Email in from Joe Zernik
Complaint Alleging Racketeering by Bank of America and Brian Moynihan Pending Before Comptroller of the Currency
Washington DC, May 28 – in letter to Comptroller of the Currency – John Dugan and to Deputy Comptroller – Kevin Bailey, their personal attention was requested in effort to obtain an honest, valid response from the Office of Comptroller of the Currency on complaint #01070442 against Bank of America and its President - Brian Moynihan, where conduct was alleged, which amounted to racketeering. More.. For over two and a half years Bank of America and Countrywide before it employed illicit court appearances by false counsel, who was not counsel of records. It was a repeat of a routine which was rebuked by the Hon Jeff Bohm, US Bankruptcy Judge in Houston Texas, in his March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion.
 Countrywide made promises to Judge Bohm not engage in such fraud in the courtrooms any longer. Regardless, the letter claimed that Bank of America continued the practice to this date at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, through appearances of false counsel under the false party designation of "NON PARTY" under caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). Such appearances in the past two and a half years were alleged as part of obstruction and extortion.
 Such conduct was also incompatible with the stated Outside Counsel Procedures of Bank of America.
 Of particular concern was the fact that whereas such practices were halted under the tenure of Timothy Mayopoulos as General Counsel of Bank of America, they were resumed within 24 hours after the December 10, 2008 ouster of Mr Mayopoulos and the appointment of Brian Moynihan to replace him as General Counsel.
Following long delays in response by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Case #01070442, assistance was requested by the Hon Dianne Feinstein, Senator from California. Through the good offices of the Senator, a May 10, 2010 letter was finally obtained from the Comptroller of the Currency, which was purported to be a response on Case #01070442.
 However, upon review, such response appeared invalid and false on its face, as detailed in the May 28, 2010 letter to the office of the Senator.
Therefore, the help of the good offices of Senator Feinstein was again sought in obtaining a valid, verified response from the Comptroller of the Currency on the complaint against Bank of America and Brian Moynihan, Case #01070442.
The letter to Comptroller Dugan and Deputy Comptroller Bailey was copied to House and Senate Banking Committees. John Dugan and other banking regulators repeatedly promised the US Congress to “shore up” US banking regulation. The letter was also copied to the Basel Accords Committee on international banking. Conduct of the US is claimed to stand contrary to its duties and obligation in international law and accords.
 March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by Judge Jeff Bohm - rebuking litigation practices of Countrywide.
 May 5, 2010 Countrywide, Bank of America and its President Brian Moynihan - Compilation of Records - Evidence of Racketeering
 December 11, 2008 Bank of America Outside Counsel Procedures
 May 10, 2010 letter by Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, purported as response on Case #01070442
 May 28, 2010 Request filed with Senator Feinstein for help in obtaining a valid, verified response from Comptroller of the Currency on Case #01070442 against Bank of America.
* * * *
* * * *
Emailed into me from Joe Zernik, June 3, 2010:
Added 21 October, 2009, 02:28 AM
Author: Secretary SPCA
Victorias lawyers being sued in landmark test case
Thursday 15 October 2009
*** MEDIA RELEASE
*** NO EMBARGO
A senior human rights lawyer has joined the backlash of criticism of Victoria's lawyers and judges including recent damning criticisms by Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland and Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls.
Human rights lawyer and activist James Johnson from law firm Sutton Lawyers has launched a test case to confirm that, thanks to the new Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, Victorians can
now for the first time sue Australian barristers and solicitors for negligence and other improper conduct in Court proceedings - even if other Australian's are not as lucky.
Mr Johnson alleges that he was disadvantaged by the negligent and unethical practices of lawyers during recent legal proceedings. Now, in a landmark test case Mr Johnson is testing the new human rights laws,
suing the Minister for Human Services Usa Neville, 4 family law lawyers and a family law court judge. "Australia's barristers and litigation solicitors are the only professionals who are not legally liable for negligence in the work place," he said. "This situation no longer exists in other English speaking legal systems.
