.

page counter []
"...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* "Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy". KNBC (October 16, 2008) * "Innocent people remain in prison" LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * Los Angeles County is "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud." FBI (2004) * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000) * "Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008) * "Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión" LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006) * Condado de Los Angeles es "el epicentro de la epidemia de bienes raíces y el fraude de la hipoteca." FBI (2004) * "... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron." Prof. David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * "Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes." Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)

Thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain locked up more than a decade after official, expert, and media report documented that they were falsely prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in the largest court corruption sandal in the history of the United States...

Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/

Nuestro derecho a acceso los expedientes publicos, nuestra libertad y nuestros derechos humanos fundamentales están todos conectados en las caderas!

10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations

In summer 2010, the staff report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States, noticed and referenced the Human Rights Alert April 2010 submission, pertaining to "corruption of the courts, the legal profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States

Saturday, May 1, 2010

10-05-02 Repeat Request for Opinions by Harvard, Yale Deans re: Large-scale Fraud in US Courts // Repita la petición de dictámenes por Harvard, Yale volver Decanos: fraude a gran escala en los tribunales de EE.UU. // Repeat Request for Opinions von Harvard, Yale Deans Re: groß angelegten Betrug in US-Gerichten

 
Harvard Law Dean - Prof Martha Minow;    Yale Law Dean - Prof Robert Post 
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:02 +0300
To: robert.c.post@yale.edu, minow@law.harvard.edu
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Repeat request for opinions by Deans of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School in re: Alleged large-scale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and case management systems of the United States courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively.


Prof Martha L Minow
Dean, Harvard Law School
By ermail
minow@law.harvard.edu

Prof Robert C Post
Dean, Yale Law School
By email robert.c.post@yale.edu  
RE: Repeat request for opinions by Deans of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School in re: Alleged large-scale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and case management systems of the United States courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively.
Dear Prof Minow and Prof Post:

I write to repeat the request for opinions regarding alleged large scale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and case management systems of the United States courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively.
[1]  Please also notice, attached below, a news article and comments from the ABA Journal in re: Kids for Cash in Luzerne County, PA vs Los Angeles County, CA. [2] Please also notice the opinions of two California law school deans quoted among the comments.  The ongoing large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, provide a clear example of the profound harm to the rights of all in the US from the alleged fraud in PACER and CM/ECF.  The case of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) itself, came for review before the US District Court, Central District of California under US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769).  The outcome of that litigation was the June 2001 Consent Decree, which served as the purported legal foundation for the office of Overseer of Civil Rights (2001-2009) in Los Angeles.  However, the Consent Decree itself is alleged as typical product of the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF.  It appears as a valid court record in PACER, but it is alleged that it was never truly entered and authenticated. Furthermore,  the US District Court, Central District of California, now denies access to the records of the case with no explanation at all.  Key provisions of the Consent Decree were later never enforced.  Such Consent Decree is alleged as void, not voidable court record, which was deemed as void by the Court, but posed in PACER as a false and deliberately misleading record.
I hope that this additional information would move you to reconsider the request for opinions.  The alleged fraud in PACER and CM/ECF in its essence is simple: [1] All authentication records were universally removed from PACER - the online public access system, and US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals across the country are denying public access to such court records  - NEFs at the US District Courts, and NDAs at the US Courts of Appeals.  Access to the authentication records is now permitted only to attorneys authorized in a given case.  In parallel - the US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals have been publishing in PACER a large volume of void, not voidable, false and deliberately misleading minutes, orders, judgments, and mandates, with no valid authentication at all.  However, the public is unable to discern such false and deliberately misleading court records from those that truly required "full faith and credit", since the public is unable to view the authentication records. 

You are again called upon to reconsider your duties to the public at large, to review the evidence,
[1] and to issue opinions on this critical matter, which pertains to the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all who reside in the US.
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGOhttp://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
CC:1) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - Founding Dean, University of California Irvine Law School
2) Prof David Burcham - Former Dean, Los Angeles Loyola Law School
3) Law School faculty
4) UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.
LINKS/ ATTACHMENTS:
[1] Solicitation of Expert Opinions regarding alleged fraud in the online public access (PACER) and case management
system (CM/ECF) of the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
·  http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-managementsystem -
of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s
·  http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-casemanagement -
system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine
·  http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-Casemanagement -
system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s
[2] Kids for Cash in Luzerne County, PA vs Los Angeles County, CA.
[]  

JUDICIARY

Ex-Judge to Plead Guilty in Kids-for-Cash Scandal; Is He ‘Singing Like a Bird’?

