This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
Human Rights Alert
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Date: 2010.12.08 17:52:29 +02'00'
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. Structural Deficiencies in the Integrity of the United States Courts 3. Proposed Corrective Measures …2 … 12 … 13 … 15
December 8, 2010
1. Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv 06829): [i ] TOC
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 [ii ] 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. [iii ] Following release of the letter and its attachments analysts reported on the matter under headlines such as ‘Let the Criminal Indictments Begin: Paulson, Bernanke, Lewis’, ‘Bigger Than Watergate?’, and ‘Cuomo Unveils Paulson, Bernanke, Lewis Conspiracy’. However, in contrast with such analysts’ opinions, none of the perpetrators suffered any material consequence so far. [ iv ] 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: [v ]
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.
December 8, 2010
a) Brief chronology of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) i. PACER docket as a whole [vi ] 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. [ vii ] 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. [viii ] 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. [ ix ] ii. August 3, 2009 – Complaint filed [x ] 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 [xi ] 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.
December 8, 2010
In a phone conversation with a senior staff member at the office of the Clerk of the Court, it was claimed that the practice at the US District Court, Southern District of New York, was never to post the summons in the PACER docket. It should be noted that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79: Records Kept by the Clerk (a)(1) and (a)(2), states:
(a) Civil Docket. (1) In General. The clerk must keep a record known as the “civil docket” in the form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made. (2) Items to be Entered. The following items must be marked with the file number and entered chronologically in the docket: (A) papers filed with the clerk; (B) process issued, and proofs of service or other returns showing execution; and (C) appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments.
The failure to docket valid Summons and denial of access to the Summons support the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. iv. Service of Process Nowhere in the docket of the case is there any indication that service of the Summons was waived, or that such service was in fact executed. It should be noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4: Summon (m), states:
(m) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff — must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).
No evidence was found in the docket of the case of motion to dismiss the case following the failure to execute service of Summons within 120 day of filing of the Complaint. The failure to execute Service of Process of the Summons and with it the failure to dismiss the case support the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. v. August 3, 2009 – ‘Designation’ of Magistrate Judge Dolinger An unnumbered docket entry (following Dkt #1, Table 2) states:
08/03/2009 Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger is so designated. (ama) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
Absent a Docket Number, and with no record linked to the listing, the text cannot possibly be deemed a valid docket entry. Moreover, the valid legal term, which should have been used in this case is ‘Assignment’, ‘Referral’, or ‘Delegation’, not ‘Designation’. [xii ] There is no evidence in the docket of any judicial conduct by Magistrate Dolinger in the case either. vi. August 3, 2009 - Assignment of the case to Judge Jed Rakoff Of further concern is the failure to include in the docket any evidence of due Assignment to Judge Jed Rakoff as Presiding Judge in the case. Albeit, Judge Rakoff engaged in all subsequent judicial conduct in the case. The missing Assignment to Judge Jed Rakoff supports the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. [ xiii ] vii. August 3, 2009 - Motion for entry of Settlement Agreement
December 8, 2010
Although media reported from the onset of the litigation that a proposed Settlement Agreement for $33 millions was filed on August 3, 2009, although several docket records later referred to the pending Settlement Agreement, and although on September 24, 2009, Order was entered in the docket, purportedly rejecting the then pending before the Court proposed Settlement Agreement, no Motion for entry of the proposed Settlement Agreement and no proposed Settlement Agreement were found in the docket. The failure to file a Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement, and consequent conduct of motion with no foundation records support the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. viii. August 7, 2009 - Counsel Appearances on behalf of BAC [xiv ] Numerous attorneys filed Notices of Appearance in the case at hand, including senior attorneys of SEC and prominent law-firms, which appeared on behalf of BAC. (Figure 2) Attorneys for SEC uniformly filed invalid Notices of Appearance – failing to certify their authorization as Counsel of Record for SEC, including one Notice, which was filed and docketed unsigned (for Attorney Vasilescu, Dkt #24). It is alleged that such senior and experienced attorneys could not possibly be unaware of the invalid nature of the litigation. ix. August 10, 2009 – Off the record proceeding There is no docket listing at all for the August 10, 2009 proceeding. However, evidence of its conduct is provided in Dkt #15,16, 17, where transcripts are listed. Albeit, public access to the transcripts in PACER is denied – no links to the records are provided. The conduct of off the record proceeding supports the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. x. August 24, 2009 – Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest in support of the proposed settlement. [xv ] On August 24, 2009 Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest, Schools of Law and Business, Stanford University, former Commissioner of SEC, was filed by BAC Corporation in support of the proposed Settlement Agreement, then purportedly before the Court. Regarding expert testimonies, Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 26, states:
(a) Required Disclosures. a)… (2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. (A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. (B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report — prepared and signed by the witness — if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain: (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years; (v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.
