Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 15

Unsourced claims

 * Legally, human rights within the United States are provided by the Constitution of the United States and amendments.

I'm unclear why this keeps getting added back into the article if no single source actually says it. Per WP:V, please provide a quote from a reliable source that says this on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, you took out a sentence fragment. These are just two sources of human rights in the U.S.   Second, this is simply unbelievable on a point so simple.  Here are to examples:
 * SooHoo: ''"The definition of 'human rights' would be one that evolved through time and circumstance. The Constitution of 1787 began this process by establishing a federal government with a separate of powers and checks and balances and by enshrining the political rights of voting and of holding office. . . . the first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791.  They established the legal foundation for the protection of human rights in teh United States."
 * Supreme Court Justice Williams Brennan in Schwartz, Bernard, The Burger Court: counter-revolution or confirmation?,   Oxford University Press US, 1998,ISBN 0195122593 "As I have said many time and in many ways, our Constitution is a charter of human rights and human dignity. [goes through extensive discussion of various rights)" Mosedschurte (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the source. I originally added it to the further reading section, if you recall, so I'm glad to see that you are finally listening to me and using human rights-related sources.  But nevermind that.  One problem at a time: You have this statement sourced to Poole 1999.  Why? Viriditas (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "I originally added it to the further reading section, if you recall, so I'm glad to see that you are finally listening to me and using human rights-related sources. "
 * Oh good god. I'll just let that one stand on its own.
 * It's just Soohoo and Brennan now.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please format your indented replies like everybody else? You are making it extremely difficult to use the talk page to communicate.  We don't need the "Re" and the asterisks, and the offset sig and all the rest of that junk.  Just compose a reply, a short one if you can.  Now, if I can read you correctly, are you saying you removed Poole (and the failed verification tag, which was your fourth revert)?  So, if you removed Poole that means I can move on to the next point.  If you are quoting a statement made by Williams Brennan, you need to attribute it correctly.  You also need to write the lead in accordance with how we summarize articles.  This material should be summarizing not introducing new ideas.  Now as far as the Soohoo quote goes, you still aren't quoting it correctly.  The word you want is protected not provided, which was the bone of contention.  Please pay very close attention to the sources you are using and the material in the article.  They should match as close as possible, although you need to rewrite it in your own words if you aren't quoting.  So, your fourth revert removing my failed verification tag was not appropriate, as the material still does not reflect Soohoo.  Please fix it so that it does.  What this means is, that "legally, human rights within the United States are protected by the Constitution of the United States" not provided. Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has got to be a joke. Is Allen Funt watching with a camera?  If you disagree with the word, are you seriously considering re-adding a "verification" tag instead of just changing the word yourself?   Would be hilarious if so, but I'm not sure if that's what you're intimating.  Second, Soohoo just used the word "protection" with regard to the BOR.
 * Also, I didn't revert, I added a source because it was before deleted because of a no source tag that had gone unanswered and re-inserted the text unilaterally deleted by another editor. By another editor, I mean you.
 * And I only use the Re and quote lines when I responding to a specific quote. It is difficult to do so when editors use long unnumbered paragraphs, so simply quoting the text to which a reply is made is most efficient.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The joke is that you are actually asking me to fix your errors, both in terms of the wrong source you added and in the context of the wrong words which don't reflect the actual sources used - words that drastically change the meaning. Are you this careless or just fast and loose with the facts? Viriditas (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, like so many of these crazy charges, it's difficult to tell if you're being serious. You mean, fix the one word protect/provide "error" (good god, even typing that was silly) rather than adding a tag to the same sentence? I'm not sure if you're trying to get some sort of a response by typing such things.  Also, Soohoo uses the word "protect" ONE TIME with regard to the BOR,and states tthat the beginning of human rights were enshrined by the Constitution, while Brennan says the Constitution is a charter of human rights and human dignity.  How in the hell is that playing fast and losse with the facts?  How would even using the word "protect" be more accurate overall.
 * In any event, another highly constructive and productive discussion.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense again. To recap: 1) You added the wrong source (Poole) which you refused to correct until you actually came to the discussion page 2) You removed a verification failed tag when the material still did not reflect the source, and 3) The material sourced to Soohoo did not (does not) reflect the source accurately, and was originally written based on another, now deleted source.  At what point are you going to start taking responsibility for your extremely poor editing skills and step up to the plate?  Do I need to constantly clean up after you?  Your errors have been pointed out, yet you refuse to fix your edits!  Why does the article still say "provided by the Constitution of the United States" when the source used does not say that?  Provided and protected do not mean the same thing, and the word provided was added by another editor who was using a poor source.  So, why are you using the same wording as a previous editor for a different source?  Are you going to fix your errors or should I assume that every edit you make should be reverted on sight because there is a high probability it is factually incorrect? Viriditas (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Fox News a reliable source on US Human Rights issues?

