11-02-05 Request No 2 For Impeachment of Judge JED RAKOFF Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in Re Conduct of Lindner V Amex (1:10-cv-02228) S

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: 2011.02.05
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 23:11:09 +02'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
11-02-04 Request No 2 for investigation/impeachment of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk

RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in re: Conduct of
Lindner v. American Express Company (1:10-cv-02228)
The Honorable Lamar Smith, Chair
US House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Fax: 202-225-8628
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chair
US Senate Committee on the Judiciary
433 Russell Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Fax: 202-224-3479
The Honorable Spencer Bachus, Chair
US House Committee on Financial Services
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Fax: 202-225-2082
The Honorable Christopher Dodd, Chair
US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
F: (202) 224-5137
The Honorable David Dreier, Chair
U.S. House of Representatives
H-312 The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
FAX: (202) 225-6763
EMAIL: Rules.Rs@mail.house.gov
By fax, and email
Dear Congressmen Bachus, Dodd, Dreier, Leahy, and Smith:

Please accept instant notice and the new records, outlined and linked below, as Request No 2 for investigation,
and impeachment proceedings, pursuant to Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, against
US Judge JED SAUL RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK. The request originates in their conduct in
Lindner v American Express Company (1:10-cv-02228), a Civil Rights matter. Review of the records in
the case shows that the case also directly pertains to corporate and banking regulation, or lack thereof,
by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Request No1 for impeachment of US Judge JED SAUL RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK was
previously forwarded to your offices. Request No 1 originated in their conduct in Securities and
Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829), a Securities Fraud matter. [ i , ii
, iii , iv ]
Combined, the cases document conduct in the US courts that undermines Banking Regulation and Civil
Rights in the ongoing financial crisis.
Both Lindner v American Express Company and Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America
Corporation also demonstrate the ways in which PACER and CM/ECF (the public online and case
z Page 2/11 February 5, 2011
management systems of the US courts) enable such conduct. The US Congress is called upon to
perform its duties and initiate corrective actions.
1. The PACER records in Lindner v Amex show a pattern of false and deliberately misleading court
records, alleged as Fraud on the Court. [v ]
a) Docket Report
The names and authority of persons, who constructed the PACER docket are never disclosed in the
records. Upon information and belief, unauthorized persons constructed the PACER docket. Such
dockets should be deemed invalid, in violation of the US law and the Oath of Office of the Clerk.
The records in the PACER docket of Lindner v Amex from PACER (the online public access system
of the Court) show that:
i. No summonses were docketed, and no summonses were electronically authenticated.