Upon review of the docket and the Affidavit of Prof Grundfest, Stanford Law School, a reasonable person would conclude that such Expert Testimony was filed by BAC outside any Discovery Disclosures or Discovery Plan, and that the Affidavit itself, as filed, also failed to comply with the Rules.
December 8, 2010
In Affidavit later filed by Dr Joseph Zernik, (see below) objections were raised regarding Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit. Dr Zernik claimed that Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit was construed on an unreasonably narrow basis. In particular, objection was raised regarding statement by Prof Grundfest that BAC was ‘highly regulated’. No mention was made in Prof Grundfest of large volume of records, which had been transmitted to Prof Grundfest in February 2009, providing credible evidence of criminality in conduct of BAC Corporation, including, but not limited to evidence of violations of the Securities Exchange Act (1934). Prof Grundfest had indeed informed Dr Zernik in February 2009 that he had not examined the evidence in detail. However, he had informed Dr Zernik that he had found sufficient substance in the records, and that he had forwarded them directly to the Head of Enforcement at SEC. xi. August 25, 2009 - Order pertaining to review of proposed Settlement Agreement [xvi ] The August 25, 2009 Order (Dkt #13) by Judge Jed Rakoff stated:
This Court has the obligation, within carefully prescribed limits, to determine whether the proposed Consent Judgment settling this case is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest.
The ruling by Judge Rakoff on a matter that was never pending before the Court supports the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation..
September 9, 2009 – Affidavit of Dr Joseph Zernik in opposition to the then pending proposed Settlement Agreement – Not docketed On September 9, 2009, in response to the August 25, 2009 Order, and following instruction by Chambers, Dr Zernik filed an Affidavit, objecting to the proposed Settlement Agreement and to the Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit. [xvii ] Dr Zernik’s Affidavit was never noted in the PACER docket at all. The affidavit alleged and provided voluminous credible evidence of criminality by BAC and its wholly owned subsidiary Countrywide Financial Corporation, including, but not limited to its senior officers. The Affidavit also provided detailed evidence of SEC’s refusal to enforce the law on BAC. The core arguments in the September 9, 2009 Affidavit by Dr Zernik in opposition to the then proposed Settlement Agreement were: • Conduct of BAC following the takeover of Countrywide Financial Corporation demonstrated adamant refusal to comply with the law. • Conduct of SEC and other US banking regulators in recent years demonstrated adamant refusal to enforce the law, and insistence on covering-up of the alleged and opined criminality in BAC’s and Countrywide’s banking operations. • The litigation of SEC v BAC as a whole could not possibly be deemed an adversarial process. SEC and BAC arrived in court with a proposed Settlement Agreement. Therefore, even if the proposed Settlement Agreement were to be rejected , there was no reasonable way to conduct a valid and effectual litigation of the matter. xiii. September 14, 2009 Order rejecting the proposed Settlement Agreement [xviii ] On September 14, 2009, Memorandum Order (Dkt #22) was filed by Judge Jed Rakoff, rejecting the proposed Settlement Agreement, then purportedly before the Court. However, the Clerk of the Court denied repeated requests for access to the attestation/authentication record corresponding to the Memorandum in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. Therefore, the record should at best be deemed of dubious validity. Moreover, as noted above, there is no Motion in the docket that the purported Order originated from. The September 14, 2009 Order states:
Overall, indeed, the parties' submissions, when carefully read, leave the distinct impression that the proposed Consent Judgment was a contrivance designed to provide the SEC with the façade of enforcement and the management of the Bank with a quick resolution of an embarrassing inquiry -- all at the expense of the sole alleged victims, the shareholders.
