.

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

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

10-06-30 Large-scale Fraud Alleged at the Washington DC Courts // En gran escala con un supuesto fraude en las Cortes de Washington DC


Chief Judge Lamberth - US District Court, Washington DC
Los Angeles, June 30 – in letters to the United Nations and the US State Department, copied to Chairs of the US Congress Judiciary Committees, Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, alleged large-scale fraud in the US courts in Washington DC. [1]The core claim pertained conduct of the cases of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC and Sieverding v USDOJ et al (10-5149) at CCA DC, where individuals filed complaints to protect their rights against US Department of Justice. The letter claimed that the US courts engage in fraud through employment of new computerized case management and public access systems. [2] Through such systems public access is routinely denied to critical authentication records, and litigations are conducted, which are not pursuant to US law at all. However, the public and pro se litigants (those representing themselves), and often also experienced attorneys, cannot tell the difference.
The letter was forwarded to the United Nations and the US State Department as part of the first ever review of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations, scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) claims of routine fraud through case management in the US and state courts were reviewed and supported by prominent international computer science experts. Human Rights Alert (NGO) is calling for public review of such computer systems in the courts and prisons, with help by computer experts.
Conditions of the justice system in the US today were alleged by Human Rights Alert (NGO) as large-scale fraud and serious abuse of the Human Rights of the American people by its own government.
Conditions at the US courts were alleged by Human Rights Alert (NGO) in report filed with the United Nations as undermining banking regulation in the current crisis, and permitting alleged criminality by large financial institutions.

LINKS:
[1] 10-06-30-Sieverding-v-USDOJ-et-al-1-09-cv-00562-at-US-District-Court-DC-and-Sieverding-v-USDOJ-et-al-10-5149-at-US-Court-of-Appeals-DC-Serious
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33734513/
[2] 10-06-24-Paper2-Data-Mining-of-Online-Records-of-the-Networked-US-Courts-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520631/

10-06-30 Was Sieberding v US Department of Justice litigated pursuant to US law? // Fue Sieberding v EE.UU. Departamento de Justicia litigado conforme a la ley de EE.UU.? // War Sieberding v US Department of Justice prozessiert nach US-Recht?

 U.S. District Court, D.C. District by Ken Lund. 
US District Court, District of Columbia_ _ _ _Chief Judge Royce Lamberth
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:40:25 +0300
To: david.rybicki@usdoj.gov, craig.lawrence@usdoj.gov
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC and Sieverding v USDOJ et  al (10-5149) at CCA DC
Cc: kaysieverding@aol.com, "Attention Chief Judge Lamberth" <1-202-354-3067@metrofax.com>, "Smith, Darcy \(USMS\)" , "Shell, Thomas\(USMS\)" , upr_info@state.gov

June 30, 2010

Attorneys David Rybicki and Craig Lawrence
US DOJ
Response is kindly requested within 10 days

RE: Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC and Sieverding v USDOJ et  al (10-5149) at CCA DC

Dear Attorneys Lawrence and Rybicki:

I am writing on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO).  I am not an attorney, not even by a long shot. Moreover, I have no legal education at all.  However, my analysis of conduct of the US courts, based on alleged fraud in operations of PACER and CM/ECF,
[1] was reviewed by now by two internationally renowned computer science scholars, who supported my findings. It was also the core of report filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) with the United Nations as part of the first ever  review (UPR) of human rights in the United States by the United Nations, scheduled for November 2010.

Upon review of PACER dockets of the two cases listed above, my preliminary impression is that they are of dubious nature at best. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could please provide your best opinions as attorneys and also on behalf of the US DOJ, and clarify the nature of these actions:

A. Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC:

1) Was litigation of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC conducted pursuant to the law of the United States?

2) Was the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC, a docket that was constructed pursuant to the authority of the Clerk of the Court, USDC DC?

3) Was the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC, a docket that was constructed pursuant to the law of the United States?

4) Was any dispositive Order or Judgment ever entered under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562) at USDC DC in a manner that rendered such order or judgment one that required full faith and credit?  If so, what was the date of entry of such order or judgment?

B. Sieverding v USDOJ et  al (10-5149) at CCA DC:

1) Is the appeal in Sieverding v USDOJ et al (10-5149) at CCA DC conducted pursuant to the law of the United States?

2) Is the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (10-5149) at CCA DC, a docket that is constructed pursuant to the authority of the Clerk of the Court, CCA DC?

3) Is the docket published online under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (10-5149) at CCA DC, a docket that is constructed pursuant to the law of the United States?

4) What was the dispositive Order or Judgment that the appeal was taken from?  If any, what was the date of entry of such order or judgment?

C. Conduct of Counsel:
1) Is your conduct under the two captions referenced above compliant with pertinent Codes of Conduct of counsel?

D. Request for Initiation of Corrective Actions:
This letter is also copied to the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the US District Court, DC, as a notice to reliably inform him of conduct under caption of Sieverding v USDOJ et al (1:09-cv-00562), and to request that he look into the case, and if appropriate, also initiate corrective actions, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/

LINKS:
[1]
10-06-24-Paper2-Data-Mining-of-Online-Records-of-the-Networked-US-Courts-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520631/

CC:
1) Royce C. Lamberth,Chief Judge, US District Court, DC
C/O
Nancy Mayer-Whittington, Clerk of the Court
Fax: 202-354-3067
2) US State Department, UPR Office
3) US Marshal Service
4) Kay Sieverding 

Monday, June 28, 2010

10-06-29 What is wrong in computers of the US courts, PACER & CM/ECF? ¿Qué está mal en las computadoras de los tribunales de EE.UU., PACER & CM / ECF?

Over the last decade the United States federal courts completed a large-scale project of transition to digital administration.  In the process, the courts have concealed the authentication records of court rulings, orders, and judgments from public view.
Would you be able to do honest bank account reconciliation based on the following computerized check images?
Substitute electronic check




Would you be able to do honest bank account reconciliation based on the following computerized check images?

10-06-28 Computers and the Courts - 8th Grade Level Explanation // Los ordenadores y los Tribunales - Explicación octavo grado escolar

The following was written in response to a request for an explanation of the paper linked below [1] at 8th grade level:

10-06-24-zernik-paper2-data-mining-of-online-records-of-the-networked-us-courts-s
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520631/
  

Computers and the Courts

In the past couple of decades the United State and state courts have moved from traditional paper files to electronic/ computerized files of various types.  The systems used for computerized management of the courts are called case management systems.

