Human Rights Alert
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog:
Scribd:
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
(1:09-cv-06829), a Securities Fraud matter. [
,
,
,
] 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
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US Date: 2011.02.05 23:11:09 +02'00'
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
]
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). [
]
•
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. [
]
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.
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
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).
Page 3/11 February 5, 2011
•
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.
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
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
. [
]
•
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
. [
]
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.
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
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. Document filed by Peter Lindner. (mro) (Entered: 10/18/2010) 10/15/2010 11 MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Amended 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) 10/15/2010 12 MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Amended Complaint served. Ken Chenault 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) 01/21/2011 28 MARSHAL'S PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED Summons and Amended 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).