December 8, 2010
… "federal agency such as the SEC seeks to prospectively invoke the Court's own contempt power by having the court impose injunctive prohibitions against the defendant, the resolution has aspects of a judicial decree and the Court is therefore obligated to review the proposal a little more closely, to ascertain whether it is within the bounds of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy -- and, in some certain circumstances, whether it serves the public interest." … "[T]he notion that Bank of America shareholders, having been lied to blatantly in connection with the multi-billion-dollar purchase of a huge, nearly bankrupt company, need to lose another $33 million of their money in order to 'better assess the quality and performance of management' is absurd," … the judgment "would effectively close the case without the S.E.C. adequately accounting for why, in contravention of its own policy ... it did not pursue charges against either bank management or the lawyers who allegedly were responsible for the false and misleading proxy statements." … why are the penalties not then sought from the lawyers?… And why, in any event, does that justify imposing penalties on the victims of the lie, the shareholders? …who made the relevant decisions as to what to include and not include as far as the Merrill bonuses were concerned. … a rather cynical relationship between the parties: the S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger; the Bank's management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators. And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but of the truth… Yet, the truth shall still emerge…
It remains unclear why Judge Rakoff deemed, what was to become ‘Final Consent Judgment’, as only having ‘aspects of a judicial decree’. xiv. September 14, 2009 Order – Pretrial Disclosure and Case Management Plan Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 16: Pretrial Conferences, Scheduling, Management, in pertinent parts states [underline added]:
(a) Purposes of a Pretrial Conference. In any action, the court may order the attorneys and any unrepresented parties to appear for one or more pretrial conferences for such purposes as: (1) expediting disposition of the action; (2) establishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of management; (3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities; (4) improving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation, and; (5) facilitating settlement. (b) Scheduling. (1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule, the district judge — or a magistrate judge when authorized by local rule — must issue a scheduling order: (A) after receiving the parties' report under Rule 26(f); or (B) after consulting with the parties' attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference or by telephone, mail, or other means. (2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but in any event within the earlier of 120 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 90 days after any defendant has appeared.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 26: Duty to Disclose, General Provisions Governing Discovery, in pertinent parts states [underline added]:
(a) Required Disclosures. (1) Initial Disclosures. (A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties: … (C) Time for Initial Disclosures — In General. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties' Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order, or unless a party objects during the conference that initial disclosures are not appropriate in this action and states the objection in the proposed discovery plan. In ruling on the objection, the court must determine what disclosures, if any, are to be made and must set the time for disclosure. … (3) Pretrial Disclosures.
December 8, 2010
(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and (2), a party must provide to the other parties and promptly file the following information about the evidence that it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment: (i) the name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number of each witness — separately identifying those the party expects to present and those it may call if the need arises; (ii) the designation of those witnesses whose testimony the party expects to present by deposition and, if not taken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent parts of the deposition; and (iii) an identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence — separately identifying those items the party expects to offer and those it may offer if the need arises. … (d) Timing and Sequence of Discovery. (1) Timing. A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order. ,,, (f) Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery (1) Conference Timing. Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable — and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).
No evidence can be found in the docket of the filing of Pretrial Disclosures. To the degree that evidence can be found in the docket of compliance with the Rules, the September 14, 2009 Memorandum Order (Dkt #22) states: [underline added]
Finally, the proposed Consent Judgment is inadequate. The injunctive relief, as noted, is pointless. Accordingly, the Court, having hereby disapproved the Consent Judgment, directs the parties to file with the Court, no later than one week from today, a jointly proposed Case Management Plan that will have this case ready to be tried on February 1, 2010.
No evidence can be found in the docket of compliance by the parties with the September 14, 2009 Memorandum Order regarding the filing of proposed Case Management Plan. Regardless, on September 22, 2009, Judge Rakoff issued the Case Management Plan (Dkt #25). The failure to conduct and duly enter in the docket records of Pretrial Disclosure in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures supports the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. xv. October 19, 2009 Order denying Dr Zernik’s Motion to Intervene The PACER docket of the case shows entry on October 9, 2009 of an Order Denying Joseph Zernik’s Request for Leave to File (Dkt #35):
10/19/2009 35 ORDER. THE COURT, having received and reviewed the request, and good cause apparent, has ruled that Joseph H Zernik's request for a leave to file as Party in Interest in SEC v BAC (09−CV−06829−JSR), is DENIED. See U.S. Constitution, Article III. SO IT IS ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/19/2009) (rw) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
However, it should be noted that no Request or Motion, which the October 9, 2009 Order originated from can be found in the docket. The Clerk, Chambers, Plaintiff and Defendant also deny access to any attestation/authentication records of the Orders in the case. Therefore, the October 19, 2009 should be deemed of dubious nature at best. xvi. January 11, 2010 – Off the record proceeding There is no docket listing at all for the January 11, 2010 proceeding. Evidence of its conduct is provided in Dkt #76, where a transcript is listed. Albeit, as is the case for the August 10, 2009 off the record proceeding (above), public access to the transcript of the January 11, 2010 proceeding is denied. xvii. February 4, 2010 SEC’s Motion for Final Consent Judgment [xix ]
December 8, 2010
On February 4, 2010, Motion for Final Consent Judgment (Dkt #77) was filed by SEC, including a revised proposed Settlement Agreement. xviii. February 11, 2010 Order pertaining to Final Settlement [xx ] On February 11, 2010, Order (Dkt #82) was filed by Judge Jed Rakoff, pertaining to the proposed Final Consent Judgment (Dkt #77) then before the Court. Access to the attestation/authentication record pertaining to the Order is denied. The docket text of the Order, referring to the independent investigation by State of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (see below) states:
