Human Rights Alert
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog:
Scribd:
10-12-08 Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings where appropriate, in re: RUBY KRAJICK – Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern District of New York
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr,
Chair
US House Committee on the Judiciary 2426 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Fax: 202-225-0072 The Honorable Patrick Leahy,
Chair
US Senate Committee on the Judiciary 433 Russell Office Building Washington DC 20510 Fax: 202-224-3479 The Honorable Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
Chair
US House Committee on Rules 2469 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Fax: 202-225-7822
By certified mail, by fax, and email
Dear Congressman Conyers, Senator Leahy, and Congresswoman McIntosh Slaughter: Please accept instant notice as a request for initiating investigation and where appropriate impeachment proceedings, pursuant to Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, against
RUBY KRAJICK – Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern District of New York.
The conduct of Clerk
RUBY KRAJICK
is alleged as
violation of her Oath of Office, including, but not limited to: denial of access to the courts, denial of public access to court records, deprivation of rights under the color of law, and/or misprision of felonies; therefore -
impeachable offences
. The case records and the reports, linked below, document RUBY KRAJICK’s collusion with US Judge JED RAKOFF and others in the conduct of pretense litigation under the caption of
Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation
(1:09-cv -06829)
and publication of false and deliberately misleading judicial records in a matter of the highest public policy significance. Conduct of the pretense litigation by RUBY KRAJICK and others undermined Banking Regulation and covered-up alleged criminality by Bank of America Corporation and its senior officers as well as alleged criminality by senior US officers. Instant request also details structural deficiencies in the integrity of the US courts, which are evidenced in the case, and proposes corrective measures by US Congress.
Table of Contents 1.
Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation
(1:09-cv -06829) … 2 2. Structural Deficiencies in the Integrity of the United States Courts … 12 3. Proposed Corrective Measures … 13
4.
Links … 15
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US Date: 2010.12.08 17:52:29 +02'00'
Page 2/17 December 8, 2010
1.
Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation
(1:09-cv -06829):
[
]
The case, referenced above, should be considered of the highest public policy significance, because of the nature of the underlying matters.
It is alleged that Clerk RUBY KRAJICK colluded with Judge JED RACKOFF [
] and others in the conduct of pretense litigation, construction of false and deliberately misleading docket for the case, and the publication of false and deliberately misleading judicial records in PACER – the online public access system of the Court - in efforts to cover-up alleged criminality by senior officers of Bank of America and the United States government. Independent investigation of events surrounding the BAC-Merrill Lynch merger by State of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was summed up in his April 23, 2009 letter to US Congress. [
] Following release of the letter and its attachments analysts reported on the matter under headlines such as
the Criminal Indictments Begin: Paulson, Bernanke, Lewis’
, ‘
Bigger Than Watergate?
’, and ‘
Cuomo Unveils Paulson, Bernanke, Lewis Consp
‘
Let iracy’
. However, in contrast with such analysts’ opinions, none of the perpetrators suffered any material consequence so far. [
] Furthermore, review of court records in the case, published online by the office of RUBY KRAJICK, reveals routine practices of the Office of the Clerk, US District Court, Southern District of New York, which undermine the Human, Constitutional, and Civil rights of all who come to the US District Court, Central District of California for protection of rights, and also routine denial of the First Amendment right of the public at large to access court records, to inspect and to copy. It should be noted that the Southern District of New York is one of the key metropolitan US courts, where litigations are routinely conducted pertaining to corporate and banking regulation.
Notice: All figures and tables below refer to those appearing in the report, linked under [
i
], below.
