You are on page 1of 5

Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.12.19
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 18:24:59 +02'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-12-19 Addendum to Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings where


appropriate, in re: US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk of the Court RUBY KRAJICK,
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

RE: Addendum to Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings where appropriate, in re: JED
RAKOFF - US Judge, and RUBY KRAJICK – Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern
District of New York
Dear Congressman Conyers, Senator Leahy, and Congresswoman McIntosh Slaughter:
Please accept instant notice and the linked SEC FOIA-response [ i ] as an addendum to the previously filed
requests for initiating investigation and, where appropriate, impeachment proceedings, pursuant to Section 4
of Article Two of the United States Constitution, against US Judge JED RAKOFF [ ii ] and Clerk of the
Court RUBY KRAJICK, [ iii ] both of the US District Court, Southern District of New York. The
requests pertain to their conduct in the litigation of Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of
America Corporation (1-09 -cv-06829) in apparent violation of the law.
The matters underlying the litigation of SEC v BAC are of the highest public policy significance, pertaining to
the December 2008 government-coerced merger of Merrill Lynch and Bank of America. The matter involved
alleged criminal conduct by senior US and BAC officers, including: Chair of the Federal Reserve Ben
Bernanke, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former BAC President Ken Lewis, and then BAC
General Counsel Brian Moynihan (today – BAC President).
The requests for investigation in this matter and the report, [iv ] which was filed for international peer-review,
detailed the invalid nature of the litigation, which originated in the merger: There is no record of a valid
assignment order for Judge Jed Rakoff, minutes were not entered for the proceedings, motions were not
docketed, but were purportedly ruled upon, and unauthorized court personnel constructed the docket. The
Court also denies access to all the Clerk’s authentication/ attestation records (NEFs) in the case, including, but
not limited to the authentication record for the purported Final Consent Judgment. Therefore, it impossible to
ascertain the validity, or lack thereof, of the judicial records in the case.
z Page 2/5 December 19, 2010

The US District Court, Southern District of New York, continues to deny access to litigation records
under the caption of SEC v BAC. However, in response to FOIA-requests, the linked records were received
from the SEC, [ v ] including the purported summons as issued by clerk, which are the focus of the instant
Addendum:

A. Issuance of the Summons

1) The September 21, 2009 summons, which was produced by SEC as part of the FOIA-response, as
summons issued by clerk, was not signed by Clerk of the Court.
2) The summons, which was produced by SEC, had no seal of the Court.
3) US law, 28 USC 1691 requires:
All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the
clerk thereof.

Therefore, the summons produced by SEC as summons issued by clerk in SEC v BAC could not be a valid
summons.

B. Docketing and Public Access to the Summons

1) The PACER docket of SEC v BAC notes:


08/03/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Bank of America Corporation. (ama) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

2) The purported August 3, 2009 summons was excluded from the PACER docket.
3) Upon repeated requests, the Clerk refused to provide a copy of the August 3, 2009 summons.
4) Upon inquiries the clerk explained that the Court routinely excluded the summonses as issued by the
Clerk from the PACER dockets and denies public access to them. Only counsel in a given case were
permitted access to the summons as issued by the Clerk.
5) The 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.

6) In Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed public access to
court records to inspect and to copy as inherent to the First Amendment.
Therefore, based on the facts detailed in sections A and B, above, a reasonable person is likely to conclude:

1) The August 3, 2009 docket notation, “SUMMONS ISSUED”, is a false a docketing entry.
2) The practice, whereby the Clerk of the Court excludes the summonses from the dockets in general, and
from the SEC v BAC docket in particular, should be deemed a violation of the law and also a violation of
the Clerk's Oath of Office.
z Page 3/5 December 19, 2010

3) The ongoing denial of public access to court records by the Clerk of the Court should be deemed a
Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law.

4) The facts surrounding the issuance of the summons demonstrate the invalidity of the PACER docket in
SEC v BAC and lack of accountability of the Clerk of the Court for integrity of the PACER dockets.

5) The facts would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the overall conduct of the Court relative to
issuance of summons in SEC v BAC was false and deliberately misleading.

C. Failure to Execute/Waive the Service of Process and Failure to Dismiss the Complaint
1) Nowhere in the docket of SEC v BAC is there any indication that service of the summons was waived,
or that the service was in fact executed.
2) The Court did not dismiss the case after the passage of 120 days, during which no execution or waiver
of service of process was recorded.
3) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4: Summons (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).

Therefore:
1) The failure to dismiss the complaint of SEC v BAC, after the summons had not been served within the
time required by law, should be deemed as conduct of invalid litigation in violation of the law.

D. Conduct of the litigation as a whole


A report, [vi ] filed for international peer-review in a scholarly law journal, detailed the conduct of the litigation
and docketing practices in SEC v BAC:
• There is no record of a valid assignment order for Judge Jed Rakoff;
• The minutes were not entered for the proceedings;
• Some of the proceedings were not recorded in the docket as such;
• Motions were not docketed, but were purportedly ruled upon;
• Unauthorized court personnel constructed the docket.
• The Court denies access to all the Clerk’s authentication/ attestation records (NEFs) in the case, including,
but not limited to, the authentication record of the purported Final Consent Judgment, making it
impossible to ascertain the validity, or lack thereof, of nay of the judicial records in the case.
Therefore, the litigation as a whole was opined as Fraud on the Court.
The facts surrounding the summons, which are now provided as additional evidence, would lead a reasonable
person to conclude that the conduct of the invalid litigation in SEC v BAC was most likely coordinated prior to
the filing of the complaint in SEC v BAC at the Office of the Clerk.
z Page 4/5 December 19, 2010

E. Public Policy Significance


The matters underlying the litigation of SEC v BAC pertain to the December 2008 government-coerced
merger of Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, which involved alleged criminal activity by senior US and
BAC officers, including: Chair of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson, former BAC President Ken Lewis, and then BAC General Counsel Brian Moynihan (today – BAC
President).
Following investigation into the merger by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, [vii ] financial
analysts called for “criminal indictments” in the “conspiracy”. The scandal was compared in significance to
Watergate. [viii ]
The evidence provided in the requests for investigation and in instant addendum shows that the SEC,
Bank of America, and the Court covered up the alleged violations of the law pertaining to the 2008
Merrill Lynch-Bank of America merger through the conduct of invalid litigation under SEC v BAC in
the US Court, Southern District of New York.

I would be happy to provide any help in case additional information is needed in the course of
investigation, beyond that which is provided in the linked records.
Your attention to this matter is kindly requested.
Dated: December 19, 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

CC
1) The Honorable Barney Frank
Chair, House Financial Services Committee
2) The Hon Christopher Dodd, Chair
US Senate Banking Committee
3) The Hon Carl Levin, Chair
US Senate Investigations Committee
4) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Senator from California
5) Basel Accords Committee
6) Various National Central Banks
7) United Nations Human Rights Council
Working Group on the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States.
z Page 5/5 December 19, 2010

LINKS
i
10-12-17 RE: SEC Freedom of Information Response re: SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45502385/
ii
10-12-04 RE: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE - Request
for Investigation, Impeachment Proceedings Where Appropriate
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44669382/H
iii
10-12-08 RE: RUBY KRAJICK, Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern District of New York - Request for
Investigation, Impeachment pertaining to conduct in Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation
(1:09-cv-06829)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44908376/H
iv
Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense
Banking Regulation in the United States - pending
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/
v
See [i], above.
vi
See [iv], above.
vii
09-04-23 RE: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) State of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo Letter to US Congress with
attachments
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41079990/H
viii
Analysts’ responses to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s letter to the US Congress
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41079990/H