ORDER: On February 4, 2010, the Court received a new settlement proposal from the parties, one that would resolve both of the cases now pending in this curious litigation. On February 8, the Court held a hearing on the proposed consent judgment, at which the Court voiced a number of questions and concerns, arising, for example, from the very different interpretations of the underlying facts proposed by, respectively, the parties in this case and the Attorney General of the State of New York in the parallel case of New York v. Bank of America Corp. See transcript of hearing, 2/08/10 ("tr."). In order to adequately address those questions and concerns, and for the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court hereby directs the parties, jointly or severally, to submit to the Court the underlying discovery materials, such as deposition testimony, documents, and emails, bearing on (and arranged in accordance with) the following matters as set forth in this Order; The Court also directs the S.E.C. to submit to the Court its analysis as to the percentage of Bank of America shares distributed to Merrill shareholders at the time of the merger. See tr. at 40. Per the parties' agreement, see tr. at 42, the parties' responses to the aforementioned queries, including requested supporting materials and information, must be submitted to the Court, by hand delivery, by no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16, 2010. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 2/11/10) (ae) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
One of the matters, which was central to discovery attempts relative to the BAC-Merrill Lynch merger, was the December 10, 2008, ouster of then General Counsel of BAC Timothy Mayopoulos in the middle of the merger negotiations, and his escort by security out of the BAC headquarters. He was replaced as General Counsel by Brian Moynihan (today BAC President), who held a law degree, but had no experience in practicing the law. The move was explained by then BAC President Kenneth Lewis:
In these tumultuous times, the role of general counsel requires broad business and legal expertise. [ ]
Probes into the matter as part of the SEC v BAC litigation, by the State of New York Attorney General, and by US Congress provided no explanation for the highly unusual event. In contrast, the Affidavit filed by Dr Zernik as part of SEC v BAC provided at least a partial explanation for the matter: Prior to the BAC-Countrywide merger, under the tenure of Sandor Samuels (today – BAC Associate General Counsel) as Countrywide’s Chief Legal Officer, Countrywide engaged attorneys, who were not counsel of record, with ‘no communications with client clause’ to falsely appear in various courts on its behalf. The practice was exposed and rebuked in a March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by Judge Jeff Bohm, of the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas, and Countrywide was also documented in the Memorandum to have promised to stop the practice. [xxii ] However, the Affidavit by Dr Zernik documented that such practice, and additional conduct by Countrywide, which was alleged as racketeering at the courts, in fact never ceased until July 1, 2008 – the take over of Countrywide by BAC. However, within 24 hours after the ouster of Timothy Mayopoulos as General Counsel and his replacement by Brian Moynihan on December 10, 2008, the practice was resumed in full force. [xxiii ] Moreover, the Affidavit documented that SEC and US law enforcement refused to take action regardless of multiple complaints against Countrywide and BAC pertaining to their conduct in the courts. Likewise, complaints that were later filed directly with SEC Chair Mary Schapiro were never addressed by SEC. [xxiv ] xix. February 22, 2010 Order granting the Motion for Final Settlement On February 22, 2010, Opinion and Order (Dkt #96) was filed by Judge Jed Rakoff, granting the Motion for Settlement through a Final Consent Judgment. The docketing text of the Opinion and Order states:
December 8, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER that in the exercise of that self-restraint, this Court, while shaking its head, grants the S.E.C.'s motion and approves the proposed Consent Judgment provided that, by no later than this Thursday, 2/25/10, the parties present the Court with a proposed Consent Judgment that includes the revised provisions to which they have consented, as set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 2/22/10) (dle) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
Access to the respective NEF continues to be denied. xx. February 22, 2010, Final Consent Judgment [xxv ] Also on February 22, 2010, Final Consent Judgment (Dkt #97) was filed by Judge Jed Rakoff. The docketing text of the Final Consent Judgment states:
FINAL CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION # 10,0297 in favor of Securities and Exchange Commission against Bank of America Corporation in the amount of $ 150,000,001.00. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 2/24/2010) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
Access was repeatedly requested to the NEF of the Final Consent Judgment, both by phone and in writing. Access continues to be denied. In phone conversation with a Courtroom Assistant (not a Deputy Clerk) the Assistant claimed that he was the one who had scanned and entered the records into the PACER docket. Entry of records into the docket is under authority of the Clerk, and the Courtroom Assistant was not an authorized Deputy Clerk. Moreover, the Assistant had no knowledge what an NEF was. However, after the Assistant was guided to the screen view in the Court’s CM/ECF system, where the NEF should have been (if a valid one was ever issued), the Assistant immediately stated that public access to that record was prohibited. On June 20, 2010, another attempted was made to access the NEFs in the case, pursuant to First Amendment rights, by filing a request with Hon Loretta Preska - Chief Judge of the US District Court, Southern District of New York. [xxvi ] Regardless, no access was gained to the NEFs in the case to this date (November 2010). xxi. Outcome of the litigation
In a ruling that freed Bank of America from some legal problems, a federal judge wrote on Monday that he had reluctantly approved a $150 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But even as the judge, Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, approved the settlement, he delivered harsh words for the S.E.C., saying that the agreement was “half-baked justice at best.” The settlement stems from the bank’s merger with Merrill Lynch at the height of the financial crisis. In the months before the deal closed, Bank of America did not tell its shareholders about Merrill’s hefty bonus payouts or the mounting losses that eventually led to a second government bailout of $20 billion. In a written opinion released Monday, Judge Rakoff declared that the evidence showed that the bank had failed to adequately disclose the bonuses and the losses. However, he said it was unclear if the lack of disclosure had resulted from negligence or ill intent. The judge, known for his maverick ways, said the settlement amount was paltry, but he said the deal, the second one the S.E.C. proposed, had met his minimum threshold for approval. “This court, while shaking its head, grants the S.E.C.’s motion and approves the proposed consent judgment,” the judge wrote.
