Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Comment to Vermont US Senator Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders writes about Barack Obama and out of control corporations, [here] on The below text is my comment to it.

James Corbett of the Corbett report talks about the birth of Big Oil and how corporate pirates have taken over the US Government, video embedded here.

Policing and the Courts are for big, bad government, and for the banking and corporate cartels, not us. Homeland Security type State Police Officers are paid 6 figures to file false police reports, commit perjury, and go after the self-employed, contractors, small business owners, and investment property owners for organized crime and a government covert program.

On average 70% of wealth is lost in divorce. That is criminal and is proof lawyers have control of government for themselves and for corporations. This robbery alone is helping crash the economy.

A Brattleboro Vermont used car salesman who sexually assaults and harasses male employees also rips customers off along with his salespeople. I sued him in small claims. His claim to fame is being a cocaine dealer with links to organized crime, saying he owns the courts and police. I sued him, judges waited to the last minute to recuse themselves, I had to serve him 3 times for the same case, and it took 3 months to get an answer that nothing was to be awarded. Courts are a scam. No wonder Obama on down have no fear of breaking laws.

If Congress and the Senate can't act for the will of the people, having no ground wars in Libya and other countries, for illegal corporate banking cartel occupation, why should that puppet show continue?

-stevengerickson AT Yahoo Dot Com

* * * *


Monday, June 20, 2011

Systemic Court System Failure

I received the below by email, The Richard I Fine case is proof that judges can act in concert as organized criminals, to cover up corporate banking fraud, to obstruct justice, and as a retaliation tool of a Police State.

Request for investigation/impeachment, in re: Conduct of Alleged Simulated Litigation in Richard I Fine v State Bar of California et al (2:10-cv-00048), in the US District Court, Central District of California

The case originated in Fine’s individual case, alleging conspiracy by California judges and others, as part of intimidation, harassment, and retaliation. The case also reflects conduct of a racketeering enterprise, the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket), its patronizing by certain US judges in the US District Court, Central District of California, and the large-scale fraud in the design and operation of the electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF.
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine
Los Angeles, June 20 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) filed complaint with the US Congress and with the US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, against US Judge JOHN WALTER, US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE, Clerk of the Court TERRY NAFISI, and others in the US District Court, Central District of California, alleging public corruption through the conduct of simulated litigation [[i]] in Richard I Fine v State Bar of California et al (2:10-cv-00048). [[ii]]
Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in analyzing fraud in state and US court records in recent years. His opinions were repeatedly supported by highly reputed experts. [[iii]]
Richard I Fine v State Bar of California et al originated in Fine’s complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law (42 US §1983), alleging the circumstances, where California Judges illegally conspired against him at the behest of the State Bar officials, Los Angeles County government officials, and lawyers for the developers, who opposed him in the courtroom. [[iv]]

However, the affair as a whole should be deemed part of the intimidation, harassment, and retaliation against the former US prosecutor Richard Fine. Following his protest of the corruption of California judges, he was held in solitary confinement for 18 months, starting March 2009, with no warrant ever issued, and no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered in his case. Eventually, he was released with no valid court order, either. [[v]]
The complaint further alleged that the case reflects conduct of a racketeering enterprise, the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket), which undermines the rights of all 10 millions, who reside in Los Angeles County, in particular, and residents of California, in general. Conduct of the Los Angeles courts in both the civil and criminal divisions was the core evidence, submitted by Dr Zernik to the United Nations, which the 2010 Human Rights Council report, which noted, “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California”. [[vi],[vii]]

