Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    Human Rights Alert

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    - The document discusses potential impeachable misconduct by US Judge JED RAKOFF in the case SEC v Bank of America Corporation. - It notes that similar conduct by another judge led to impeachment proceedings, and that whistleblowers who expose problems often face retaliation like imprisonment. - The document questions why media outlets did not more thoroughly scrutinize problems with records and proceedings in the SEC v BAC case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Human Rights Alert

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    138 views2 pages
    - The document discusses potential impeachable misconduct by US Judge JED RAKOFF in the case SEC v Bank of America Corporation. - It notes that similar conduct by another judge led to impeachment proceedings, and that whistleblowers who expose problems often face retaliation like imprisonment. - The document questions why media outlets did not more thoroughly scrutinize problems with records and proceedings in the SEC v BAC case.

    Original Description:

    Also see beginning of the discussion under: http://www.scribd.com/doc/41871013/

    Original Title

    10-11-11 SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) US District Court, Southern District of NY: Did US Judge JED RAKOFF Engage in Impeachable Misconduct?

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The document discusses potential impeachable misconduct by US Judge JED RAKOFF in the case SEC v Bank of America Corporation. - It notes that similar conduct by another judge led to impeachment proceedings, and that whistleblowers who expose problems often face retaliation like imprisonment. - The document questions why media outlets did not more thoroughly scrutinize problems with records and proceedings in the SEC v BAC case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    138 views2 pages

    Human Rights Alert

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    - The document discusses potential impeachable misconduct by US Judge JED RAKOFF in the case SEC v Bank of America Corporation. - It notes that similar conduct by another judge led to impeachment proceedings, and that whistleblowers who expose problems often face retaliation like imprisonment. - The document questions why media outlets did not more thoroughly scrutinize problems with records and proceedings in the SEC v BAC case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    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: [email protected] arthlink.net, c=US
    Date: 2010.11.14
    Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 23:57:59 +02'00'
    Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

    10-11-11 Did US Judge JED RAKOFF engage in IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT?


    Further discussion of SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)

    US Judge JED RAKOFF

    Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 58 minutes ago


    Someone expressed confusion about the L. A. court system. With problems in the federal district court,
    southern district of New York, I would hope that the media covering the case looks into problems with
    attendant paperwork. Very few journalists went to law school, not like Bill Curtis on CBS TV who covered
    the Charlie Manson trial.
    Andrew

    Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA just now


    Hi Dr Jackson:
    I am glad that we got some of the minor confusion and distraction out of the way:
    a) The paper, which was published in computer science, peer-reviewed journal opined computer fraud in
    the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF from coast to coast.
    b) Also a previous example - the habeas corpus of Richard Fine - opined as Fraud on the Court as well -
    was in a US District Court. Therefore, California budget deficits were irrelevant there, and are irrelevant in
    the case of SEC v BAC as well. In fact, PACER and CM/ECF were implemented in a decade long project of
    the Administrative Office of the US Courts, which was concluded a couple of years ago, at the estimated
    cost of low $ billions. For the same money, one could easily design a valid and honest system. A system
    where all authentication records are concealed from public access is not cheaper, possibly more expensive.
    Regardless, there were numerous features in design of the systems that were indicative of deliberate intent
    to mislead - hence fraud.
    c) As you know, I am not an attorney either. The review in the paper, recently submitted for a peer-reviewed
    international law journal, was not a legal review, but of clerical nature. You did not have to be a rocket
    scientist to look at the docket of SEC v BAC at the US District Court in New York to figure out that it did not
    resemble any kind of valid litigation. One should assume that legal reporters of major media outlets at least
    are experienced at looking at dockets. Furthermore, media were repeatedly informed during the litigation of
    its fraudulent nature. Regardless, such media continued to report the case as if there was no concern
    regarding validity and integrity of the records.
    JZ

    Hi again Dr Jackson:
    Let's get back to the core issue -
    z Page 2/2 November 14, 2010

    CONDUCT OF JUDGE JED RAKOFF IN SEC v BAC


    Not being an attorney - I believe that conduct of Judge Rakoff - a judge of the highest reputation - in the
    case of SEC v BAC was of the type that is Impeachable Misconduct. Similar conduct by Judge Manuel
    Real at the US District Court, Central District of California, in a case that had minimal public policy
    significance, led to the initiation of Impeachment Proceedings at the US Congress.
    A plausible explanations for conduct of media is in concern regarding retaliation. Attorney Steven Yagman
    exposed and complained about the conduct of Judge Manuel Real. Within a few months Attorney Yagman
    landed in federal prison for several years - on tax evasion of the order of $100,000, which some claimed
    would have been resolved with fines in other cases. In his sentencing hearing he quoted Kafka "a cage
    went looking for a bird",,,
    It is the standard treatment of whistleblowers in the US in recent years...
    Former US prosecutor Richard Fine's case provided yet another example. He exposed and rebuked the
    fact that all judges in Los Angeles County, California, took for 10 years "not permitted" payments (called by
    media "bribes"), which required the enactment of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.
    Richard Fine landed in 18 months of solitary confinement with no warrant, no judgment/conviction or
    sentencing ever entered in his case.
    Most journalists are probably not that brave...
    JZ

    You might also like