The procedures used in the courts for the management of paper files and paper dockets (the list of all papers and hearings in a given case) developed over several centuries, and were very clearly written.  They were the basis of "Due Process" - fair management of the courts - or fair game. They involved checks and balances, based on the signatures by a judge on any paper that he/she issued rulings, orders, and judgments, and countersignature by a clerk of the court. Combined a paper including both the judge's signature and the clerk's countersignature was a valid order or judgment of the court, which required obedience (full faith and credit). 

The clerk's signature was often as part of a counterpart paper, called authentication record (Certificate of Service/Notice of Entry), which was attached to the judge's paper.  Only when the two parts were combined, was the order or judgment valid, and was considered as requiring obedience.

The main claim is that changing of the courts into case management systems was carried out over a relatively short time. In the US courts, the change was only recently completed.  It was carried out by the judges alone - the public failed to keep a watchful eye on the judges in the process.  The judges exploited the opportunities, and while the public was not watching, they created deceptive case management systems.

In the case management systems that are now used in the US courts, the judges changed many of the very basic procedures of the courts - the essence of Due Process - or fair game.  However, they failed to publish the nature of the new procedures, and therefore, the public, and even trained attorneys, are in the dark - they don't know the rules of the game.  The failure to publish the new procedures is claimed to be in violation of the law, in and of itself.  The rules of the courts must be clearly written, and have to be published. Failing to do so is an essential violation of Due Process - it is no longer a fair game.

Moreover, the judges made substantial changes in the authentication records of the US courts. The most substantial change is that now the computerized authentication records (NEFs Notices of Electronic Filing) are hidden by the US courts from public view.  Therefore, the public cannot know, which of the papers found in court dockets are valid papers, that require obedience, and which ones are invalid (void, not voidable), and require no obedience at all.  Hiding the authentication records from public view is contrary to First Amendment rights, since the First Amendment requires that all court records be available to the public to inspect and to copy.  Going to court, or reading court papers became a poker game, where the cards are hidden from view.  It was never meant to be that way.

Moreover, once the authentication records (NEFs) were hidden from the public, the judges started posting online many orders and judgments that the judges themselves did not consider valid, but the public could not know the difference.  This type of behavior is claimed to be a large-scale fraud by the US judges on the American people.  It is like claiming you have four aces in a poker game, but refusing to show your hand.

Imagine a situation that somebody would publish checks online, and tell you to do accounting based on these checks. However the signature parts of the checks, and the stamps of the bank after the checks were processed, would be hidden, and you would not be able to see, which of the checks were signed and processed, and which ones were not. That is the current situation in the US courts and many of the state courts.

Such conditions led to major increase in corruption of the US courts.  It became too easy for the judges to deceive the public: They issue rulings, orders, and judgments, which are contrary to the law, but the judges themselves know that such papers are invalid since they were never authenticated. Therefore, they believe that they are doing nothing wrong in issuing these rulings, orders, and judgments.  However, the public is made to believe that these were valid court rulings, orders, and judgments, which require obedience.

The proposed solution is to have all computer systems of the courts - the case management systems - subjected to public review with the help of experts in the computer field.

10-06-28 Large-Scale False Imprisonment in Los Angeles County, California – Complaint Filed with Newly Established Public Corruption an Civil Rights Unit // Falso encarcelamiento a gran escala en el Condado de Los Angeles, California // Large-Scale False Inhaftierung in Los Angeles County, Kalifornien

 


Jacqueline Connor, Judge                        David Pasternak, Attorney

Central figure in the Rampart Scandal           Central Figure in real estate and financial fraud in the courts

Los Angeles, June 28 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) filed complaint with the newly established Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit of the office of Andre Birotte Jr - US Attorney Office, Central District of California. [1] The complaint provided official and unofficial reports, as well as new evidence of large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, affected by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The earliest evidence provided was from the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) and related officials and unofficial reports of the false, long-term false imprisonments of thousands of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons). Consequent reports, most notably - the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006) concluded "innocent people remain in prison". [2] Moreover, the report provided detailed documentation of the refusal of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court to allow release of those who were falsely imprisoned.
Current evidence provided by Human Rights Alert in its complaint was based on data mining surveys of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department online Inmate Information Center. [3] Such surveys documented that about half of the entries in the system include false and misleading records - most notably, records which attributed the authority for the confinements to various non existing courts.  Moreover, even after repeated requests the Sheriff's Department refused to correct such data, and in response to inquiries pursuant to California Public Records Act it repeatedly provided such false and deliberately misleading records as the arrest and booking records of inmates.
The complaint noted that large-scale false imprisonments were deemed the hallmark of alleged widespread corruption of the Los Angeles justice system in report filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) with the United Nations, as part of the first ever 2010 review (UPR) by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States. [4] The recent decision of the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, to re-establish the Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit was therefore seen as an encouraging step. [5] Human Rights Alert noted in its letter to the US Attorney Office that one could not expect the office to address the matters prior to the UN review (scheduled for November 2010). However, the letter expressed the expectation that the US Attorney Office at least demonstrate the establishment in the immediate future of valid process for acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints. [6]
It should be noted that large-scale false imprisonments of juveniles by state judges in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania - the Kids for Cash scandal, is currently prosecuted by the local US Attorney Office as racketeering, while the local courts are reviewing and reversing the convictions.  Likewise, about a third of the Rampart-FIPs were estimated to have still been juveniles at the time of their framing and false convictions. [7]
The other hallmark of widespread corruption of the Los Angeles justice system alleged in Human Rights Alert report to the United Nations was real estate and financial institution fraud under the guise of court actions.  A separate complaint was previously filed with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, accusing Mr David Pasternak, as a central figure in such conduct. [8] David Pasternak is former President of the Los Angeles Bar Association, former member of the California Judicial Council, former President of Bet Tzedek - a prominent Jewish charity, and current officer of the Chancery Club - a prominent legal voluntary association in Los Angeles.
Racketeering by the courts was previously prosecuted in San Diego, California, San Jose, California, and Chicago Illinois.  A large-scale court corruption scandal is also currently prosecuted in El Paso, Texas, and corruption of the courts is also currently investigated in Florida.  Such conditions are unheard of in other Western democracies.  
Human Rights Alert complaint was copied to the UPR office of the United Nations and to the UPR office of the US State Department. UPR response by the US State Department to the United Nations is due in August 2010.  Local, Los Angeles civic leaders, who previously rebuked corruption of the Los Angeles justice system, were copied as well: Prof David Burcham - former Dean, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - Dean, UC Irvine Law School, and Attorney Connie Rice - former Chair of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel, and today - head of the Los Angeles Advancement Project.
###
Contact:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Jz12345@earthlink.net