The complaint also provides further evidence of the large-scale fraud in the design and operation of the public access and case management systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF, [[viii]] and patronizing of the LA-JR by certain US judges in the US District Court, Central District of California. [[ix],[x],[xi]]
A pattern of false and deliberately misleading court records is found in the case of Richard I Fine v State Bar of California et al (2:10-cv-00048):
  • Clerk of the Court TERRY NAFISI refuses to certify any of the PACER dockets of the court;
  • No valid summonses are found in the docket, in alleged violation of Duties of the Clerk pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
  • No Civil Cover Sheet is found in the docket, which is required for the opening of a civil docket;
  • No valid Assignment Order for Judge JOHN WALTER is found in the docket;
  • No valid Referral Order for Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE is found in the docket;
  • Numerous entries in the docket are by Ms DONNA THOMAS, who upon information and belief is not a Deputy Clerk, and Clerk of the Court TERRY NAFISI has denied numerous requests to confirm or deny DONNA THOMAS’s authority as a Deputy Clerk;
  • The Clerk of the Court routinely denies access to the electronic authentication records (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing), and in similar cases, where the same persons were accused, all NEFs were eventually discovered to be invalid;
  • Attorney KEVIN MCCORMICK, who appears in this case on behalf of the Defendants, falsely appeared on behalf of related defendants in a related case, with no authority at all, and
  • No declaration or any other record signed by any of the Defendants is found in the pleading filed on their behalf, consistent with conduct of simulated litigation, and appearance by an unauthorized attorney.
The case should be deemed of the highest public policy significance, since it holds at bay the prospect of any honest court services in Los Angeles County, in particular, and in California, in general. Of note, the 2010 official Staff Report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations referred to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

The case also reflects the fraud inherent in the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF, the public access and case management systems of the US courts.
The complaint was copied to the US Congress Judiciary Committees and the Human Rights Council of the United Nations.


[i] Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
The practice is widespread in both the state and US courts at all levels.
[ii] 11-06-20 Impeachments Investigation of Judge John Walter, Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Clerk Terry Nafisi, and others in the US District Court, Central District of California, in re:Fine v State Bar (2:10-cv-00048) s
[iii] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
[iv] Richard I Fine v State Bar of California et al (2:10-cv-00048) in the US District Court, Central District of California: See [ii], above.
[v] 11-04-23 Habeas Corpus in the United States - the case of Richard Isaac Fine
[vi] 11-01-07 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California: Widespread Public Corruption and Refusal of US Department of Justice to Take Action
[vii] For review of the LA-JR see also United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) submission of Human Rights Alert (NGO) as part of the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States:
1) Press Release:
2) Submission:
3) Appendix:
4) 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession".
[viii] 11-06-02 DRAFT Request for US Attorney General Eric Holder's investigation of Integrity, or lack thereof, of electronic record systems of the US courts
[ix] Complaints/requests for impeachment: See [xiv], above.
[ix] See also review of alleged fraud and racketeering by Woehrle, Nafisi, Thomas, and others in conduct of simulated litigation of Zernik v Connor et al (08-cv-01550), where a group of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were alleged of conduct amounting to racketeering:
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
[x] Complaints/requests for impeachment:
10-07-04 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George – for public corruption, deprivation of civil rights under the color of law – Pertaining to Habeas Corpus Petition of 70 Year Old Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine.
10-07-12 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Complaint against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others at the US District Court, Central District of California – for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights:
10-12-07 Request for Investigation and if Appropriate - Impeachment Proceedings - against TERRY NAFISI - Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California s
10-12-04 RE: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE - Request for Investigation, Impeachment Proceedings Where Appropriate s
[xi] See also review of alleged fraud and racketeering by Woehrle, Nafisi, Thomas, and others in conduct of simulated litigation of Zernik v Connor et al (08-cv-01550), where a group of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were alleged of conduct amounting to racketeering:
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

* * * *
* * * *

This blogger's email: stevengerickson AT yahoo dot com

* * * *

[click here] for:

Judge Kozinski's "Naked Women Painted as Cows"

Justice Alex Kozinski


Private Prisons and the American Police State

The below re-posted from [source]

By Steven Forrest (about the author)

In the last few decades, the population of our National Prisons has nearly tripled. This phenomenon can be attributed to many factors ranging from the increasing economic insecurity to the War on Drugs. Statistics tell us that 1 in 18 American men are now incarcerated or being monitored. Although this number could be reasonably justified as a reflection of our social morality breakdown, America still leads the world in per capita imprisonment and the privatization of the our corrections system calls into question the motives behind tougher sentencing and the ever increasing police state in this country.

Since 1980, the increase of population in prisons or under surveillance by the judicial system has increased to over 7 million persons. This increase is said to be attributable to the following factors:

  1. Increased federalization of crime - The federal government has expanded its control into areas that have historically fallen under state jurisdiction.
  1. Mandatory sentencing policy - Mandatory minimum sentencing policies adopted by Congress beginning in 1984 have contributed substantially to the number of drug offenders in federal prison, both by removing discretion from sentencing judges and increasing the length of sentence for many offenders.
  1. Federal sentencing guidelines - An examination of sentencing changes in the first years of the guidelines' implementation found that the proportion of offenders sentenced to prison rose from 52% in pre-guideline cases in 1986 to 74% in guideline cases by 1990.