The New York Times reported the news of the Judgment as follows: [xxvii ]
Some of the main features of the ‘Final Consent Judgments’ and the litigation as a whole: o The trial, which was schedule in February 2010 eventually never took place. o A reasonable person is likely to conclude that the truth never emerged in the litigation. o ‘Final Consent Judgment’ avoided the absurd penalty on the victims – the shareholders – as proposed in the initial Settlement Agreement. However, even in the Final Consent Judgment, no individual was held accountable for the alleged fraud, and the nature of the resolution was a minor distribution of the shareholder’s assets to themselves. b) Additional administrative court records The following administrative records are some of the best evidence for the pretense nature of the litigation: i. August 3, 2009 - Civil Cover Sheet (Figure 3) [xxviii ]
December 8, 2010
Although records of the US District Court, Southern District of New York, state that a Civil Cover Sheet is required when filing a complaint, [xxix ] no Civil Cover Sheer was found in the docket of the case at hand. [xxx ] In contrast, Civil Cover Sheets are routinely found docketed in PACER with the complaints in other cases. As further noted in the Rules of Court, the Civil Cover Sheet must be part of Service of Process, together with the Summons and Complaint. (Table 1) The failure to file and docket the Civil Cover Sheet is of particular significance, since it is one of the only records under the PACER and CM/ECF, where signature is required of a Deputy Clerk of the Court, identified by name and authority. ii. Related Transactions Report (Table 3) [xxxi ] Combined, the Related Transactions Report and the Docket Activity Report (below) are two of the more informative court records in monitoring the conduct of a litigation under PACER and CM/ECF. [xxxii ] The reports show whether the Judge in a given case acted upon motions by parties or by the Court itself, and whether the Judge in any given case indeed disposed of matters pending before the Court. The two reports also document numerous procedures inherent in PACER and CM/ECF, which were never published as Rules of Court, either by the US District Court, Southern District of New York, or by the US district courts for that matter. [xxxiii ] The Related Transactions Report (Table 3), shows lack of relationship between related transactions. Orders are not related to any Motions, and the Judgment is not related to the Complaint. As a result, the report also shows the Complaint, even after purported entry of the Judgment, as not terminated. The Related Transaction Report therefore provides strong support for the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. iii. Docket Activity Report (Table 3) The Docket Activity Report, (Table 3) lists the first initial and last name of individuals who entered items in the docket: ‘mro’, who created the most blatantly invalid items in the docket is therefore identified as M. Rodriguez. However, all individuals, who participated in construction of the docket on behalf of the Court, are generically listed under ‘Type: crt’. As noted, staff of the Clerk’s Office confirmed that such individuals were not Deputy Clerks. No US district court, which was examined ever, published a Clerk’s Dictionary for CM/ECF. It should also be noted that public access is likewise denied to the Sample CM/ECF Forms in the Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010) by the Judicial Conference of the United States. [xxxiv ] Therefore, integrity of the listings in the Docket Activity Report relied on rules extracted through data mining. Critical filings, pertaining to Discovery and Pretrial Litigation Plan, Dkt #57-62 and likewise Dkt #64-71, were all docketed under ‘Category: misc’, Dkt #57-62 and #70-71 were all docketed under ‘Event: Letter’ Dkt #64-69 were all docketed under ‘Event: Remark’. No links were provided to the corresponding records. Moreover, whereas the litigation as a whole was designated for electronic filing, these critical records were filed on paper by the parties, and the invalid docketing was perpetrated by Court staff. Therefore, such docketing pattern provides direct evidence of collusion between the Judge, the Clerk, and Counsel for both parties in the conduct of Fraud on the Court. The purported February 24, 2010 Final Consent Judgment was, likewise, not docketed as a Judgment. Instead it was docketed as ‘Category: order’. As noted above, in Related Transactions Report, the purported ‘Judgment’ was not docketed as related to the Complaint, and the Complaint was never docketed as terminated following the issuance of the purported ‘Judgment’. The Docket Activity Report therefore provides strong support for the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation.