Posted Apr 30, 2010 8:09 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan has agreed to plead guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy in the $2.8 million “kids for cash” scandal.

Conahan faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when he is sentenced, according to the Legal Intelligencer and the Associated Press. The agreement does not include a minimum sentence; instead it specifies the penalty will be “determined by the court.”

According to the Intelligencer, “The sentiment from several sources upon reviewing the plea deal was: ‘He must be singing like a bird.’ ” The sources said Conahan essentially ran the county and will be expected to name lawyers or others in the alleged conspiracy.

Conahan and another judge, Mark Ciavarella Jr., were accused of accepting kickbacks in exchange for jailing juveniles in a private detention facility. A federal judge rejected a plea deal last year that called for sentences of 87 months in prison, saying the defendants had not accepted responsibility for their wrongdoing.

Ciavarella’s lawyer, Al Flora Jr., told AP that his client maintains his innocence. ''He's going to trial,'' Flora said.
Related Topics
Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice, White Collar Crime, Judiciary, Legal Ethics

Comments

1.B. McLeod
Apr 30, 2010 8:27 AM CDT
If so, I hope he knows “The Olde Triangle.”  That could come in pretty handy for the next few years or so.

2.John M
Apr 30, 2010 9:39 AM CDT
Moon River would probably be more useful.

3. Plea Deal
Apr 30, 2010 10:19 AM CDT
He pleas down from 48 counts to 1 count, when the feds had him clean on every issue?  Nice to be connected.

4. Houman
Apr 30, 2010 11:25 AM CDT
How did he manage to strike a deal that would put him out on the street again someday?  What lawyer could suppress the thought that every day these men walk free is a disgrace to the profession?

5. John M
Apr 30, 2010 11:30 AM CDT
Which lawyer?  The defendant or the prosecutor?  In the former, the lawyer’s obligation is to his client, not to the larger concept of justice or what is or is not a “disgrace”.  If he suppressed that to vent his feelings of a larger justice he would be betraying that justice in the same way that the judge had.  As for the prosecutor, maybe it sucks, but the world isn’t always the one you want.  He’s got one count of racketeering which could potentially net him a score in the pokey.  And even if he gets the minimum he will never be in a position to do what he did again.  Take the blessings you got and move on.

6. Walt Fricke
Apr 30, 2010 3:34 PM CDT
#5, Amen.
Distributive justice is tricky when more than one person has ideas about how to distribute it.

7. Belly B
Apr 30, 2010 4:25 PM CDT
Comment removed by moderator.

8. #8 Jim-OH 2010-04-30 19:13 0400 parents
Apr 30, 2010 6:15 PM CDT
Many attorneys are disappointed at the judges conduct.
I wonder how the parents and kids felt about him.

9. Joseph Zernik
May 1, 2010 7:31 AM CDT
One must wonder why racketeering and false imprisonments in Luzerne County, PA, are prosecuted by Federal agencies, while similar conditions in Los Angeles County, California, are fully patronized by FBI and US Department of Justice.  Already during the Rampart corruption scandal (1998-2000), false imprisonments of thousands of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) was documented.  They are almost exclusively blacks and Latinos, and by estimate about a third of them were still juveniles at the time of their framing.  However, Federal agencies permitted the Los Angeles County justice system to investigate, prosecute, and judge itself, with predictable outcome.
By 2006, the LAPD’s Blue Ribbon Review Panel concluded “Innocent people remain in prison”.  It also stated that the LA county justice system tolerated “a subcult of criminality in the ranks”, and called for an external investigation. 
No external investigation was ever instituted to this date.

Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California

LINKS:
[1] The Rampart FIPs - a Review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/09-12-17-Rampart-FIPs-Falsely-Imprisoned-Persons-Review

10. B. McLeod
May 1, 2010 11:05 AM CDT
Zernik neglects to mention that he was a dissappointed litigant who could not manage to avoid losing his home, and that he has since filed bogus cases and attempted to intervene without standing in cases involving others.  (A Google Scholar search will bring up the cases).  Now, instead of seeking treatment for what appear to be fairly obvious issues, he contents himself (if one could call it that) with strange and unbalanced posts concerning various aspects of various court systems.  Evidently, it is all he has left in life.