What is interesting is how the population increase per year has leveled off to"only" a 51% increase annually. Some will use this statistic to congratulate the growing police state and mandatory sentencing structure but the real reason is a profound lack of new prisons to house the inmates. Couple this with the recent California Supreme Court Case ruling on prison overcrowding and the need for more prisons and their associative costs becomes a dilemma needing to be addressed.

As Dana Joel explains:

"As a national average, it costs roughly $20,000 per year to keep an inmate in prison. There are approximately 650,000 inmates in state and local prisons, double the number five years ago. This costs taxpayers an estimated $18 billion each year. More than two thirds of the states are facing serious overcrowding problems, and many are operating at least 50 percent over capacity."

As evidence of this overcrowding problem; the California Supreme Court recently ruled that overcrowding was unconstitutional because it results in "cruel and unusual punishment," a violation of the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment. This translates to mean either the prisons release a portion of its population or it must finds ways to maintain the present prison nation many of our citizens exist in.

In her article, Joel goes on to explain what she believes is the impetus for the drastic increase in prison populations:

Destruction of the Family & Marriage . The destruction or non-formation of the two-parent family is heavily correlated with increased levels of juvenile delinquency and crime.

Illegal Drugs & the War on Drugs . New illegal drugs or new forms of those drugs were discovered and developed. A War on Drugs swelled the prison population. Unlike real war combatants who destroy or disable their enemies, the government only puts the enemy in cages temporarily, and then releases drug war POWs to fight another day.

Abolition of Parole in the Federal System . The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole in the federal system, sought to eliminate huge sentencing disparities, basically made all federal sentences determinate, rejected "imprisonment as a means of promoting rehabilitation," and said "punishment should serve retributive, educational, deterrent, and incapacitative goals."

Mandatory Minimum Sentences . The federal government and states enacted various mandatory minimum sentence laws, requiring judges to impose minimum sentences for designated crimes, including drug crimes.

Three-Strikes Habitual Offender Laws . Three-strikes habitual offender laws in many states mandated life sentences after the third felony conviction.

Incarceration of the Mentally Ill . As mental hospitals de-institutionalized and drastically reduced the number of their patients, the mentally ill increasingly wound up in prison. Mentally ill people in large numbers changed from institutionalization in state mental hospitals to incarceration in state prisons. Around 16% of the current American prison population is mentally ill.

On the last factor: The current push by Congressional members at both the Federal and State level to defund social programs dealing with mental health care creates an even grater need for not only prison beds but more established medical care facilities within them. More and more institutions under the control of the Department of Corrections are being opened to replace this standard, social model. Instead of help, the mentally ill receive jail time. In a society where the new normal has become self-indulgence over the care of one's Earth bound brothers and sisters, this makes perfect sense but in the real world, it is a travesty of epic proportion.

As a population becomes more and more dense, the struggles to survive become greater and aggression increases within the social strata. This correlation creates a situation where crime rates increase dramatically, prompting the police force to increase proportionately. The result of the ensuing insanity is a judicial system which becomes overburdened with criminal case loads and by proxy, more people are sent to prison or into the controlling probation system.

This is the current, standard model of the crime/population ratio but today, we are facing less than standard conditions, leading to an even greater problem within the judicial system. Not only is the human rights issue and the legal enslavement of people at the forefront, the financial burden on Federal government becomes enormous.

To compensate for the decrease of federal dollars going to the care of prisoners and to sate the requirements for more space by a growing police state, the Department of Corrections began to look elsewhere for financing of in its endeavors to continue the incarceration of so many of our people.

It would of course, make too much sense for our government to reform sentencing and fix our broken judicial system. In lieu of otherwise, reasonable solutions, the D.O.C., operating within the insanity of our corrupt political system, has opened up the market to for-profit based companies to invest in it.

Joel explains this relationship:

"An example (of corporate run prisons) is General Electric Government Services, a subsidiary of General Electric Company, which took over RCA Service Company two years ago. General Electric Government Services now runs the Weaversville Intensive Treatment Unit, a juvenile institution in Pennsylvania established by RCA Service Company in 1975.