Richard Fine - 70 yo former US Prosecutor
Political Prisoner in Los Angeles, California

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

LINKS:
[1]
June 28, 2010 Human Rights Alert (NGO) complaint of large-scale false imprisonments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33647477/
 [2] 2006 Blue Ribbon Review Panel report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[3] Human Rights Alert: Data Mining as a Civil Duty � Online Prisoners Registration Systems.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520723/
[4] April 2010 Human Rights Alert report filed with the United Nations as part of the 2010 UPR of the United States.
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
[5] June 12, Los Angeles Times report of the re-establishment of Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit in Central District of California.
http://inproperinla.com/10-06-12-us-attorney-los-angeles-created-public-corruption-civil-rights-unit-la%20times.pdf
[6] June 28, 2010 letter by Human Rights Alert requesting documentation of the establishment of a valid process for acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints filed with the Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33647160/
[7] The Rampart FIPs - a Review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/
[8] June 21, 2010 complaint against Mr David Pasternak, as a central figure in real estate and financial institution fraud under the guise of court actions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/

Sunday, June 27, 2010

10-06-27 Another Possible Probate Murder in Southern California, and the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit of the US Attorney Office, Central District of California.

 
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:05:32 +0300
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Another Possible Probate Murder in Southern California, and the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit of the US Attorney Office, Central District of California.
Cc: "Smith, Darcy \(USMS\)" , "Shell, Thomas\(USMS\)"

Hi Janet:

It is good to read that you are still productive.  Your reports credible evidence of material public corruption and constitutional, civil and human rights abuses through and by the justice system in Southern California

I hope that you would send your recent report to the UN High Commissioner as an update on your April 2010 report, with a copy to the US State Department, whose response to the UN is due by August 2010.

I have initiated efforts to educate citizens of nations sitting on the review commission, through blogs based in Germany and  in the UK.  I plan on initiating blogs in Canada, Australia, and France as well.  I hope to start writing to officials of various nations at the beginning of August, once I have peer review on my papers.

In parallel, I have started submitting complaints to the newly established Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit of the US Attorney, Central District of California.   In cover letters to the US Attorney, I attach the Human Rights Alert April 2010 report to the United Nations.  I explain that I realize that my complaints, pertaining to the core matters, which were alleged as widespread corruption of the justice system of Los Angeles County, may not be fully addressed in time for the November UN review. However, I request that the US Attorney Office respond in a manner that would provide evidence that the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit established a valid process for acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints.

I hope that you do the same, again, with copies to the UN UPR office and the US State Department.
  • The address for US Attorney, Central District of California is:
Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California
Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit
221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
  • UPR Office of the United Nations:
UPR submissions OHCHR
  • UPR Office of the US State Department:
upr_info@state.gov

Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/


At 06:29 PM 6/27/2010, Janet Phelan wrote:

http://parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=7781
 
The Probate Murders: More Questions Surface On Melodie Scott Cases by Janet C. Phelan
Special To Parentadvocates.org, Ms. Phelan continues her investigation of Melodie Scott of C.A.R.E., Inc. after unearthing another suspicious cilent death.
          