Laws in Britain, the US, Canada and a host of European countries have removed lawyers' immunities, and citizens in those countries are able to sue lawyers over their actions, words and conduct in court."
The announcement of Mr Johnson's test case comes not long after the publication of a damning report by Victorian State Ombudsman George Brouwer reporting on large scale misconduct and incompetence by
Victoria's peak legal regulator, Victorian Legal Services Commissioner Ms Victoria Marles, who has subsequently tendered her resignation.
Mr Johnson says that basic human rights, including the right to a fair trial and the principle of equality under the law are key rights guaranteed by Mr Hull's Human Rights Charter. Mr Johnson claims that during the recent Court proceedings he suffered substantial injustice when he was denied these basic human rights. "Special laws made by judges protecting lawyers from negligence claims have always been incompatible with the basic human right of equality under the law. Basic rights to a fair hearing are also undermined when barristers are able to get away with negligent, unethical and even fraudulent misconduct."
"These special laws just for lawyers have bred arrogance among a small group of lawyers and it flies in the face of Victoria's Charter of Human Rights," he said. "Our Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls has publicly criticised judges for their aloofness has been demanding cultural change. But these same cultural attitudes of superiority are prevalent throughout the legal profession. Barristers and solicitors and not just judges need to undergo urgent cultural change. We have a situation where a small number of negligent and corrupt lawyers are causing irreparable damage to the professional images of a majority of hard-working, ethical and competent lawyers. And the legal professional bodies and regulators are slow to respond to the problem."
Other prominent lawyers have expressed the same kinds of concerns as Mr Johnson. Retired Victorian
Supreme Court Judge, Professor George Hampel has been a long time advocate of universal professional negligence laws, arguing that it is for the good of the profession as well as for the good of the public, that negligence laws should not discriminate in favour of lawyers.
Retired High Court Justice Michael Kirby also been vocal in criticisng this historical defect in Australian's professional negligence laws working in favour of lawyers. He served up a strong rebuke to his fellow judges and lawyers in 2005, the last time the High Court heard a case challenging for the right to sue a barrister for negligence.
"I question why an anomalous immunity is not only preserved in Australia but now actually enlarged by a binding legal rule that will include out-of-court advisings and extend to protect solicitors as well as barristers," he wrote. 'With all due respect to those of the contrary view, I regard such a decision as legally erroneous, unwarranted and unworthy.""Over the course of a century, (the High Court) has heard countless cases in which negligence has been alleged against professional and other skilled persons. Thus, it has held to legal account architects, civil engineers, dental surgeons, and specialist physicians and surgeons, anaesthetists, electrical contractors, persons providing financial advice, police officers, builders, pilots solicitors (in respect of out-of-court advice) and teachers," he said, saying it was impossible to see how lawyers could justify special treatment by the law.
But in 2005 the majority of other Judges sitting on the High Court disagreed. They noted that, unlike the United Kingdom, Australia did not yet have a national Bill of Rights. Mr Johnson said that "Back in 2005 the absence of a national Bill of Rights allowed wriggle room for the majority of the High Court Judges to rule that Victoria's barristers and solicitors, including me, were somehow special compared to all other Australian professionals.
The High Court, by a majority went against the international trend to put lawyers on the same legal status as everyone else. Over Justice Kirby's critcisms they extended the law to protect Victoria's
litigation solicitors, not just Victoria's barristers, from professional negligence law suits."
Australia today is one of only three countries (along with Burma and Chile) that still doesn't have a national Bill of Human Rights. But, as Mr Johnson points out, Victoria now has a Charter of Human Rights and
According to Mr Johnson "Justice Kirby delivered a strongly written rebuke to his fellow Judges, saying that these laws keeping special legal protection for lawyers was nothing more than what he called an 'inadmissible empathy' - a 'sympathetic understanding confined to lawyers', because Australian judges are themselves lawyers. The outrageousness of the special protection speaks for itself since these bad laws have been removed in all other English speaking countries.
Justice Kirby said that this excuse 'will not do'. And there are many honest, dedicated lawyers who agree with him."