Responding to Pennsylvania's urgent request for a high-security juvenile facility, RCA converted an empty state-owned building into a correction center in just ten days and positioned its staff to run the operation. In addition to the Weaversville Center, General Electric Government Services runs the Evaluation and Treatment Center in Rhode Island and the Bensalem Youth Development Center in Pennsylvania. Another significant development is the growth of joint venture agreements between local firms and national corporations."

So now, not only is General Electric one of the largest weapons manufacturer s in the U.S. and seemingly tax exempt from Federal rolls, they are now investing heavily in the private prison industry. (One cannot help but see the philosophical parallel to the imprisonment of our Nation in our current prison of National debt and the decreasing personal, financial security as its corporate controllers attack education and worker representation.)

U.S. Corrections Corporation, a private company headquartered in Louisville to date, runs over 60 prisons in about 20 U.S. states plus Washington, DC. CCA has contracts with federal, state, and local governments to run the prisons. The company owns most of the facilities and provides rehabilitation services for inmates. Begun in 1983, it is the largest prison corporation in the U.S. Only the federal government and three states have larger prison systems. The company trades on the New York Stock Exchange with the symbol CXW. In 2006, revenue was $1.3 billion with profits of $105 million.

With numbers like these, it is no mystery why the soulless machine of Capitalism would attach itself to this new form of human usury. How many people have to be imprisoned to satisfy this insatiable machine? In this age of degrading social morals and political ethics, one would easily be led to believe this form of prisoner slavery is a new one but it is not. In 1893, Fredrick Douglas wrote of this system being in place and using the black culture as the largest contributor to it.

Today, the system has not changed much. Still, the ratio of black inmates to the rest of the prison population is imbalanced and prisoners are still working for the man. One could justifiably argue that it teaches work ethic, responsibility and serves as payment on their debt to society but when this debt payment becomes the profit of the corporate interest; the means do not justify the ends especially considering how many "free men" are out of work right now.

To this author, the symbolic poignancy of this reality confirms the growing opinion that the corporatists want the American worker to be as slave labor by way of China's efficient model. In the same way that NAFTA effectively lowered farm worker's pay scale in America and Mexico, this new prison labor system is allowing jobs normally held by freemen to be given to this growing, slave labor market.

With the abolition of Union representation and the ongoing "attraction" of business into individual States, the issue of labor costs and tax breaks working in concert, have come to the forefront in the political game of American industry reclamation. With prisons providing workers and States, tax breaks through defunding social programs, even our private lives have become prisons of their own. The jailers have taken the form of CEOs and Governor's paid for by them. The main difference though, is this prison often does not provide "three hots and a cot".

Instead of reducing Federal and State sentencing mandates and increasing funding to help our citizens cope with an increasingly stressful social environment through outreach programs, those who are supposed to be representing and protecting our freedoms have made concessions to corporations in order to increase the number of prisons in our country and their associated free labor pool.

Does this remind anyone of any time in the History of our Nation when labor was used to the benefit of the Landowners and not the labor force? If it doesn't, you may want to pick up a history book and read about pre-Civil War days when decades of slavery created a great deal of wealth for a few while imprisoning an entire people. Maybe then you will realize the damaging course this nation has embarked upon. They say history is cyclical and no where is this more horrifying than in our present Incarceration Nation.

This article was originally written for an interview with New Dissident Radio's Lakota Phillips on Breaking Taboo.

* * * *
* * * *


Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Should the Government make you give them keys to your home?

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on Jun 14, 2011

Ordinance Would Force Property Owners to Surrender Keys to Government

Kurt Nimmo
June 13, 2011

In Cedar Falls, Iowa, the government is attempting to nullify the Fourth Amendment. The City Council is scheduled to vote on the third and final reading of an ordinance adopting a 2009 International Fire Code that specifies the fire chief can require lock boxes for emergency access to keys to buildings.

According to the WCF Courier, the Cedar Falls ordinance would require lock boxes be installed on commercial buildings and apartment buildings with three or more separate units. Since 2004 the city has required the boxes for commercial buildings with alarm systems and apartment buildings with six or more units.

Ordinance Would Force Property Owners to Surrender Keys to Government - Alex Jones Tv

* * * *

[click here] for:

US Internet/Cell Phone Kill Switch USED!