11. Joseph Zernik
May 1, 2010 11:56 AM CDT
Mr McLeod failed to respond in on the matter itself in any way at all:
* The acclaimed PBS Frontline series - LAPD Blues - estimated in 2001 (and updated in 2008), the number of those falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to long terms by the corrupt justice system of Los Angeles County, California at 8,000 - 16,000, or more. [1]
* The official LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel concluded in 2006 that such persons remained in prison.  By estimate, only about 150-200 of the Rampart-FIPs were freed over the years through reversal of their false convictions. [2]
* Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, in reviewing the case in 20001 wrote:  “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” [3]
* Then Dean, Prof David Burcham and Prof Katherine Fisk, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, in reviewing the case in 2001 wrote: “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.”  [4]
The obvious question remains unanswered:  Why did FBI and US Department of Justice permit, and continue to permit the large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California?
Any response on the matter would be greatly appreciated…
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California

LINKS:
[1] PBS Frontline - Rampart False Imprisonments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/01-05-01-Rampart-FIPs-Rampart-First-Trial-PBS-Frontline-Rampart-False-Imprisonments-s
[2]  LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/06-07-15-LAPD-apos-s-Blue-Ribbon-Review-Panel-Report-2006
[3]  Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County, California:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/00-09-01-The-criminal-justice-system-of-Los-Angeles-County-California-by-E-Chemerinsky-57-Guild-Prac-121-2000
[4]  Prof David Burcham and Prof Katherine Fisk “Policing the Justice System”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/00-00-00-David-Burcham-and-Katherine-Fisk-Loyola-Symposium-The-Rampart-Scandal-Policing-the-Criminal-Justice-System-2000-s

12. B. McLeod
May 1, 2010 4:11 PM CDT
It must be a broad-based conspiracy to “get” Zernik, or make him look crazy.  (er).

13. Joseph Zernik
May 1, 2010 6:14 PM CDT
The opinions quoted above included those by the team of Public Broadcasting Service Frontline series, makers of the acclaimed series -  LAPD Blues - to this dates posted online, providing a living monument for the large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California. Other opinions were by a notable constitutional scholar and law school dean - Erwin Chemerinsky, and by another dean and law professor from yet another California law school.
The official Blue Ribbon Review Panel named prominent Los Angeles County attorneys among its members, it was commissioned in 2003 and published its official report in 2006 after a three year study.
A reasonable person would find it hard to dismiss all these weighty opinions with no counter argument or counter opinion on the matter itself at all.  In fact, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel directly addressed the issue of conspiracy theories in its 2006 report -  as quoted below, among other highlights from the report:
p60
“Unanimously, criminal defense attorneys and civil plaintiffs’
attorneys believe ... innocent people remain in prison. “
p58
Los Angeles Superior Court’s must be “examine[d for] its role in
accepting pleas from innocent defendants and failing to detect
police perjury or the conviction of the innocent.”
p48
“...law enforcement, prosecutors and judges - inexorably chose
containment. It is not that individuals or entities conspired to
cover up corruption; it is that when a window on its true extent
opened, they simply closed it.”
p64
“The response by police to the Blue Ribbon Panel report was of
interest in that it failed to ever mention past present or future
investigation into the Rampart scandal abuses that were the
reason the Panel was instituted, and were the subject of its report.
Obviously the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other
parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report
recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the
system, have not produced any response that we know of…”
Joseph Zernik

