The reason for the approach I have taken, is that my reading of the instructions of the United Nations regarding "submissions"  as part of the UPR process, was that any language that was not "diplomatic" could be sufficient reason for the nation under review to refuse to address certain submissions. Therefore, the tone could not be adversarial, which is the standard in legal intercourse and legal actions. Instead, the UPR process is of the nature of diplomatic negotiations among nations which are on amicable terms.
Otherwise, the intercourse here is founded on ratified International Law pertaining to HUMAN RIGHTS, not US criminal code in general. Therefore, the particular sections that you quoted are not the most relevant, albeit - as part of ratified International Law - the government of the US is required to provide equal protection pursuant to the US Constitution and US law. I believe that the most relevant issues under the UPR process are the large-scale abuse of Human Rights of the people of the US as a result of the conditions detailed in Human the Rights Alert submission , related to the large-scale shell-game fraud built into PACER and CM/ECF - the online public access and case management systems of the US courts. Yet, even on that basis, I avoided claiming outright "FRAUD" or "PERVERSION OF JUSTICE", or "DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS", or "DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW", or "DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY", or "DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING", or "DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT FOR NATIONAL TRIBUNALS FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS", although I deeply believe that a competent panel adjudicating based on ratified international law would find all the above valid claims.
For example, although nations that are considered friendly to the US provided "submissions" (not "complaints") as part of the 2010 UPR of the United States, centering on the unreasonably high percentage of US population that is incarcerated, on the fact that the US practices capital punishment at unreasonable frequency and without sufficient safeguards against execution of the innocent, on discrimination against women and against minorities, the nature of the "submissions" was amicable, not adversarial.
In short - we are engaging here in diplomacy, not adversarial legal actions. That said, my personal views, not being an attorney, are that the matters detailed in Human Rights Alert submission, and likely also in submissions by others, amounted to serious violations of both US and ratified International Law. The goal of communications at this point, pertaining to the Human Rights Alert submission, claiming major deficiencies in PACER and CM/ECF are:
a) Define consensus language, which persons of authority would be likely to lend their name and authority to, and
b) Define consensus language that the UN is likely to adopt relative to respective conditions of Human Rights in the US.
Any comments on the language proposed in the presentation (pages 31-33), and any suggestions of persons of authority to approach would be greatly appreciated.
Joseph Zernik. PhD
 Powerpoint presentation - Human Rights Alert submission for UPR of the US by the UN
* "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):
10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations
10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
10-05-18 RE: Notice to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton // RE: Advertencia a la secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton // RE: Mitteilung an die Außenministerin Hillary Clinton
Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine
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 -