Friday, June 10, 2011

Shining Light on US Judicial Corruption

The below is re-posted from, [original source]

Prosecution Against Drake Collapses; Drake Pleads to Minor Charge

By Jesselyn Radack Posted by (about the submitter)

The Justice Department's case against National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblowerTom Drake was a case built on sand that collapsed under the weight of the truth.

Bravo Tom Drake, for refusing to compromise on the truth, standing firm for our Constitution, and responding to government's outrageous allegations with poise and honesty.

The Justice Department sought to put Drake in jail for 35 years and accused him of violating the Espionage Act. Instead, Drake will plead this morning (just days before he was to begin trial) to a minor misdemeanor, exceeding authorized use of a government computer, with the government agreeing to no jail time and no fine. This is an unambiguous victory for Drake , who has endured the most severe from of whistleblower retaliation I have ever seen. The Justice Department's decision to prosecute Drake was pure retribution for his blowing the whistle on massive NSA waste and illegality, and the government's glaring defeat is a victory for whistleblowers who refuse to let government agencies hide wrongdoing behind secrecy and threats of retaliation.

The experts weighed in on the plea deal :

"It's a pale shadow of the original indictment," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who works on government secrecy issues and has been following the Drake case. "The defendant was facing decades in prison, and all of the sudden the government says never mind. It's a pretty big reversal of course."

The case against Drake imploded this week in the face of numerous negative rulings from Judge Richard Bennett and growing, widespread public support for Drake. ( The New Yorker and 60 Minutes reported on the case in May, and last week the The Washington Post's conservative editorial board opined that the Drake prosecution "smacks of overkill.")

The plea deal is consistent with what Tom Drake told the government all through his years-long ordeal - the truth - that he never disclosed classified information to a reporter. Drake turned down earlier plea deals because he did not want to plea bargain with the truth.

The Drake case is part the Obama administration's twisted strategy to bastardize the Espionage Act to go after public servants who blow the whistle on government wrongdoing. The Espionage Act prosecutions are meant to send a chilling message to whistleblowers. Scott Shane of the New York Times writes :

The case against Mr. Drake is among five such prosecutions for disclosures to the news media brought since President Obama took office in 2009: one each against defendants from the National Security Agency, the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the military and the State Department. In the past, such prosecutions have been extremely rare -- three or four in history, depending on how they are counted, and never more than one under any other president.

The Justice Department's defeat in the Drake case only emphasizes the point scholars and transparency advocates have been making all along: the Espionage Act is an archaic law meant to go after spies, and it should not be used to go after whistleblowers.

The experts agree, Ellen Nakashima of WaPo quotes law professor Stephen Vladeck, who points out that using the Espionage Act is even more nefarious considering that massive over-classification plagues the intelligence community:

"As a tool for prosecuting leakers, the Espionage Act is a broad sword where a scalpel would be far preferable," said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at American University. "It criminalizes to the same degree the wrongful retention of information that probably should never have been classified in the first place and the willful sale of state secrets to foreign intelligence agencies."

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer reports :

The prosecution has been seen as a test of the government's use of the Espionage Act to crack down on alleged leakers of national-security secrets. The withdrawal of all felony charges, and acceptance of no jail time for Drake, will likely be seen as evidence that the government overreached in using the Espionage Act against news sources rather than spies.

Drake's victory is a blow to the Obama Administration's attempts to create an Official Secrets Act without congressional approval by criminally prosecution whistleblower under the Espionage Act. The message to the Obama administration is clear: criminalizing whistleblowing does not work with the public or in our federal courts.

Despite Lanny Breuer's inflammatory opening press statement when the Drake indictment came down over a year ago that

Our national security demands that the sort of conduct alleged here-- violating the government's trust by illegally retaining and disclosing classified information-- be prosecuted and prosecuted vigorously.

the Justice Department, as per usual with the widespread media reports critical of the Drake prosecution, declined comment on the plea deal.

* * * *
* * * *

This blogger's email: stevengerickson At yahoo Dot com

[click here] for:

Using Drones, is the Corporate Dictatorship Poising for War on You?



Saturday, June 04, 2011

Parody Video: States Rights vs Federalism

I found the below video favorited on the James Corbett Report video channel.

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on Jun 29, 2010

A zombie sits down to interview Tom Woods on Tom's latest book, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century." |

Nullification: Interview with a Zombie