Los Angeles County, California

 
Harvard Law Dean - Prof Martha Minow;    Yale Law Dean - Prof Robert Post 

Fecha: Sun, 02 de mayo 2010 03:05:02 0300 Para: robert.c.post @ yale.edu, minow@law.harvard.edu De: José zernik Asunto: Solicitud de repetición de las opiniones de Decanos de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard y Yale Law School, en re: supuesto fraude a gran escala en el diseño y el funcionamiento del acceso público en línea y sistemas de manejo de casos de los tribunales de los Estados Unidos - PACER y CM ECF /, respectivamente. 
Martha Minow Prof L Decano de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard Por ermail minow@law.harvard.edu
Robert Prof C Post Decano de la Facultad de Derecho de Yale Por correo electrónico robert.c.post @ yale.edu
RE: Repita el procedimiento para solicitar opiniones de Decanos de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard y Yale Law School, en re: supuesto fraude a gran escala en el diseño y el funcionamiento del acceso público en línea y sistemas de manejo de casos de los tribunales de los Estados Unidos - PACER y CM ECF /, respectivamente.
Estimado profesor Minow y Post Profesor:
Me dirijo a repetir la solicitud de dictamen sobre un supuesto fraude a gran escala en el diseño y el funcionamiento del acceso público en línea y sistemas de manejo de casos de los tribunales de los Estados Unidos - PACER y CM ECF /, respectivamente. [1] Por favor, también nota, se adjunta a continuación, un artículo de noticias y comentarios de el diario del ABA en Re: Niños en Efectivo en el Condado de Luzerne, PA vs Condado de Los Angeles, CA. [2] Por favor, también nota las opiniones de dos decanos de la escuela La ley de California citó entre los comentarios. El curso encarcelamientos falsos a gran escala en Los Angeles County, California, un claro ejemplo del daño profundo a los derechos de todos en los EE.UU. desde el presunto fraude en PACER y CM ECF /. El caso del escándalo de Rampart (1998-2000) sí, llegó para su revisión ante el Tribunal de Distrito de EE.UU., Distrito Central de California en EE.UU. v Ciudad de Los Ángeles et al (2:00-cv-11769). El resultado de que el litigio era de junio de 2001 del Decreto de consentimiento, que sirvió como la base jurídica pretendida para el cargo de Supervisor de Derechos Civiles (2001-2009) en Los Ángeles. Sin embargo, el Decreto de Consentimiento sí se alega como producto típico de fraude en el PACER y CM ECF /.Aparece como un expediente judicial válido en PACER, pero se alega que nunca se inscribió verdadera y autentica. Por otra parte, los EE.UU. Tribunal de Distrito, Distrito Central de California, ahora niega el acceso a los registros del caso sin ninguna explicación en absoluto.Las principales disposiciones del Decreto de Consentimiento más tarde nunca fueron forzadas.Tal Decreto de Consentimiento se alega como nulo, anulable no expediente judicial, que se ha considerado como nulo por el Tribunal, pero que se plantean en PACER como falsa y deliberadamente engañosa registro.
Espero que esta información adicional se movería a reconsiderar la solicitud de opiniones. El presunto fraude en el PACER y CM ECF / en su esencia es simple: [1] Todos los registros fueron removidos de autenticación universal de PACER - el sistema de acceso público en línea, y los Tribunales de Distrito de EE.UU. y las Cortes de Apelaciones de EE.UU. en todo el país están negando el acceso del público a los los libros de corte - FNMA en las Cortes de Distrito de EE.UU., y NDA en las Cortes de Apelaciones de EE.UU.. El acceso a los registros de autenticación está permitido sólo a los abogados autorizados en un caso determinado. Al mismo tiempo - los Tribunales de Distrito de EE.UU. y las Cortes de Apelaciones de EE.UU. han estado publicando en PACER un gran volumen de vacío, no anulable, falsa y deliberadamente engañosa minutos, órdenes, resoluciones y mandatos, sin autenticación válida en absoluto. Sin embargo, el público es incapaz de discernir falsa y deliberadamente engañosa registros de la corte de los que realmente requiere "plena fe y crédito", ya que el público no puede ver los registros de autenticación.
Usted está de nuevo llamado a reconsiderar sus deberes para con el público en general, para revisar la evidencia, [1] y emitir opiniones sobre esta cuestión crítica, que pertenece al Humanos, Constitucional y de Derechos Civiles de todos los que residen en los EE.UU. .


En verdad,
 [ ]
José Zernik, PhDAlerta de los Derechos Humanos (HRA), ONGhttp://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Por favor, consulte cc, enlaces, archivos adjuntos, en virtud del texto Inglés, arriba.