    Janet Phelan   
More Questions Surface on Melodie Scott Cases
By Janet C. Phelan
Lawrence Yetzer was standing in his front yard, yelling. The fifty-two year old Rialto man, who was blind and suffered from cerebral palsy, had just discovered his father lying unmoving on the front room floor.
�Help!� yelled Yetzer. �Something has happened to Dad!� Please help us!�
Neighbor Yvonne Boone remembers that the paramedics came. Yetzer�s step-father, Max Vantilburg, had died of a heart attack. And Lawrence Yetzer, who had lived with his parents his entire life, was left alone in the world. He was also left a chunk of money, as the sole beneficiary of the Anne and Max Vantilburg estate.
The court appointed Melodie Scott, of C.A.R.E., Inc, as the Successor Trustee of the Vantilburg estate. In a separate proceeding in San Bernardino Court, Melodie Scott moved to have herself appointed as Lawrence Yetzer�s conservator.
In her application for the conservatorship, Scott declared to the court that Lawrence Yetzer had an IQ of only 59 and was unable to comprehend the conservatorship proceedings.
Yvonne Boone, who knew the family for years, disputes this statement. �He wasn�t retarded like that,� said Boone, who had also served as a caregiver for Yetzer. �He was a real sociable, talkative guy. Sure, he was blind, but he understood what was going on around him.�
The conservatorship lasted less than four months. On February 6, 2001, Lawrence Yetzer died. On January 14, Boone, who was caring for Yetzer on a full time basis at that point in time, noticed that he was sick. �He was coughing and his color was bad,� she recalls. He was taken to San Bernardino Community Hospital and admitted. The Sentinel has obtained these records, which state that he was �cyanotic� (blue) at the time of admission. He was admitted with a tentative diagnosis of congestive heart failure and pneumonia.
But his bronchoscopy showed no trace of a pneumonia bug and his white blood cell count, which would have been elevated if he had any type of infection, was normal. Questions began to surface, evidenced by doctors� notes, as to what was really wrong with Lawrence Yetzer. The diagnosis shifted to �severe adult respiratory distress.�
Within a few days of admission to San Bernardino County Hospital, his white blood cell count began to climb, revealing that he had caught some kind of infection while in the hospital. He was put on a ventilator on January 16. The nursing notes state that Yetzer was put on �Versed 2mg IVP given for sedation as per MD order every five minutes due to patient fighting the ventilator.� He was put in restraints and shortly the doctor ordered him to be given regular intravenous Atracrium, which paralyzed him. The restraints were then removed. The doses of Atracrium continued.
And then his course of treatment took a curious turn. This reporter has retrieved his medical records from this hospitalization, which were requested from the hospital by an aunt, living in Ohio. San Bernardino Community Hospital had initially refused to release these records to the aunt, who, as next of kin, is legally entitled to these records. After the hospital was supplied with detailed proof that the aunt was indeed next of kin, the hospital then lost the request. The request was again submitted, at which point the hospital stated that they would not give the records to the aunt, but only to who was listed as �next of kin� on Lawrence Yetzer�s death certificate.
However, the standard death certificate has no box for �next of kin.� A query was made as to what law the hospital was citing. When it was also suggested that a judge might make a different determination, the hospital backed down and agreed to send the records.
Only partial records were sent to the aunt and another request was then tendered. Renee Wheeler, the administrator in charge of medical records at San Bernardino Community Hospital, inquired if there was going to be legal action taken.
The medical records show that Lawrence Yetzer was dosed with a number of sedatives and opiates which severely retard a person�s ability to breathe. He was put on a Versed drip often as high as 10 mg an hour, as well as Ativan ,Phenobarbitol and Atracrium . The doctors� notes repeatedly refer to Yetzer as �paralyzed and sedated.� Finally, on February 3, three days before he died, he was curiously started on Morphine injections. The hospital records list the dose as 4 mg every 3 hours PRN. There were no indications in the records that Lawrence Yetzer was in pain and would have needed Morphine.
Morphine and Versed are both contraindicated for people in respiratory distress and may put an individual into respiratory arrest. The two in combination are known to have a potentiating effect. Drug companies have issued cautions about mixing Versed with Morphine or with Phenobarbitol, as these combinations may result in respiratory failure. He was also given antibiotics. On the day of his death, a nurse cryptically noted that �PT on multiple antibiotics-In spite of no organisms identified.�
On February 6, a conference was called with Scott, Alan Garcia, Dr. Arora and hospital administrators. The decision was made to issue a DNR (�Do Not Resuscitate� order) and to pull Lawrence Yetzer off his ventilator. The records state that �a terminal wean was done� after the chaplain visited Yetzer. Dr. Arora signed the order to withdraw him from life support and Lawrence Yetzer died.
In her final accounting for the Yetzer conservatorship, Melodie Scott declared to the court that Lawrence Yetzer died of a �sudden massive stroke.� His death certificate lists pneumonia as cause of death.
Inexplicably, the hospital records state that as of January 23, a �new conservator,� Alan Garcia, was assigned to Lawrence Yetzer. Garcia worked as a case manager for Scott�s company, C.A.R.E., Inc. Conservators are appointed (and changed) via court proceedings. There is no mention in the Yetzer court file that the conservatorship changed hands from Scott to Garcia.
But the story takes an equally disturbing turn here. Scott�s accounting for the Vantilburg Trust details $396,529.89 as the remainder in the Trust and duly lists the distributions to the remainder beneficiaries. The Trust was to be split so that 50% was distributed in equal shares to the seven surviving brothers and sisters of Anne and Max Vantilburg (Yetzer�s deceased parents) and 50% distributed in equal shares to four charities . The First and Final Accounting bears the signature of attorney J. David Horspool, who duly noted in this document that the siblings would each thus receive 7.14285% of the final assets and the charities would each receive 12.5%.
This reporter has uncovered a considerable discrepancy between the amount listed as final assets and the amount distributed. The court record reveals that each sibling signed for $5,125.70 and that a representative from each of the four charities signed for $8,970. The total amount distributed to the beneficiaries thus amounts of $71,759.90.
Melodie Scott petitioned the court for her fees, which came to $14,185.23. Attorney Horspool requested $12,187.50. Scott also requested that $2800 be held in reserve for taxes. The total amount distributed thus came to $100,932.63. Over $296,000 remained unaccounted for.
The Final Accounting notes that a total of $300 was distributed to Lawrence Yetzer .
E. Joan Nelms, who is a probate attorney working in San Bernardino, presided over the case as a judge pro-tem. Nelms has represented Melodie Scott in a number of cases.
This reporter contacted attorney J. David Horspool requesting input about the unaccounted -for monies and issues surrounding Lawrence Yetzer�s hospital care. Initially, Horspool agreed to get his files out of storage in order to answer the questions. When he failed to respond, this reporter again contacted attorney Horspool, who then levied threats of legal action. On June 11 he wrote, � I am not going to call you. Furthermore, the issue isn�t with the Lawrence Yetzer matter. The copies of the Receipts which you faxed to my office concerned the Van Tilberg Trust. I have in my files original signed receipts for the funds that were distributed, which reconcile to the assets on hand at the end of the accounting period, adjusted for payment of court-approved attorneys� fees and trustee�s fees. So there was no failure to distribute $300,000.00, or any other sum. For you to imply, allege or in any way accuse either myself or Ms. Scott of not distributing all of the funds as she was required to do would be wrong, and, now that you know it would be wrong, would also be viewed as grossly negligent at best, and maliciously done in utter disregard of the truth, at worst. Either way, it would be actionable and I am putting you on notice that such action would be taken should you make such unfounded accusations.�
In an unusual manner of ending the communication, he then wrote: �Have a nice rest of your life for however much more time the Good Lord grants you.�
This reporter responded urging him to turn over the receipts which he alleged would reconcile the accounts. At that point, it appears he blocked further emails.
An appeal was made to J. David Horspool�s sister, Karin Horspool, who works as an attorney in the firm of Horspool and Parker. She responded by threatening to issue a restraining order.
In June of 2009, the San Bernardino County Sentinel reported on the case of Elizabeth Fairbanks, also a former conservatee of Melodie Scott, who died after contracting pneumonia. Scott had used her power of medical care to withhold antibiotics from Fairbanks. Fairbanks was also given Roxanol, which is a liquid form of morphine, prior to succumbing.
Melodie Scott, whose professional fiduciary license was denied by the California State Professional Fiduciary Bureau after Administrative Law hearings which spanned from May to October of 2009, has appealed the denial of her license. Her license was refused on the grounds that she 1) made false statements on her licensing application 2) continued to act as a fiduciary after her license was denied and 3) had a drunk driving conviction. Gary Duke, who is a lawyer with the Department of Consumer Affairs, has stated that a final decision should be reached in mid-July. In the meantime, Scott has begun a new business, Reliant Professional Services, located at 104 State Street in Redlands, which is also a conservatorship business. Duke stated that the Department of Consumer Affairs only licenses individuals and thus Scott may own a conservatorship company if she does not herself perform fiduciary or conservator functions.
The current website for Reliant Professional Services advertises Melodie Scott as a Professional Fiduciary.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.
To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.