SEC v BAC
(1:09-cv -06829), (
Figure 1
) and the related case of
SEC v BAC
(1:10-cv –00215) were summed as follows by the Fair Fund Administrator
: [
]
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed enforcement actions against Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”) alleging that BAC violated the federal proxy regulations in the merger between BAC and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill”) that closed on January 1 , 2009. As part of a settlement of those actions approved by the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 22, 2010, BAC paid approximately $1 50 million into a Fair Fund that will be distributed to investors injured by the alleged misconduct. Following BAC’s merger with Merrill, the SEC filed two actions, SEC v . Bank of America Corp., 09-cv -6829 (JSR) (“Bonuses Action”) and SEC v . Bank of America Corp., 10-cv -021 5 (JSR) (“Q4 Losses Action”) (collectively , the “Actions”). In the Bonuses Action, initially filed on August 3, 2009, the SEC charged BAC with violating Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 14a-3 and 14a-9 thereunder based on BAC’s failure to disclose, in proxy materials soliciting shareholder votes for approval of the merger, its authorization for Merrill to pay year-end bonuses of up to $5.8 billion to its employees prior to the closing of the merger. In the Q4 Losses Action, filed on January 12, 2010, the SEC charged BAC with violating Section 1 4(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 1 4a-9 thereunder based on BAC’s failure to disclose, prior to the December 5, 2008 shareholder meeting to approve the merger, extraordinary losses that Merrill sustained in October and Nov ember 2008. On February 22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) entered a Final Consent Judgment, pursuant to which BAC was required to pay a civil penalty of $1 50,000,000 and disgorgement of $1 . On or about March 10, 2010, the funds paid by BAC were deposited into an interest bearing account with the Court Registry Investment System. The Court established a Fair Fund in accordance with Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These funds, together with any interest and income earned thereon (collectively , the “Distribution Fund”), calculated after deductions expended or to be expended for taxes and fees (the “Net Distribution Fund”), will be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan of Allocation to the Eligible Claimants as defined below who file timely and valid Proof of Claim Forms following the procedures set forth in this Notice and on the Proof of Claim Form (the “Distribution”). The Plan of Allocation is more fully explained in the Notice which you can access by clicking on the Important Case Documents link above.
Page 3/17 December 8, 2010
a) Brief chronology of
SEC v BAC
(1:09-cv-06829)
i. PACER docket as a whole
[
]
A total of 19 proceedings were listed in the docket. (
Table 2
) Two of the proceedings, where no docket entry was created, (see below) should be deemed off the record. For the remaining 17 proceedings invalid docket entries were created - no records at all were linked to the docket listings, no Docket Number was designated, and no information regarding content of the proceedings was provided in the docketing text. Of such 17 minutes with no records, 16 were ‘entered’ by an individual identified as ‘mro’. In contrast, out of a total of 24 docket listings of orders and the judgment, where docket number was designated, where a record was linked, and where informative docketing text was provided, not a single item was entered by ‘mro’. The Docketing department of the Court confirmed that docketing in the case was not performed by Deputy Clerks. However, the names of those who entered the transactions in the docket would not be released. [
] Entry of transactions in the PACER dockets by unauthorized court personnel, who were not bound by Oath of Office, was documented in other US district courts as well, in cases deemed pretense litigations. [
] Beyond undermining of dockets integrity, such practices demonstrate the lack of security and validity of PACER and CM/ECF as a whole. Overall, nowhere in the PACER docket is the authority of the Clerk of the Court invoked, neither is the name, nor the authority of any individual as Deputy Clerk to be found. The failure to include any attestation/authentication by authority of the Clerk supports the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. No Assignment Order for Judge Jed Rakoff was found in the docket, and conduct of the litigation failed to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
. [
]
ii. August 3, 2009 – Complaint filed
[
]
Following BAC’s merger with Merrill Lynch, the SEC filed two actions,
SEC v BAC
(1:09-cv-06829) and
SEC v BAC
(1:10-cv –0215). In the former case, initially filed on August 3, 2009, the SEC charged BAC with violating Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act
(1934), based on BAC’s failure to disclose in proxy materials soliciting shareholder votes for approval of the merger its authorization for Merrill Lynch to pay year-end bonuses of up to $5.8 billion to its employees prior to the closing of the merger. The SEC complaint alleged that BAC ‘represented that Merrill had agreed not to pay year-end performance bonuses or other discretionary incentive compensation to its executives prior to the closing of the merger without the Bank of America's consent’ when, in fact, the bank had agreed to the bonus payments. No evidence was found in the docket of either execution or waiver of service of the Complaint. The failure to execute service of the Complaint and failure to dismiss the case as a result - in compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- support the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation.
iii. August 3, 2009 – Summons issued
[
]
On August 3, 2009, the docket states that Summons was issued as to BAC Corporation. However, absent a Docket Number, the text cannot possibly be deemed a valid docket entry. Additionally, no link was provided in the docket to the Summons record itself. Access to the Summons as issued was repeatedly requested, both by phone and in writing. Access was and is denied.