December 8, 2010
August 27, 2009 Pending Statuses Report (Figure 4) [xxxv ]
There Are No Pending Status Records For This Case. No statuses have been terminated for this case.
The Pending Statuses Report, as downloaded from PACER on November 8, 2010, states:
The Complaint, in and of itself, and each and every Motion listed in the docket, if properly coded, should have generated an Event and with it a Pending Status, which upon adjudication, such statuses should have been terminated. Therefore, the November 8, 2010 Pending Statuses Report supports the opinion that the litigation as a whole was conducted as an invalid litigation. v. Calendars of the Courts [xxxvi ] (Figure 5) Calendars of the Courts are considered some of the key Books of Courts, and are essential for the safeguard of integrity of the courts. They are also public records by law. Regardless, the US district courts, which were inspected, vary considerably in public access to Calendars of the Courts. The US District Court, Southern District of New York, permits public access in PACER only to current 7 days calendars. [xxxvii ] vi. Judgment Index (Figure 6) By February 24, 2010 the Final Consent Judgment was also listed in the PACER Judgment Index. However, access to the NEF of the Final Consent Judgment continues to be denied. Moreover, in response to phone request, senior staff member at the office of the Clerk of the Court stated that no NEFs were issued on minutes, orders, and the judgment in the case. Likewise, the Judgment Index shows no form of attestation/authentication by a name individual holding the authority of Deputy Clerk of the Court. In other cases, opined as pretense litigations at the US courts, void, not voidable judgments were likewise listed in the PACER Judgment Index. [xxxviii ] Therefore, there is no way to ascertain that the Judgments that are listed in the PACER Judgment Index are indeed such that commanded ‘full faith and credit’. c) Overall conduct of the litigation The conduct of the Court in this matter should be contrasted with the conduct of civil litigation in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as outlined in the Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010) by the Judicial Conference of the United States. [xxxix ] Upon review of the records of the litigation, in view of the Manual, a reasonable person would conclude that the litigation as a whole was never deemed by the Court itself as an honest and valid litigation, conducted pursuant to the law of the United States.
2. Structural Deficiencies in the Integrity of the United States Courts
The conduct of Clerk RUBY KRAJICK also reflects structural deficiencies in the integrity of the United States courts: a) Lack of accountability of the Clerks of the Courts for the integrity of the electronic court records. Conditions, which now prevail in the US courts, enable the publication of false and deliberately misleading PACER dockets and false and deliberately misleading minutes, orders, and judgments. b) Lack of validity and integrity of PACER and CM/ECF as electronic court administration systems.
December 8, 2010
The systems enable the publication of dockets, minutes, orders, and judgments in a manner that prevents the public from distinguishing between records, which the US courts themselves deem valid and effectual and records, which the US courts themselves deem void. The systems were implemented over the past decade by the Administrative Office of the US Courts with insufficient public oversight. It is claimed that the systems were central to undermining the integrity of the US courts.