Friday, June 25, 2010

10-06-25 Automated Index of US Judicial Corruption // Índice automatizada de los EE.UU. La corrupción judicial // Automatische Index der US-Justiz Korruption



Automated Index of US Judicial Corruption Proposed by Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Los Angeles, June 24 - in paper
[1] filed for peer review in high level international computer science conference, Joseph Zernik, PhD and Human Rights Alert (NGO) proposed that if public access was provided, as required by First Amendment rights, to judicial records, now concealed by the courts, it would be possible to construct an "automated Index of Judicial Corruption".  The paper reviewed the US federal courts computers systems, PACER & CM/ECF, which were installed over the past decade through a large-scale project by the judiciary, with insufficient public oversight. The paper claimed that the systems were invalid, since they established new, unpublished court procedures, since they denied public access to judicial records, which were public records by law, and since they established invalid procedures for authentication of judicial records.  The paper concluded that the systems were key to enabling precipitous deterioration in integrity of the US courts over the past decade. 
The paper concluded:
The transition to digital administration entailed a sea change in procedures of the US courts. The transition took place over a relatively short time, and was independently executed by the US judiciary, with insufficient public and legal accountability. The transition resulted in precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts, which undermined the safeguard of human rights and enforcement by regulatory agencies in the United States.  Conditions that were generated as result are unprecedented in democratic societies in the Modern era.  They are employed for deprivation of rights of the people, and to benefit those in government and large corporations.  The proposed solution should involve publicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of case management systems of the courts, system transparency, and ongoing data mining � a civic duty, and prerequisite for integrity of the courts in the digital era.  Although the current report documented conditions at the US courts, similar risks are faced by other nations as well. The international computing/informatics community should assume a leading role in protection of rights and the democratic nature of society in the digital era.
###

Contact:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
jz12345@earthlink.net 

LINKS:
[1]
10-06-24 zernik paper2 data mining of online records of the networked us courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33520631/

Thursday, June 24, 2010

10-06-24 Los Angeles Justice Report // Los Angeles Informe Justicia // Los Angeles Justiz Report

TO: LOS ANGELES JUSTICE REPORT

The Los Angeles Justice Report is a great idea.  Here is an update by Human Rights Alert (NGO) -

A. ON THE HOME FRONT:
- In 2008 detailed report was filed with US Attorney General alleging racketeering by the judges of Los Angeles Superior Court, hallmarks of which are large scale false imprisonments and real estate fraud by the courts. Appointment of a Special Counsel was requested.
- FBI and US Dept of Justice refused to respond.
- In August 2008 Senator Feinstein and Rep Watson filed inquiries on US Dept of Justice: Why they would not respond on the request.
- In September 2008 FBI Assistant Director Kenneth Kaiser and US Dept of Justice Kenneth Melson responded to US Congress on my request.   Their responses were alleged as fraud on US Congress.
- In 2009 complaint was therefore filed with US Dept of Justice Inspector General against the two senior US officers, alleging fraud on US Congress.
- To this date US DOJ IG refuses to respond on my complaint.
- In February 2010 Senator Feinstein filed Inquiry on US DOJ IG: Why he would not respond on my complaint.
[1]
- Although response was due within 30 days, to this date, US DOJ IG never responded to Senator Feinstein.
I would be grateful if LA Justice Report could join the request to Senator Feinstein to follow up on the inquiry on US DOJ IG on this matter.

B. MORE ON THE HOME FRONT
- In June 2010 complaint was filed alleging public corruption by a senior legal professional - David Pasternak - former President of the Los Angeles County Bar, former member of the California Judicial Council, with the newly established unit for Public Corruption and Civil Rights violations. [2]
I would be grateful if you published the complaint

C. ON THE INTERNATIONAL FRONT:
- In April 2010 Human Rights Alert (NGO) filed report for the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) by the UN of Human Rights in the United States.
- The report hinged entirely on evidence from LA County, of racketeering by judges, hallmarks of which are false imprisonments and real estate fraud by the courts.
[3]
- Review session is pending November 2010.
 I would be grateful if LA Justice Report would publish the Human Rights Alert UPR Report, and join Human Rights Alert in lobbying the nations who sit on the review commission in calling for equal protection of the 10 millions residents of LA County by the US government.

D. ON THE PROFESSIONAL FRONT
- In reports linked below, it was claimed that fraudulent computer systems in the courts and the jails are the tools enabling the racketeering.
- Papers were filed for international professional review on the matter.
[4]
- Response from peer review is expected within a month.
I would be grateful if after peer review you would be willing to publish such papers.

Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert


LINKS:
[1]
  Senator Feinstein's Inquiry on DOJ-IG
http://inproperinla.com/10-02-26-feinstein-inquiry-on-doj-ig-s.pdf
[2] 10-06-21-Dr-Zernik-s-Complaint-Filed-with-Us-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-against-Mr-David-Pasternak-for-Public-Corruption-Deprivation-of-Civil-Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/
[3] April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
[4] Paper #1 - large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California
http://inproperinla.com/10-06-23-paper1-jails-submitted-s.pdf
Paper #2 - large scale fraud at the courts - to be submitted. 

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

10-06-22 Requesting Sheriff Lee Baca to Certify Prisoners' Records // Solicitar Sheriff Lee Baca para la Certificación de Documentos de los reclusos // Anfordern von Sheriff Lee Baca zur Zertifizierung Prisoners Records



Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:12:40 +0300
To: LIST LA SHERIFF
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Request for certification of records provided in response to inquiry by the Hon Antonvich, LA Supervisor
Bcc: "1st District:   Gloria Molina" , "2nd District Mark Ridley-Thomas"  , "3rd District  Zev Yaroslavsky" , "4th District  Don Knabe" , "5th District  Michael D. Antonovich"

June 22, 2010

Lee Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County
By email
The favor of a response within 10 days is requested.
RE: Request for certification of records provided in response to inquiry by the Hon Antonovich, LA Supervisor

Dear Sheriff Baca:

I am writing regarding inmate records, which were produced as attachments by your office, with cover letters dated November 4, 2009 and December 29, 2009, linked below,  [1] both addressed to Mr Joseph Zernik. The letters and attachments were provided to me by the office of the Hon Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor, with a cover letter dated January 8, 2010, also addressed to Mr Zernik, also linked below. [1] 

Given the significance of the records - they pertain to Liberty itself, I request that your office provide again copies of the attachments, which were previously provided in response to my request for the arrest and booking records of Mr Richard Fine and Mr Ronald Gottschalk, with certification by an authorized person (e.g. Custodian of Records/Records Supervisor) together with a custodian of records declaration pursuant to California Code.

I would be grateful for an expedient response in this matter, if possible - by fax to: 323.488.9697.

Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

CC:
Los Angeles County Supervisors

LINKS:
[1]
Letters by the Hon Antonovich, dated January 8, 2010, and by Sheriff Lee Baca dated Nov 4 and December  29, 2009, with attachments, which were provided in response to request for arrest and booking records of Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk:
http://inproperinla.com/10-01-08-antonovich-ltr-w-baca-letters-w-attch-env-s.pdf




Sunday, June 20, 2010

10-06-20 Brian Moynihan's, John Dugan's, SEC Chair Office - Confirmations of Receipt // Brian Moynihan, Dugan Juan, Oficina de Presidencia SEC - Las confirmaciones de recepción // Brian Moynihan's, John Dugan's, SEC Chair Office - Empfangsbestätigungen

John Dugan_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Brian Moynihan_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mary Schapiro

1)      Brian Moynihan – Bank of America President/CEO
a)     "Read' Confirm on Request for Records Addressed to Mr Moynihan in Person
X-MSK: CML=0.501000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bankofamerica.com;
        s=corp1; t=1277031552;
        bh=Gj394ZifzGqqpooUzu3foxoBWdMTPY9uSilY3B1/d8A=;
        h=Date:From:Subject:To:Message-id:MIME-version:Content-type;
        b=vkNPACNfXm/zWxTBiNypX1yjts18xzxhTGvvEv+bfQyxOSyGvmqD4H96n5zdO8FmD
        vxu41tA/XltAzEJ5iTMUMnTCzBSUPBi9NsAfo89O3B/cn5FCmnSvPFgXthJt0MhjxH
        xkZTI0KlGuwpGiK9XUDLHbyW0Bx5fIUVeppXJyEE=

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:58:23 -0400
From: "Moynihan, Brian T"
Subject: Read: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - repeat request for public records
To: joseph zernik

Thread-topic: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - repeat request for public records
Thread-index: AcsQPXDhfGSO6EY3RAOa45LHK73z6gAKg+fK
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2010 10:58:24.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[80FE0C80:01CB1067]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2010-06-20_04:2010-02-06,2010-06-20,2010-06-19 signatures=0
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Your message

To:      Moynihan, Brian T
Cc:      Amberg, John W.; "Van Cleve, Peter D. - Managing Partner -
St. Louis"; Modisett, Jeffrey A, Managing Partner- LA;
jenna.moldawski@BryanCave.com; Schilling, Joyce -Legal; Silvestri,
Scott; Ryan, Patrick C -Legal; OCRates; Legalinvoice; Retentions;
Samuels, Sandor - Legal; Shatz, Sanford -Legal; Boock, Todd A -Legal;
General Counsel Ed O'Keefe; swprice@BryanCave.com;
litwinovich@BryanCave.com; Ryan, Patrick C -Legal; Moynihan, Brian T;
Samuels, Sandor - Legal; Boock, Todd A -Legal; Shatz, Sanford -Legal;
Modisett, Jeffrey A, Managing Partner- LA

Subject: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - repeat
request for public records

Sent:    Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:46:53 -0400

was read on Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:58:23 -0400

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited.
Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Sender. Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, in litigation and as required by law.
The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses.

References to "Sender" are references to any subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Securities and Insurance Products: * Are Not FDIC Insured * Are Not Bank Guaranteed * May Lose Value * Are Not a Bank Deposit * Are Not a Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity * Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency. Attachments that are part of this EC may have additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. This message is subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Sender you consent to the foregoing.

Final-Recipient: RFC822; brian.t.moynihan@bankofamerica.com
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: ci5KKWlwME6/aBUgaHN1wA==
Original-Message-ID: E1OQDWq-0006QP-QS@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net

b)     "Read' Confirm on Press Release

X-MSK: CML=0.501000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bankofamerica.com;
        s=corp1; t=1277031644;
        bh=5nah15cnVbv8be7w0K5znfDzICL9Wdr3hFKFpC26EYA=;
        h=Date:From:Subject:To:Message-id:MIME-version:Content-type;
        b=cv426zOPM+JT3oObTQyYPd6qRoI5xw5JE2nX9shDNjCvd2bI9FAv4d15wQseBB0js
        73SLKpGtIElffyBLxZcFemkBUA0CNZnI7DY/GHdlf/FaurqyYtXrjLmLCppOZSS+kj
        40vbN1bIl00pnY0aQY/ihnQ+1nrLEnL2xNOLucis=

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:59:34 -0400
From: "Moynihan, Brian T"
Subject: Read: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - hallmark  of enforcement in current banking crisis alleged as invalid litigation
To: joseph zernik

Thread-topic: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - hallmark  of enforcement in current banking
 crisis alleged as invalid litigation
Thread-index: AcsQXiuolBr/pMABTbqMbZw0posVCAACX9Dd
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2010 10:59:34.0774 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB0EC960:01CB1067]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2010-06-20_04:2010-02-06,2010-06-20,2010-06-19 signatures=0
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Your message

To:      lawsters@googlegroups.com
Cc:      Dugan, John; Smith, Darcy (USMS); Shell, Thomas(USMS);
Schapiro, Mary L (SEC); Lewism@sec.gov; Enforcement; Sec Help; Bezek,
Samuel; Sec; Sec; Secchairmanoffice; Schapirom@sec.gov; oig@sec.gov;
Silverwood, James R.; US SEC Chairman Office; US SEC Enforcement; US SEC
Chair; foia/pa@sec.gov; Silverwood, James R.; Moynihan, Brian T; Amberg,
John W.; "Van Cleve, Peter D. - Managing Partner St. Louis"; Modisett,
Jeffrey A, Managing Partner- LA; jenna.moldawski@BryanCave.com;
Schilling, Joyce -Legal; Silvestri, Scott; Ryan, Patrick C -Legal;
OCRates; Legalinvoice; Retentions; Samuels, Sandor - Legal; Shatz,
Sanford -Legal; Boock, Todd A -Legal; General Counsel Ed O'Keefe;
swprice@BryanCave.com; litwinovich@BryanCave.com; Ryan, Patrick C
-Legal; Moynihan, Brian T; Samuels, Sandor - Legal; Boock, Todd A
-Legal; Shatz, Sanford -Legal; Modisett, Jeffrey A, Managing Partner-
LA; Attention: Chief Judge Preska, C/O Deputy Clerk  Cliffor Kirsch;
Clerk of the Court Ruby Krajick

Subject: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - hallmark
of enforcement in current banking crisis alleged as invalid litigation
Sent:    Sun, 20 Jun 2010 04:08:55 -0400
was read on Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:59:34 -0400
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited.
Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Sender. Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, in litigation and as required by law.
The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses.
References to "Sender" are references to any subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Securities and Insurance Products: * Are Not FDIC Insured * Are Not Bank Guaranteed * May Lose Value * Are Not a Bank Deposit * Are Not a Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity * Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency. Attachments that are part of this EC may have additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. This message is subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Sender you consent to the foregoing.
Final-Recipient: RFC822; brian.t.moynihan@bankofamerica.com
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: DfGZTjU65E2AruA8T9uHxQ==
Original-Message-ID: E1OQH8N-0003yj-MF@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net

2)      SEC
a)     "Read' Confirm on Request for Records Addressed to SEC

d="scan'208,217";a="29841759"
Subject: Your E-mail to the SEC's Chicago Regional Office
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:05:01 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - repeat  request for public records
Thread-Index: AcsQPoSmE0LU3nEbSZi4codVA7VerAAAAAVk
From: "CHICAGO"
To: "joseph zernik"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2010 06:05:02.0084 (UTC) FILETIME=[85504C40:01CB103E]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Thank you for writing to the Chicago Regional Office.  We appreciate receiving inquiries, comments on rulemaking and regulations, and information from members of the public concerning possible violations of the securities laws. Please be assured that your comments will receive consideration within the context of our responsibilities under the federal securities laws.
   

If you have contacted this office regarding a complaint, or possible violation of securities laws, your e-mail will be reviewed and a response will be forthcoming. If you have not yet filed a complaint but would like to learn more about how the SEC handles complaints, please visit our website at http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml.
  

Again, thank you for contacting our office.    

US SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Chicago Regional Office

b)    "Read' Confirm on Press Release
X-MSK: CML=0.501000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,447,1272859200";
   d="scan'208,217";a="29847619"

Subject: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:04:10 -0400
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

Thread-Topic: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - hallmark  of enforcement in current banking crisis alleged as invalid litigation
Thread-Index: AcsQX+yxziajr9iESkeYVNOjdV2jjwAAAAl7
From: "CHAIRMANOFFICE"
To: "joseph zernik"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2010 10:05:55.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C569E10:01CB1060]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Thank you for your e-mail to the Chairman's Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Your comments and concerns are very important to us.  Unfortunately, because of the large volume of e-mail received, the Chairman can not personally respond to each message.  We do read and carefully consider the opinions expressed in all of the e-mails that we receive.

If you are an investor with a complaint about a securities professional, firm or a public company, please visit our Complaint Center, at http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml, to file a complaint.  If you have a securities-related question, please visit our website at http://www.sec.gov/answers.shtml to find fast answers to your questions and solutions to common investment problems.  If you are a securities professional needing assistance on technical matters, please check our "information for" pages on the top right of our website, www.sec.gov

We deeply appreciate your taking the time to communicate your thoughts and concerns to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                               Sincerely,

                               Lori Schock
                               Director
                               Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
                               U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
3)      John Dugan – Comptroller of the Currency


a)    "Read' Confirm on Press Release


X-MSK: CML=0.501000
From: "Dugan, John"
To: "jz12345@earthlink.net"
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:33:02 -0400
Subject: Read: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - hallmark
of enforcement in current banking crisis alleged as invalid litigation
Thread-Topic: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - hallmark
of enforcement in current banking crisis alleged as invalid litigation
Thread-Index: AcsQXkidBqe5BcuoQR+dUgRU/CiG8wABa1lG
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Your message was read on Sunday, June 20, 2010 6:33:02 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Final-recipient: RFC822; John.Dugan@occ.treas.gov
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: mXKjWCb3S0aYsOrKpOC/4w==
Original-Message-ID:
X-Display-Name: Dugan, John

Saturday, June 19, 2010

10-06-20 SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - Hallmark of Enforcement in Current Banking Crisis - Alleged as Invalid Litigation // SEC v Bank of America Corporation (01:09-cv-06829) - Destacarde la observancia de la crisis bancaria actual - que se alegue que los litigios no válido // SEC gegen die Bank of America Corporation (01.09-cv-06829) - Kennzeichen der Durchsetzung derzeitige Bankenkrise - Angebliche als ungültige Rechtsstreit

US District Court • Southern District of New York

Chief Judge Loretta Preska




SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) -  Hallmark of Enforcement in Current Banking Crisis - Alleged as Invalid Litigation
New York, June 20 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Dr Joseph Zernik filed repeat requests with Mary L Schapiro - SEC Chair [1], Brian Moynihan - Bank of America Corporation President/CEO [2], and the Honorable Loretta Preska - US District Court, Southern District of New York Chief Judge, [3] to access public records - judicial records in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829).  Request was for the summons as well as the authentication records (NEFs) of all court minutes, orders, and the judgment in the case.  Specific request was made for the authentication records of the February 2010 court records, which brought the case to its end - Opinion and Order and  Final Consent Judgment.  The authentication records (NEFs) are essential for determining the validity and effect of judicial records, which are today digital records, generated in the US courts' case management system - CM/ECF.  Previous requests, which were filed with Bank of America, with SEC, and with the Court itself were denied with no explanation at all.  The request filed by Human Rights Alert with the US District Court today invoked the First Amendment right to access judicial records - to inspect and to copy.  The requests filed with SEC and Bank of America also invoked the inherent interest of Dr Zernik as a shareholder of Bank of America Corporation.
Human Rights Alert claimed that the ongoing refusal of all three parties to provide access to such public records, and other evidence as well, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) was likely to have been an invalid litigation and a pretense of enforcement of the law.  The case itself was viewed as the hallmark of enforcement of regulation under the current banking crisis. It was extensively and repeatedly covered by main media outlets, such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.  However, it was doubted that any media ever gained access to the authentication records, access to which was repeatedly requested by Dr Zernik for over half a year.
Conditions, prevailing at the US courts, were analyzed in detail in a scholarly paper, titled: Data Mining of the Online Judicial Records in the Networked US Federal Courts, 
[4] soon to be submitted by Human Rights Alert for international peer review.
The paper stated:
 "... records obtained from multiple cases in various US courts across the United States documented the tight relationship between conditions at the US courts, and the current banking crisis.  There simply is no way to institute honest and effective banking regulation absent honest enforcement at the US courts."
The paper concluded:
"The transition to digital administration entailed a sea change in procedures of the US courts. The transition took place over a relatively short time, was independently executed by the US courts through the Administrative Office of the Courts, under insufficient public and legal accountability. The transition resulted in precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts, in human rights, and in enforcement by regulatory agencies in the United States."
Copies of the requests were filed with John Dugan - Comptroller of the Currency, with Chairs of the US Congress Banking and Judiciary Committees, with the Basel Accords Committee on international banking, and with various national central banks.
###
Contact:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert
______
LINKS AND ATTACHMENTS:
[1]
Repeat request filed with Mary L Schapiro - SEC Chair:


Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:04:43 +0300
To: "Schapiro, Mary L (SEC)"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - repeat request for public records
Cc: , "Enforcement" , Sec Help , "Bezek, Samuel" , Sec , Sec , Secchairmanoffice , , oig@sec.gov, "Silverwood, James R." , US SEC Chairman Office , US SEC Enforcement, US SEC Chair , , "Silverwood, James R." ,
June 20, 2010
Mary L Schapiro, SEC Chair
SchapiroM@sec.gov
RE: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - Repeat request to provide access to public records - judicial records, which are the summons and authentication records (NEFs)
Dear Ms Schapiro:
Please accept this repeat request by a Bank of America Corporation shareholder, to provide access to public records - judicial records, which are the summons and authentication records (NEFs) of all court minutes, orders, and the judgment in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829).
The evidence, including, but not limited to refusal of SEC to provide access to such public records, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that SEC engaged in an invalid litigation and pretense enforcement in this case.
Conduct of Bank of America, combined with the Bank of America Outside Counsel Procedures,
[1]  Certifications, which were signed by Mr Moynihan, President and CEO, pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) in recent periodic reports, [2][3] and Disclosure pursuant to Basel II Pillar III, [4] are alleged as obstruction and perversion of justice, fraud on individuals, fraud on shareholders at large, fraud on US taxpayers, and fraud on the international banking community.
Therefore, please also accept this notice as a request that you enforce the law on Bank of America Corporation in compliance with the law and your duties and obligations. 
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
CC:
1) John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency
2) Basel Accord Committee
3) National Central Banks, Research Departments
4) US Congress - Banking and Judiciary Committee Chairs.
LINKS:
[1]
08-12-11-Bank-of-America-Outside-Counsel-Procedures-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932516/
[2]
10-05-07-BANK-OF-AMERICA-CORP-DE-Form-10-Q-Received-05-07-2010-07-49-51-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32256751/
[3]
10-02-26-BANK-OF-AMERICA-CORP-DE-Form-10-K-Received-02-26-2010-07-51-53-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32260743/
[4]
09-12-31-Bank-of-America-MBNA-Canada-Bank-II-Basel-Pillar-III-Disclosure-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32219320/
______
[2]
Repeat request filed with Brian Moynihan - Bank of America Corporation President/CEO:

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:46:53 +0300
To: "Moynihan, Brian T (BofA)"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - repeat request for public records
Cc: "Amberg, John W." , "Van Cleve, Peter D. - Managing Partner � St. Louis" , "Modisett, Jeffrey A, Managing Partner- LA" , , "Attention: General Counsel Ed O'Keef" , , , , , , "Samuels, Sandor - Legal" , "Shatz, Sanford -Legal" , "Boock, Todd A -Legal" , "General Counsel Ed O'Keefe" , swprice@bryancave.com, litwinovich@bryancave.com, "Attention Brian Moynihan" , , "Samuels, Sandor - Legal" , "Boock, Todd A -Legal" , "Shatz, Sanford -Legal" , "Modisett, Jeffrey A, Managing Partner- LA" < jamodisett@bryancave.com >,

June 20, 2010
Brian T Moynihan, President/CEO (BofA)
brian.t.moynihan@bankofamerica.com
RE: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - Repeat request to provide access to public records - judicial records, which are the summons and authentication records (NEFs)
Dear Mr Moynihan:
Please accept this repeat request by a shareholder, to provide access to public records - judicial records, which are the summons and authentication records (NEFs) of all court minutes, orders, and the judgment in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829).
The evidence, including, but not limited to refusal of Bank of America Corporation to provide access to such public records, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Bank of America Corporation engaged in an invalid litigation and pretense justice in this case.
Please also accept this notice as a request that you comply with reporting duties pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002). 
Conduct of Bank of America, under your leadership, combined with the Bank of America Outside Counsel Procedures,
[1]  Certifications, which you signed pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) in recent periodic reports, [2][3] and Disclosure pursuant to Basel II Pillar III, [4] are alleged as obstruction and perversion of justice, fraud on individuals, fraud on shareholders at large, fraud on US taxpayers, and fraud on the international banking community.
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
CC:
1) John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency
2) Mary L Schapiro, Chair, SEC
3) Basel Accord Committee
4) National Central Banks, Research Departments
5) US Congress - Banking and Judiciary Committee Chairs.
LINKS:
[1]
08-12-11-Bank-of-America-Outside-Counsel-Procedures-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932516/
[2]
10-05-07-BANK-OF-AMERICA-CORP-DE-Form-10-Q-Received-05-07-2010-07-49-51-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32256751/
[3]
10-02-26-BANK-OF-AMERICA-CORP-DE-Form-10-K-Received-02-26-2010-07-51-53-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32260743/
[4]
09-12-31-Bank-of-America-MBNA-Canada-Bank-II-Basel-Pillar-III-Disclosure-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32219320/
______
[3]
Repeat request filed with Honorable Loretta Preska - US District Court, Southern District of New York, Chief Judge:

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:05:12 +0300
To: "Deputy Clerk Cliffor Kirsch","Clerk of the Court Ruby Krajick"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - repeat request for public records
Cc: "Smith, Darcy \(USMS\)" , "Shell, Thomas\(USMS\)"

June 20, 2010
The Honorable Loretta A Preska
Chief Judge
US District Court, Southern District of New York
C/O:
Ruby Krajick,
Clerk of the Court
Clifford Kirsch,
Deputy Clerk
RE: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829) - Repeat request to provide access to public records - judicial records, which are the summons and authentication records (NEFs)
Dear Judge Preska:
Please accept instant notice as a repeat request to provide access to public records - judicial records, which are the summons and the authentication records (NEFs) of all court minutes, orders, and the judgment in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829), including, but not limited to: (a) Dkt #96 OPINION AND ORDER and (b) Dkt #97 FINAL CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION. 
Like previous requests, instant request is made pursuant to First Amendment rights and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).  Previous requests were denied with no reason at all. 
Instant request is also made by a shareholder in Bank of America Corporation, pursuant to the right for Fair Hearings in ratified international law - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and common law right to access judicial records - to inspect and to copy.
Your expedient attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

CC:
1) John Dugan - Comptroller of the Currency
2) Mary L Schapiro - SEC Chair
3) Basel Accord Committee
4) National Central Banks, Research Departments
5) US Congress - Banking and Judiciary Committee Chairs.
______

[4] Data Mining of the Online Judicial Records in the Networked US Federal Courts
http://inproperinla.com/10-06-18-paper-2-courts-s.pdf

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