer systems in this county which were rectified.
I am not a technical expert or initmately familiar with the situation in L A county, do not know to what extent there is technical or human causation, but do think that resolution of these problems needs investigatory resources. I hope I clarified any confusion.
Andrew

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 5 minutes ago

Jed Rakoff - US Judge
RE: SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
Hi Dr Jackson:
I am not sure why you repeatedly refer to LA County and State of California courts, when the paper pertained to the US courts computer systems - PACER and CM/ECF, and a case at the US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
There is no need to get into "technicalities" either. It should be sufficient for an attorney, like you, to review the docket sheet [1]:
a) There is no summons in the docket;
b) There is no Civil Cover Sheet for the Complaint, which is required for opening a civil docket;
c) There is no evidence of Service of Process, or waiver thereof;
d) There is no pre-trial motion to be found in the docket;
e) There is no evidence of Discovery Disclosures pursuant to FRCP;
f) Expert Affidavits were filed and listed, outside the FRCP pertaining to expert testimonies;
g) The court issued orders unrelated to any motion by parties or by the court itself.
h) The "Related Transactions Report" lists no orders as related to anything else; the "Judgment" is not related to the Complaint either;
i) The "Pending Statuses Report" - lists no statuses opened and no statuses terminated, even after the "Final Consent Judgment";
j) No minutes were entered for proceedings that were listed.
k) At least two proceedings were off the record - not listed at all, but mentioned in other records.
l) No authentication/attestation records by Clerk of the Court appear anywhere in the docket, and the Clerk, Chamber, Plaintiff and Defendant are united in denying access to such records. Therefore, there is no way to ascertain that any of the orders of the judgment are such that command "full faith and credit"
m) All Notices of Appearance by SEC counsel are deemed invalid - they failed to certify that they were Counsel of Record. One is not even signed, but was docketed nevertheless.
-
This was no trivial case of some county court at all: It was one of the most significant in the US in the past year - it was covered dozens of times in WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, and Times of London...
-
Naturally, you could again claim that this is all related to US budget deficit, and "imbeciles" at the courts... However, we are talking here about the court of JED RAKOFF, a judge who is considered one of the US experts on White Collar Crimes, Securities, and Racketeering...
JZ
LINKS:
[1] Docket sheet:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41088572/

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA just now

Jed Rakoff - US Judge
RE: SEC v BAC under Judge JED RAKOFF at the US District Court in NYC
Hi Dr Jackson:
Last but not least -
1) The docket includes an invalid note of "deligation" to US Magistrate Dolinger, who consequently appears nowhere in the docket.
2) The docket includes no evidence at all for Assignment to Judge JED RAKOFF, who consequently led the charade.
jz