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/15/2010 SUMMONS ISSUED as to American Express Company. (rdz) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
08/31/2010 AMENDED SUMMONS ISSUED as to American Express Company. (mbe) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
• Summonses are listed as issued, but no summonses were docketed, in apparent violation of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Since no docket numbers were assigned and no records were linked to the docket notations,
the summonses could not possibly be electronically authenticated through ENFs (Notice of
Electronic Filing). [ vi ]
• The office of Clerk RUBY KRAJICK has previously denied repeated requests for access to
summonses in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, in apparent violation of
First Amendment rights.
In Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation the record of summons as
issued by clerk was eventually discovered through FOIA-response by SEC. The summons was
found missing both the signature of the clerk and the seal of the court – invalid summons
pursuant to US law. [ vii ]
ii. No Assignment Order for US Judge JED RAKOFF is found in the docket.
• Therefore Judge JED RAKOFF’s appearance in the case as Presiding Judge should be
deemed with no authority.
iii. No Referral Order for US Magistrate JAMES L. COTT is found in the docket.
03/15/2010 Magistrate Judge James L. Cott is so designated. (rdz) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
03/31/2010 3 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for
assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial
motions, and settlement) and Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and Recommendation). Referred to
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 3/30/2010) (tve) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
• Notations were listed in the docket of referral to US Magistrate Cott, but no record to that
effect appears in the docket, and there is no evidence that such record ever existed.
• Since no docket number was assigned and no records was linked to the notation of referral to
US Magistrate Cott, even had such record existed, the record could not have possibly be
electronically authenticated through an ENF (Notice of Electronic Filing).
• The Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge (Dkt #3), shows false and deliberately docket
notation “Referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott”. In fact, the linked record of “Order”, includes no
evidence of referral to Magistrate JAMES L COTT.
• Therefore Judge JAMES L COTT’s appearance in the case should be deemed with no
authority either.
The notations in the PACER docket, copied above, pertaining to referral to Magistrate Cott
should be deemed deceptive and evidence of collusion by Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY
KRAJICK in this matter.
iv. No evidence is found in the docket that counsel for Defendants were authorized as Counsel of
Record.
10/05/2010 7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Douglas M. Kraus on behalf of American Express Company, Ken Chenault, Ash
Gupta, Louise M. Parent (Kraus, Douglas) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
10/05/2010 8 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joseph N. Sacca on behalf of American Express Company, Ken Chenault,
Ash Gupta, Louise M. Parent (Sacca, Joseph) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
• The two Notices of Appearance (Dkt #07,08) are the only records filed by the Defendants, to
which public access is permitted in the PACER docket.
• In both Notices of Appearance, the respective attorneys failed to certify their authority to
appear as Counsel of Record for the Defendants under the caption of Lindner v Amex.
• Appearances in the US courts of unauthorized counsel for large financial institutiosn, with
“no communications with clients” clause, was detailed in the March 5, 2008 Memorandum
Opinion of US Bankruptcy Judge Jeff Bohm in the Case of Borrower Parsley. [ viii ]
• Further evidence of the appearances of unauthorized counsel in the US courts and related
discussion is provided in the Motion to Intervene and related papers under Log Cabin
Republicans v USA et al. [ ix ]
Further investigation may discover that Attorneys Kraus and Sacca engaged unauthorized
appearances on behalf of Defendants and Fraud on the Court in Lindner v American Express
Company.
Permitting appearances of counsel whose authority to appear is vague and ambiguous should be
deemed violation of Due Process rights.
v. No execution of service was docketed.

10/15/2010 9 MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Amended Complaint
served. American Express Company served on 9/30/2010, answer due 10/21/2010. Service was made by mail.
Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
10/15/2010 10 MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Amended
Complaint served. Ash Gupta served on 9/30/2010, answer due 10/21/2010. Service was made by mail.
Complaint served. Louise M. Parent served on 9/30/2010, answer due 10/21/2010. Service was made by
mail. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
Complaint served. Ken Chenault served on 9/30/2010, answer due 10/21/2010. Service was made by mail.
Complaint served. Stephen Norman served on 12/6/2010, answer due 12/27/2010. Service was accepted by
Ms. Flores, clerk. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
• Notations were listed in the docket of execution of service of summons on the Defendants,
but no records were linked, and therefore, no records could possibly be electronically
authenticated by the clerk through NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing).
• Notations were listed in the docket of execution of service of amended summons on Ash
Gupta, Louise M Parent, and Ken Chenault. However, no issuance of either initial or
amended summonses on these parties was noted in the docket.
The notations pertaining to execution of service of summonses should be deemed deceptive. (See
Related Transactions Report and Deadlines/Hearings Report, below) The record as a whole
indicates that the Court never deemed execution of summons as having been executed in this
case.
vi. No Corporate Disclosure was docketed, no Corporate Parent Report is accessible.

10/20/2010 13 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Berkshire Hathaway Inc. as Corporate
Parent. Document filed by American Express Company. (Received in the night deposit box on 10/20/10 at
9:31pm) (mro) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
• No Corporate Disclosure was docketed, and no Corporate Disclosure was authenticated by
the Clerk, in apparent violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• See also: Corporate Parent Report, below.
vii. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and related papers were not docketed
10/20/2010 14 MOTION to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Document filed by American Express Company, Ken
Chenault, Ash Gupta, Louise M. Parent. (Received in the night deposit box on 10/20/10 at 9:31pm)(mro)
(Entered: 10/21/2010)
10/20/2010 15 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by American Express
Company, Ken Chenault, Ash Gupta, Louise M. Parent. (Received in the night deposit box on 10/20/10 at
9:31pm) (mro) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
10/20/2010 16 DECLARATION of Joseph N. Sacca in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by American
Express Company, Ken Chenault, Ash Gupta, Louise M. Parent. (Received in the night deposit box on
10/20/10 at 9:31pm) (mro) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
• No records were linked to the docket notations for the Motion to Dismiss and related papers.
• Therefore, no authentication through an NEF could be possibly be issued by the office of the
Clerk.
The failure to link the Motion to Dismiss and related papers should be deemed part of a pattern
of arbitrary and capricious denial of public access to court records, in apparent violation of First
Amendment rights.
viii. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery was not docketed
Date # Docket Text
Filed
10/28/2010 19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Document filed by
American Express Company, Ken Chenault, Ash Gupta, Louise M. Parent. (Received in the night deposit
box on 10/28/10 at 7:27 pm) (mro) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
• No records were linked to the docket notations for the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Discovery.
• Therefore, no authentication of the record through an NEF could be possibly be issued by the
office of the Clerk.
The failure to link the Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Compel Discovery should be
deemed part of a pattern of arbitrary and capricious denial of public access to court records, in
apparent violation of First Amendment rights.
ix. No minutes were docketed in the case.