 
Harvard Law Dean - Prof Martha Minow;    Yale Law Dean - Prof Robert Post  
Date: Sun, 2. Mai 2010 03.05.02 0300 To: robert.c.post @ yale.edu, minow@law.harvard.edu Von: Joseph Zernik  Betrifft: Antrag auf Wiederholung Stellungnahmen Dekane der Harvard Law School und der Yale Law School in Re: Angebliche groß angelegten Betrug in der Konstruktion und Betrieb des Online-Zugangs der Öffentlichkeit und Fall-Management-Systeme der Gerichte der Vereinigten Staaten - PACER und CM / ECF, bzw.
Prof Martha Minow L Dean der Harvard Law School Durch ermail minow@law.harvard.edu
Prof Robert C Post Dekan der Yale Law School Per E-Mail robert.c.post @ yale.edu
RE: Wiederholen Sie die Anfrage für die Bewertungen von Deans der Harvard Law School und der Yale Law School in Re: Angebliche groß angelegten Betrug in der Konstruktion und Betrieb des Online-Zugangs der Öffentlichkeit und Fall-Management-Systeme der Gerichte der Vereinigten Staaten - PACER und CM / ECF, bzw.
Sehr geehrter Prof Minow und Prof Post:
Ich schreibe, um den Antrag auf Meinungen über angebliche Betrügereien in großem Maßstab in die Gestaltung und den Betrieb des Online-Zugangs der Öffentlichkeit und Case-Management-Systeme der Gerichte der Vereinigten Staaten - PACER und CM / ECF, bzw. zu wiederholen. [1] Bitte beachten Sie auch, unten angehängt, eine News-Artikel und Kommentare aus der ABA Journal in Re: Kids for Cash in Luzerne County, PA vs Los Angeles County, CA.[2] Bitte beachten Sie auch die Stellungnahmen von zwei California Law School Dekane unter den Kommentaren zitiert. Die laufende großangelegte false Inhaftierungen in Los Angeles County, Kalifornien, bietet ein deutliches Beispiel für die tiefe Verletzung der Rechte aller in den USA von den angeblichen Betrug in PACER und CM / ECF. Der Fall des Rampart-Skandal (1998-2000) selbst, kam für die Überprüfung vor dem US District Court, Central District von Kalifornien nach US-v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769). Das Ergebnis dieses Prozesses wurde im Juni 2001 das Dekret Consent, die als angebliche rechtliche Grundlage für das Amt des Vorstehers der Civil Rights (2001-2009) in Los Angeles serviert. Allerdings ist die Zustimmung Dekret selbst als typisches Produkt des Betrugs in PACER und CM / ECF behaupteten. Es scheint, als einen gültigen Gerichtsbeschluss Datensatz in PACER, aber es wird behauptet, dass es nie wirklich eingegeben und authentifiziert. Auch die US District Court, Central District of California, jetzt verweigert den Zugriff auf die Aufzeichnungen der Fall überhaupt keine Erklärung. Wichtigste Bestimmungen der Zustimmung Dekret wurden später nie durchgesetzt.Diese Zustimmung ist Dekret als ungültig angebliche, nicht anfechtbar Gerichtsakten, die als ungültig vom Gericht gehalten wurde, sondern stellte in PACER als falsch und vorsätzlich irreführend aufzeichnen.
Ich hoffe, dass diese zusätzlichen Informationen würden Sie bewegen, um den Antrag auf Meinungen zu überdenken. Die angeblichen Betrug in PACER und CM / ECF in seinem Wesen ist einfach: [1] Alle Datensätze wurden universell Authentifizierung von PACER entfernt - der Online Public Access-System, und US District Courts und US Courts of Appeals über dem Land verweigert den Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu wie Gerichtsakten - nefs beim US District Courts und NDAs an der US Courts of Appeals. Der Zugriff auf die Datensätze Authentifizierung ist jetzt nur für Anwälte in einem bestimmten Fall ermächtigt gestattet. In parallel - der US District Courts und US Courts of Appeals in PACER publiziert eine große Menge von Leere, nicht anfechtbar, falsch und vorsätzlich irreführend Minuten, Bestellungen, Urteile und Mandate, ohne gültige Authentifizierung auf allen. Allerdings ist die Öffentlichkeit nicht so falsch und vorsätzlich irreführend Gericht Aufzeichnungen von denen, die wirklich benötigt "volle Vertrauen und Kredit" zu erkennen, da die Öffentlichkeit ist nicht die Authentifizierung Einträge anzuzeigen.
Sie sind wieder aufgerufen, Ihre Pflichten gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit zu überdenken zu groß, um die Beweise, [1] und die Meinungen über diese kritische Frage, die den menschlichen, konstitutionelle und Bürgerrechte aller, die in den USA aufzuhalten Problem betrifft schreiben Wahrlich,
[ ]
Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Bitte sehen cc, Links, Anhänge, unter der englische Text vor.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine