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):


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

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

From: jz
To: Bob Hurt , "lawsters@googlegroups.com"
Cc: "Smith,Darcy (USMS)"
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case
Date: May 18, 2010 9:26 AM
Hi Bob, Hi All:

The reason for the approach I have taken, is that my reading of the instructions of the United Nations regarding "submissions" [1] 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 [1], 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
[1] Powerpoint presentation - Human Rights Alert submission for UPR of the US by the UN
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hurt 
Sent: May 18, 2010 8:43 AM
To: 'jz' 
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case

I don’t know why you want to sidestep the core purposes of your writing:  redress of grievance.  You’d have nothing to say if you didn’t want redress, relief, remedy, or some kind of action that will correct the problem and bring about an improvement.

I gave you the ten-point feedback below in order to help you make your point.    If you don’t spell it out who did what to whom in violation of what law/rule/regulation and what you want as remedial or corrective or relief or redress action, you defeat your whole ultimate purpose in sending in the notification.  You really SHOULD express it as a complaint, if you want anyone to take it seriously.

I want you to look at just one law that should get this point across:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
18 USC § 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382
18 USC § 2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

As you see, every one in the USA has an obligation to report felonies and treasons to a US officer, or face retribution through fine and imprisonment.  That means when you give information to a US officer about such crimes, that officer has the obligation to act on it, either to file a formal criminal charge or to take the matter to some US officer for that purpose.

Thus, you SHOULD have the expectation of implicating the US recipient of your complaint in a conspiracy for NOT doing something to bring about relief, if not remedy.

Bob Hurt  • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511
Lawmen • Files • Archive •  Scholarship • Jurisdictionary • GetZooks! • 3+G Free

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 -