11/02/2010 Set Deadlines/Hearings: Replies due by 11/5/2010. (ae) (Entered: 11/02/2010)

11/23/2010 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Response due by 12/9/2010. Reply due by 12/23/2010.
(cd) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
• No docket numbers were designated and no records were linked to the docket notations,
copied above, which should have been incorporated as minutes.
• Therefore, no such records could possibly be authenticated.
x. No initial conference was conducted in the case.

The failure to conduct conference is alleged as violation of Plaintiff’s Due Process rights.
xi. Plaintiff was denied the right to conduct discovery

In litigation that was purportedly commenced in March 2010, Plaintiff has been denied to this
date the right to conduct discovery in alleged violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Due Process rights.
b) Other PACER reports

i. Related Transactions Report
• No record is linked to the March 15, 2010 “Summons Issued” (no Dkt #), and no termination
of the transaction is noted, either.
• The July 16, 2010 “Order” (Dkt #4), pertaining to execution of service of summons and
complaint is not listed as related to the summons and complaint.
• The August 18, 2010 “Order” (Dkt #5), pertaining to the execution of service of summons
and complaint is not listed as related to the summons and complaint.
• No record is linked to the August 31, 2010 “Amended Summons Issued” (no Dkt #), and no
termination of the transaction is noted, either.
• No record is linked to the October 15, 2010 “Marshal's Process Receipt and Return of
Service Executed Complaints”. (Dkt #9-12) Moreover, no mention is made of execution of
service of the summonses with the complaint, and no relationship is noted to the issuance of
the summonses.
• No records are linked to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and related papers (Dkt #14-16),
and the papers are not listed as related to the Complaint.
• The November 2, 2010 “Order” (Dkt #20), pertaining to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Discovery, is not listed as related to the Motion.
• No record is linked to the January 21, 2011 “Marshal's Process Receipt and Return of Service
Executed Complaints”. (Dkt #28) Moreover, no mention is given of execution of service of
summons with the complaint, and no relationship is noted to the issuance of amended
summons.
• The January 28, 2011 “Order” (Dkt #29) pertaining to the Motion to Dismiss in not listed as
related to the Motion to Dismiss.
ii. Docket Activity Report

• The Docket Activity Report is an essential tool for monitoring the validity and integrity of
the dockets of the US courts. No public access is permitted to the Docket Activity Report in
the US District Court, Southern District of New York. [ x ]
iii. Deadlines/Hearings
• Deadline of 8/13/2010 was set for the execution of service of the initial summons and
complaint. The service was noted neither as “Satisfied”, nor as “Terminated”. Regardless,
the Court did not dismiss the complaint within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
• Deadline of 09/13/2010 was set for the execution of service of the amended summonses and
complaint. The service was noted neither as “Satisfied”, nor as “Terminated”. Regardless,
the Court did not dismiss the complaint within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
• Deadline of 10/21/2010 was set for Answer. The Answer was not noted as either
“Satisfied” or “Terminated”.
iv. Corporate Parent Report

• The Corporate Parent Report is an essential tool in monitoring the validity and integrity of
the Docket Report. No public access is permitted to the Corporate Parent Report in the US
District Court, Southern District of New York. [ xi ]
v. Pending Statuses Report

• The report states: “There Are No Pending Status Records For This Case. No statuses have been terminated for this case.”
The Pending Statuses Report provides additional evidence that the entire docket, from its start, was
deemed invalid by the Court.
c) PACER records - conclusions