"Equality under the law, the 'rule of law' is the single biggest contribution the English legal system has made to democracy, world peace and prosperity. It is something that English judges and courts have championed for hundreds of years - well before Attorney-General Hull's Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. And yet, somehow, English judges managed to create laws protecting English lawyers from being sued for negligence and a whole range of other kinds of misconduct during court proceedings.
Then, somehow, while ever other English speaking country realised during the 20th century that these special laws were wrong and removed them, in 2005 Australia's judges actually went with new laws discriminating even more favourably in favour of Australian lawyers.
According to Mr Johnson "The challenge for human rights lawyers and advocates will be if this test case is not successful. Special laws protecting negligent barristers and solicitors from being sued are a major, if not fatal, road block to the introduction of human rights laws. Whether we are talking about the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, which is existing law, or we are talking about a future Bill of Rights for Australia. If our lawyers wont accept something as basic as equal liability under professional negligence laws they can hardly be counted on to stand up and protect Australian's against other human rights violations either.
It is no coincidence that Australia has the third worst human rights records amongst the 132 members of the United Nations."
Mr Johnson hopes that his test case will bring Australia's laws, and Australian lawyers, into line with standards in other English speaking countries. "Australia's lawyers and professional bodies should be welcoming and encouraging this reform just as English lawyers did in 2000. New laws, demonstrated by a handful of cases requiring a few unethical lawyers to compensate people they have wronged will do wonders to improve public faith in the integrity of the legal profession."
MEDIA ENQUIRIES - BY TEXT MESSAGE TO: 0433255 177
* * * *
Steven G. Erickson's links on the above subject:
* * * *
[click here] for:
This post is narrated in a liveleak.com video:
Is the EPA more concerned with putting your local handyman out of business, more so than regulating out of control corporations?
US War on Handymen?
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
Imagine having Banksters stealing millions from you and a judge who conspired with them puts you in prison to cover up the crime. Richard Hettler doesn't have to imagine that. Law enforcement officials came to his house putting guns to his head telling him not to lodge complaints against the judge in his case.
Richard Hettler's testimony to Congress and the US Senate, regarding Petters and the Banking Scandals
[click here] for:
I just talked by phone with a victim who was swindled out of millions. He says Tom Petters probably bought one of his airplanes just with the millions, he stole from him. There are countless other victims, and complicit judges are the main culprits for this abuse being so blatant and widespread. US Congressman and US Senators, such as Patrich Leahy, have been informed of this problem. There are a number of us out to film and document these courageous efforts.
Are judges the enablers of the nationwide banking scandal? Would a judge send out law enforcement out to a victim who had millions stolen by banksters and their judge associates, putting guns to his head telling him to be quiet? Scroll down to the bottom of this post for the 2nd video from the bottom:
* * * *
Added June 6, 2010, email in from Joe Zernik:
Abstract: The US federal courts have completed a decade-long project of networking coast to coast through a dual online public access and case management systems. Data mining was conducted through the online public access system. The records were found universally missing their authentication instruments, required by law to render them valid and effectual. Authentication instruments – previously public records – were now excluded from public access and delegated instead to the case management system. Further review revealed that records, which are today posted online in the public access system were a mixed population of authenticated and unauthenticated records, albeit – the public was unable to discern the difference. It is proposed that government networks, which are critical for the safeguard of Human Rights must be subjected to publicly-accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification). Mandated system transparency would permit ongoing public data mining – a prerequisite for integrity of the courts in the digital era.
Dear Chief Judge Collins, Judge Phillips, Judge Walter, and Magistrate Woehrle:
Linked is a draft of " Data Mining of the Online Records of the Networked US Federal Courts"-  the second of two papers  that are being prepared for submission to an international scholarly conferences in the engineering/computing field. I would be grateful if you could comment on the draft, particularly on any inaccuracies from the legal perspective by the end of next week, June 11, 2010, so that I would be able to incorporate your comments into the final paper.
This paper was much more complex, and any comments would be appreciated.
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
* * * *
This blogger's email:
To share this post with a friend, click on white envelope below.