3. Proposed Corrective Measures
The reports, linked below, proposed corrective measures by US Congress: [xl , xli , xlii ]
a) Restoring provisions of the Salary Act of 1919 - placing the clerks under the authority of the US Attorney General. The Salary Act of 1919 was credited as a key measure in restoring the integrity of the US courts a century ago. It placed the clerks under authority of the US Attorney General. Conditions in the courts today indicate that reform is in order – through placing the clerks under authority of the US Attorney General again. [xliii ] b) Enacting federal rules for the electronic administration of the courts. Implementation of electronic case management and online public access systems amounted to a seachange in court procedures. Regardless, both the courts and the US Congress have so far failed to establish design and operation of the systems under statute. Combined, the two above measures by US Congress could address the following issues: a) Restoring accountability of the clerks for the integrity of electronic court records. The evidence demonstrates that clerks today hold themselves unaccountable for the validity and integrity of electronic court records, in particular – online public access systems. b) Restoring the right to access judicial records – to inspect and to copy. Combined, PACER and CM/ECF are today used to conceal critical attestation/authentication records (the NEFs and NDAs), and therefore do not permit the public to distinguish between valid and effectual court records and such that are deemed by the US courts as void. c) Establishing valid digital signatures on all applicable court records by judges, clerks, and counsel. The evidence shows that courts established as acceptable, various methods, which do not meet minimal requirements for valid digital signatures for judges, clerks, and counsel. d) Establishing valid procedures for the clerks’ electronic attestation/authentication records. The evidence shows that the NEFs and NDAs, which were established by the US courts as electronic clerks’ attestation/authentication records are invalid and void. e) Establishing publicly accessible, valid procedures for certification by counsel of his/her authorization as counsel of record for parties on behalf of whom counsel appears in court. Certification of counsel’s authority as counsel of record was left vague and ambiguous, permitting unauthorized appearances in the courts. f) Validation of electronic administrative systems of the courts. Validation of such systems must be undertaken prior to their installation, in a manner that is legally and publicly accountable – e.g. through agencies that are accountable to the legislative branch. Such
December 8, 2010
validation should be based on certified, functional logic verification [xliv ] in all stages of from development, through implementation, to any modifications and ongoing security. [xlv ] Inherent in the validation of the system is also the requirement that all unpublished Local Rules of Court, which are today embedded in specification and implementation of the systems, be explicitly pre-published in natural language for public comment and challenge, as required by the Rulemaking Enabling Act. [xlvi ] It should be noted that similar problems were previously identified in the implementation of electronic voting machines, and that the US government is yet to adequately address the latter issue, despite ongoing protests. [xlvii , xlviii ] g) Establishing an enhanced level of transparency in the electronic administrative systems of the courts. Enhanced transparency is required to permit ongoing effective public monitoring of the systems. In case additional information would be needed in the course of investigations, beyond that which is provided in the attached and linked reports, I would be happy to provide any help possible. Your attention to these matters is kindly requested. Dated: December 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik
By: Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) The Honorable Barney Frank Chair, House Financial Services Committee The Hon Christopher Dodd, Chair US Senate Banking Committee The Hon Carl Levin, Chair US Senate Investigations Committee The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Senator from California Basel Accords Committee Various National Central Banks United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States.
December 8, 2010 TOC
10-12-04 Zernik J: SEC v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States report pending international peer-review http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/
10-12-04 RE: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE Request for Investigation, Impeachment Proceedings Where Appropriate http://www.scribd.com/doc/44669382/ iii April 23, 2009 State of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo Letter to US Congress and Attachments-s http://www.scribd.com/doc/41079990/ iv 09-04-23 State of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo Letter to US Congress with Attachments, and analysts' responses http://www.scribd.com/doc/41079990/ v 10-11-04 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – Records downloaded from the Fair Fund Distribution Administrator’s website Notice: The records, which were posted online by the Fair Fund Administrators again failed to include any attestation by the Clerk of the Court, and therefore could not possibly be deemed judicial records, which commanded "full faith and credit". vi June 19, 2010 SEC v BAC – Docket report as downloaded from PACER http://www.scribd.com/doc/41088572/ Notice: The records, the PACER docket is deemed false and deliberately misleading: It excluded the summons and all authentication/attestation records by the clerk. Moreover, the clerk’s office denied repeated requests to access such records, pursuant to First Amendment rights. Moreover, as documented in other cases, clerks of the US courts today refuse to certify the PACER dockets. vii Regarding the blurring of the authority of the Clerk of the Court, and performance of the Clerk’s duties by unauthorized personnel see also [iii], above. viii Zernik, J: Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts in the United States - A Call for Action - pending ix For list of applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and conduct of civil litigation in compliance therewith, see also Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition, Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (2010): http://www.scribd.com/doc/43498081/ x SEC v BAC, Dkt #1 - August 3, 2009 Initial Complaint, http://www.scribd.com/doc/41230942/ xi SEC v BAC, Dkt #1 - August 3, Summons – access to the summons as issued is denied by the Court, by SEC, and by BAC. xii For Delegation or Assignment to a US Magistrate, see Sample Form 