• The PACER docket as a whole should be deemed invalid, it was constructed by unauthorized
personnel, and critical records are missing, or failed to be authenticated.
• The PACER records show an arbitrary and capricious pattern of denial of public access to
court records, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. Of particular concern is the
denial of public access to the summonses as issued by the clerk, and the failure to
authenticate the summonses, since Fraud on the Court in the issuance of summonses in the
US courts has been documented in a number of other cases.
• The records as a whole are inconsistent with the Civil Litigation Management Manual of the
Judicial Conference of the United States. [ xii ] The docket provides evidence of numerous
alleged violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• The PACER docket and records are opined as false and deliberately misleading, deceptive
court records. Numerous records were meticulously generated, and a docket was constructed
and published online in a manner that would appear to the People and to the pro se Plaintiff
as if litigation was conducted in compliance with the law of the United States. In fact, upon
careful examination, the records provide evidence of litigation that was conducted from its
start in a manner that is deliberately invalid.
2. Further evidence of Fraud on the Court by US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK
in conduct of Lindner v Amex is likely to be discovered in the electronic certificates of
authentication/attestation by the Clerk (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing).
The electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk (NEFs) are critical for monitoring
the validity and integrity, or lack thereof, of the records and docket in Lindner v Amex. [ xiii ]
No access is permitted to the NEFs by the office of Clerk RUBY CRAJICK, US District Court,
Southern District of New York, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. [ xiv ]
Therefore, there is no way for the People and for pro se Plaintiff, who is not authorized in CM/ECF, to
ascertain that any of the records and the docket as a whole were deemed by the court itself as valid and
effectual.
Upon information and belief, it is further alleged that upon investigation and discovery it would be
found that no valid NEFs were issued for any of the minutes (to the degree that any minutes could be
deemed issued in the case), or the orders in the case.
Therefore, it is alleged that US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK colluded in the
issuance of null and void orders and the construction of a false and deliberately misleading docket in
Lindner v Amex.
3. The findings and allegations in Lindner v Amex match the findings and allegations of Fraud on the
Court by US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK in conduct of SEC v BAC.
In Lindner v Amex it is alleged that upon discovery of the NEFs and review of the records, it would be
concluded that the pro se Plaintiff was effectively denied access to the justice and to a National Tribunal for
Protection of Rights, pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead, the pro se Plaintiff was
subjected to pretense litigation.
In SEC v BAC the conduct of US Judge JED SAUL RAKOFF was alleged as violation of his Oaths of
Office, including, but not limited to, obstruction of justice, perversion of justice, adulteration of court
records, and/or fraud on the court and as enactment of pretense litigation, aimed to create the public
perception of enforcement of the law and banking regulation on Bank of America Corporation.
The evidence in SEC v BAC, documented conduct of US Judge JED SAUL RAKOFF including, but not
limited to:
• Appearance as a Presiding Judge with no Assignment Order and with no authority in the
litigation referenced above;
• Conducting proceedings with no recorded minutes;
• Conducting off the record proceedings;
• Issuing rulings and orders on motions, which were never docketed;
• Conducting the entire litigation in alleged violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The conduct of Clerk RUBY KRAJICK in SEC v BAC was previously alleged as violation of her Oath
of Office, including, but not limited to, denial of public access to court records, misprision of felonies,
and/or fraud on the court, through:
• Permitting the construction of a false and deliberately misleading PACER docket in the case by
unauthorized court personnel, and
• Denial of access to the summons and to the electronic certificates of authentication/attestation
(NEFs Notices of Electronic Filing) of minutes, orders, and the judgments.
Therefore, conduct of US Judge JED SAUL RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK in SEC v BAC was
alleged as violation of their Oaths of Office, including, but not limited to, obstruction of justice,
perversion of justice, adulteration of court records, and/or fraud on the court
The new records from Lindner v Amex, outlined above, show US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY
KRAJICK repeating the same pattern of conduct, previously seen in SEC v Bank of America
Corporation.
4. Therefore, the US Congress is called upon to perform its duties and initiate investigation/
impeachment proceedings against US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK of the US
District Court, Southern District of New York.
The conduct of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK in Lindner v Amex is alleged as
violation of their Oaths of Office, including, but not limited to:
a) Denial of Access to the Courts;
b) Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law;
c) Obstruction of justice;
d) Perversion of justice;
e) Adulteration of court records, and/or
f) Fraud on the court.
Overall, the records from SEC v BAC, outlined in Request No 1, combined with the records in from Lindner v
Amex, outlined in Request No 2, present a pattern of conduct by US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY
KRAJICK, which should be sufficient for impeachment for violation of their Oaths of Office.
Moreover, the evidence may also be sufficient for prosecution of US Judge JED RAKOFF, Clerk RUBY
KRAJICK, and others on charges of racketeering pursuant to 18 USC §1962, as conduct of an enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity, based on numerous predicated acts inherent in the dockets of
Lindner v Amex and SEC v Bank of America Corporation.
Therefore, the US Congress is respectfully requested to perform its duties and initiate investigation and
impeachment proceedings against US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK.
5. Combined, Lindner v Amex and SEC v BAC also document the fraud in design and operations of
PACER and CM/ECF as implemented in the US District Court, Southern District of New York
Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF (the online public access and case management systems) in the
US courts is the enabling tool for conduct, such as seen in SEC v BAC, Lindner v Amex, and other cases
in the US courts from coast to coast. [ xv , xvi , xvii , xviii , xix ]
Therefore, Human Rights Alert (NGO) calls upon the US Congress and the People to perform their
duties and initiate corrective actions:
• Restoring key provisions of the Salary Act of 1919, which placed the clerks of the US courts
under the authority of the US Attorney General:
At the time, conditions in the US courts were described in the US Congress as "a burlesque", and
the Salary Act was credited as a key measure in restoring the US courts’ integrity. It restored the
capacity of the clerks of the US courts as checks and balances vis a vis judicial corruption, which
was the reason for existence of the clerks since the late middle ages. By the mid 20th century the
clerks were again placed under the authority of the judiciary.
• Enactment of federal rules of electronic court:
As part of the transition to electronic administration of government, the US Congress passed the
E-Government Act (2002) [ xx ] and the E-Sign Act (2000). [ xxi ] The US Department of Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-12 (2004) further established policies for validation and
authentication of electronic systems and electronic records of the executive branch agencies.
[ xxii ] Standards were accordingly promulgated and applications were implemented.
[ xxiii , xxiv , xxv , xxvi ]
In contrast, the US Courts established PACER and CM/ECF (the online public access and case
management systems of the US courts), which are deliberately invalid and unauthenticated. As
part of the implementation of the systems, the public is routinely denied access to the electronic
authentication records (NEFs), which are integral part of court records. Therefore, the People
and pro se litigants (who are routinely denied access to CM/ECF) are denied the ability to
distinguish between judicial records, which are authenticated, valid, and effectual, and judicial
records, which are published by the courts, but are not authenticated, and are not deemed by the
courts themselves as valid and effectual.
In the process of implementing PACER and CM/ECF, a sea change was introduced in court
procedures, which had been established for centuries as the core of Due Process. However, all
US courts that were examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to
their new electronic procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights. Moreover, all courts
that were examined deny public access to various records in their electronic case management
systems in alleged violation of First Amendment rights.
Therefore, the US Congress should perform its duties and establish the electronic court systems
by law. Implicit in such law should be the requirement for publicly and legally accountable
validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems prior to their implementation.
• The People, and computing professionals in particular, should exercise their civic duties in
ongoing monitoring of the integrity of electronic court records:
The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme
Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing
so, the US Supreme Court stated that the right was necessary for the People "to keep a watchful eye on
government". Today, the People must keep a watchful eye on electronic court records in particular.
No other measure could substitute for scrutiny of court records by the People in safeguarding the
integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
6. Restoring the integrity of the US courts is quintessential for restoring Banking Regulation and
Human Rights during the ongoing financial crisis.
The conduct outlined in Lindner v American Express Company, in Securities and Exchange Committee v
Bank of America Corporation, and in other cases as well, documents the central role of the US courts in
undermining Banking Regulation and Civil Rights during the ongoing financial crisis. [xxvii ]
Like the Great Depression before it, the ongoing financial crisis is a system-wide integrity crisis in its
essence. Unless integrity of the justice systems is restored, socio-economic and civil society conditions in the
United States are unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future.
____
Your attention to these important matters is respectfully requested.
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 such help.
Notice was given to the Basel Accord Committee on international banking and the UN Human Rights
Council.
Dated: February 5, 2011
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) Basel Accords Committee
2) Various National Central Banks
3) United Nations Human Rights Council
Working Group on the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States.
LINKS
i
11-01-10 Request No 1 for investigation/impeachment of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District
Court, Southern District of New York, in re: Conduct of Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation
(1:09-cv-06829)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46616530/H
ii
10-12-08 Request No 1 for Investigation, Impeachment of RUBY KRAJICK, Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern
District of New York, in re: Conduct of Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44908376/
iii
Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - Pretense Litigation
and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States; filed in support of Request No 1 for impeachment of US Judge JED
RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York
iv
10-12-19 Addendum to Request No 1 for Investigation/impeachment of JUDGE RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US
District Court, Southern District of New York, in re: Conduct of Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America
Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)
v
11-02-05 Lindner v American Express Company (1:10-cv-02228) in the US District Court Southern District of New York: PACER
records
vi
For further discussion of practices of the US District Courts relative to electronic certificates of authentication/attestation
by the Clerk, see:
11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and
Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
vii
10-12-19 Addendum to Request No 1 for Investigation/impeachment of JUDGE RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US
District Court, Southern District of New York, in re: Conduct of Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America
Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)
viii
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 scheme - appearances by
counsel who are not Counsel of Record, with "no communications with clients" clause:
ix
x
For further review and discussion of access to various PACER reports in the US district courts across the United
States, see:
Zernik, J; The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts
xi
For further review and discussion of access to various PACER reports in the US district courts across the United
States, see:
xii
10-11-19 Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010), Judicial Conference of the United States Committee on Court
Administration
xiii
For further discussion of practices of the US District Courts relative to electronic certificates of
authentication/attestation by the Clerk, see:
xiv
11-01-10 Request No 1 for investigation/impeachment of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District
Court, Southern District of New York, in re: Conduct of Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation
(1:09-cv-06829)
xv
Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social
Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
xvi
xvii
10-10-30 Zernik, J Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts in the United States
xviii
11-01-08 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell' - Motion to Intervene, requesting the US Court of Appeals to dismiss the
appeals from an uncertified judgment, was posted in the docket, is now pending before the Court
xix
xx
03-01-07 E-Government Act (2002) HR2458 Final - USA
xxi
00-06-30 E-Sign Act (2000)
xxii
04-08-28 DHS _ Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12_ Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees
and Contractors - USA
xxiii
11-01-08 NIST-CSRC-Guidance on E-Sign Implementation in Federal Agencies
xxiv
05-08-05 m05-24- Office of Management and Budget: Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments and Agencies in re:
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 - USA
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46428607
xxv
06-09-07 Tumbleweed Validation Authority Secures FIPS 201 Certification - USA
xxvi
10-09-28 Innovative Uses of SCAP-Developing a Government-Funded SCAP-Validated Application/ Internal Revenue Service
/National Security Agency - USA
xxvii
11-02-03 Stealing from the People: Corruption in the United States; the Big Feast: Banker, Judge, Civil Servant

11-02-05 Request No 2 For Impeachment of Judge JED RAKOFF Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in Re Conduct of Lindner V Amex (1:10-cv-02228) S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11-02-05 Request No 2 For Impeachment of Judge JED RAKOFF Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in Re Conduct of Lindner V Amex (1:10-cv-02228) S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digitally signed

11-02-04 Request No 2 for investigation/impeachment of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk

Dear Congressmen Bachus, Dodd, Dreier, Leahy, and Smith:

i. No summonses were docketed, and no summonses were electronically authenticated.

v. No execution of service was docketed.

vi. No Corporate Disclosure was docketed, no Corporate Parent Report is accessible.

ix. No minutes were docketed in the case.

11/02/2010 Set Deadlines/Hearings: Replies due by 11/5/2010. (ae) (Entered: 11/02/2010)

x. No initial conference was conducted in the case.

xi. Plaintiff was denied the right to conduct discovery

b) Other PACER reports

ii. Docket Activity Report

iv. Corporate Parent Report

v. Pending Statuses Report

c) PACER records - conclusions

Dated: February 5, 2011

By: Joseph Zernik, PhD

You might also like