1, under Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition, Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (2010): http://www.scribd.com/doc/43498081/ xiii For Assignment of a case to a US District Judge, see Sample Form 1, under Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition, Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (2010): http://www.scribd.com/doc/43498081/ xiv 10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York - Notices of Counsel Appearance http://www.scribd.com/doc/41621993/ xv SEC v BAC, Dkt #10 - August 24, 2009 Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest in support the then proposed Settlement, filed by Bank of America Corporation http://www.scribd.com/doc/39144281/ xvi SEC v BAC, Dkt #13 - August 25, 2009 Order by Judge Jed Rakoff http://www.scribd.com/doc/41231484/ Notice: The records, which were posted in PACER, the online public access system of the Court fail to include any attestation by the Clerk of the Court, and therefore could not possibly be deemed judicial records, which commanded "full faith and credit". xvii SEC v BAC - Sept 9, 2009 Affidavit of Dr Zernik http://www.scribd.com/doc/26910915/
December 8, 2010
SEC v BAC, Dkt #22 - September 14, 2009, Memorandum Order filed by Judge Jed Rakoff, rejecting the proposed Settlement, then before the Court. http://www.scribd.com/doc/41232097/ Notice: The records, which were posted in PACER, the online public access system of the Court, failed to include any attestation by the Clerk of the Court, and therefore could not possibly be deemed judicial records, which commanded "full faith and credit". xix SEC v BAC, Dkt #77 - February 4, 2010 Motion for Settlement filed by SEC: http://www.scribd.com/doc/41111452/ Exhibit A – proposed Final Consent Judgment: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26999877/ xx SEC v BAC, Dkt #82 - February 11, 2010 Order seeking discovery, including re: Mayopoulos termination http://www.scribd.com/doc/26996003/ Notice: The records, which were posted in PACER, the online public access system of the Court, failed to include any attestation by the Clerk of the Court, and therefore could not possibly be deemed judicial records, which commanded "full faith and credit". xxi 08-12-10 Firing of Timothy Mayopoulos as BAC Attorney General and his replacement by Brian Moynihan - Law.com http://www.scribd.com/doc/41526854/ xxii 08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel schemes: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/ xxiii SEC v BAC - Sept 9, 2009 Affidavit of Dr Zernik http://www.scribd.com/doc/26910915/ xxiv 10-06-11 Dr Zernik's Complaints Filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency and SEC against Countrywide, Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), and Brian Moynihan - alleging fraud and extortion on Dr Zernik, fraud on shareholders, on banking regulators, and on the US taxpayer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32907453/ xxv SEC v BAC, Dkt #97 February 22, 2010 Final Consent Judgment: http://www.scribd.com/doc/41111457/ Notice: The records, which were posted in PACER, the online public access system of the Court, failed to include any attestation by the Clerk of the Court, and therefore could not possibly be deemed judicial records, which commanded "full faith and credit". xxvi 10-06-20 SEC v BAC (NYSE:BAC) (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York: Hallmark of Enforcement in the Current Banking Crisis - Alleged as Invalid Litigation http://www.scribd.com/doc/33310699/ xxvii 10-11-05 SEC v BAC 1-09-cv-06829 at the US District Court Southern District of New York – New York Times reports http://www.scribd.com/doc/41100445/ xxviii Regarding significance of the Civil Cover Sheet – see also [iii], above. xxix US District Court, Southern District of New York, statement in re: Filing of Civil Cover Sheet: The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. xxx Additional references regarding the requirement of verification of a Civil Cover Sheet for opening a civil docket, see also [iii], above. xxxi 10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv -06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – Administrative records: a) Civil Cover Sheet, b) Related Transactions Report, c) Pending Statutes Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/41625345/ xxxii Of note, public access is denied to the Sample CM/ECF reports in the Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010) Federal Judicial Center, see [xxvi], above. xxxiii Regarding the failure to establish Rules of Court, see also [i,ii], above. xxxiv See [xxvi], above. xxxv 10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv -06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – Administrative records: a) Civil Cover Sheet, b) Related Transactions Report, c) Pending Statutes Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/41625345/
December 8, 2010
10-11-06 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv -06829) at the US District Court, Southern District of New York – Administrative records: a) Civil Cover Sheet, b) Related Transactions Report, c) Pending Statutes Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/41625345/ xxxvii Regarding Clerks and Calendars of the US Courts, see also [iii], above. xxxviii Zernik, J: Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts in the United States - A Call for Action - pending xxxix See [xxvi], above.
10-12-04 Zernik J: SEC v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States report pending international peer-review http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/ xli Zernik, J: Calendars and the Clerks of the US Courts – pending http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663008/ xlii Zernik, J: Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts in the United States - A Call for Action – pending http://www.scribd.com/doc/44662501/ xliii Zernik, J: Calendars and the Clerks of the US Courts – pending http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663008/ xliv Coenen, F: Verification and Validation Issues in Expert and Database Systems: The Expert Systems Perspective, dexa, pp.16, 9th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'98), (1998) xlv Codd, EF: The relational model for database management: version 2, ACM Classic Books Series, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc (1990) xlvi Robling Denning, D E: Cryptography and data security , Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc (1982) xlvii Voting Machines Report: Malfunction and Malfeasance, report by Common Cause (undated) http://www.scribd.com/doc/36565560/ xlviii April 19, 2010 letter by Brennan Center for Justice letter in re: Unprecleared voting machines http://www.scribd.com/doc/36565891
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.