 * Is Fox News a reliable source? Pexise (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that'd depend on the situation. If it's a talk or political commentary show, it would likely be questionable as a source (as any talk show, such as Lou Dobbs or Glen Beck on CNN, would be).  If it's regarding an event that they cover on their regular news-casts, I don't think there would be any basis in saying it's less reliable than any other news program, however you could probably find another ("less polarizing") source for such "cookie cutter" news (ie CNN or the BBC).  Are you disputing a particular reference?  TastyCakes (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the use of this source, from the FNC website: Pexise (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Its fine. Yes, Fox News is often accused of a conservative bias. Virtually every American news source has been accused of bias, including CNN and MSNBC. We can't rule them all out. Unless you can point out anything wrong with the article in question, it should stay, unless you can find another source. Joker1189 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Joker1189 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that story looks like a reliable source to me. It refers to statements made by relevant people, and there's no basis for suspecting any of it is made up.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article is in danger of recentism regarding this issue. TastyCakes (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - I would like to see another source to back up these claims. Also, how reliable is an un-named US official? Pexise (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, I don't know if Wikipedia has any guidelines regarding publications quoting unnamed sources. I suspect if anything it'll be something not particularly helpful, like it being decided on a case by case basis.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted the question on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Conclusion so far is that "As for the Fox News article, I suppose there would be nothing wrong with using it to verify a statement that Fox News disagrees with the CIA about how many times the CIA waterboarded detainees." Pexise (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless your willing to not use sources from MSNBC and CNN, this whole discussion should end. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. Quoting "an unnamed U.S. official" in a report attributed to FNC, is not aceptable, and does not meet the "reliable source" criteria by any stretch of the imagination.  The statement and source should be removed. We do not quote "unnamed" officials in encyclopedia articles, and we most certainly do not use Fox News when we do. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox News has a vetting process for sources, and meets the standards for "reliable source" as defined under Wikipedia policy as a mainstream news organization. This is under discussion right now at .  As the author should also note, reporters often do not "name" their sources, and when a NY Times Reporter went to jail for not naming hers, some thought it a "human rights" violation.  I would suggest, rather than engage in this fruitless "subjective source" debate, you merely point out what countering sources said.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add that the initial reports on waterboarding from ABCNews were from unnamed CIA personnel. If we're going to dispose of everything not linked to a named source then we have a lot of work to do throwing more things out.
 * Viriditas also added information from the Katrina section from the Institute for Southern Studies that he identifies as "a nonpartisan research center." Well, they may have to call themselves "nonpartisan" for tax reasons, but they're not unbiased by any stretch of the imagination.  Their article calls them progressive.  They're off-the-charts.
 * I'm not in favor of getting rid of those left-wing sources as long as they're identified. As I often say, I don't want these views to be forgotten the way the they've been allowed to disappear in the past.
 * People who don't think FoxNews can be used as a reliable source need to go to dKosopedia.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the source that is used, the business newspaper, New Orleans CityBusiness, calls the Institute for Southern Studies "nonpartisan". People who think that Fox News is considered a "reliable source" have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it meets the criteria, not only for Wikipedia, but for the topic itself.  We do not inject disputed and controversial content based on anonymous sources into an encyclopedia, merely because a news outlet with a history of poor fact-checking and partisan bias says so.  You need to find a second source that supports the material without relying on anonymity, and you need to show that the source is relevant to the topic.  Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Fox News a reliable source on US Human Rights issues? Those who claim it is need to show that the specific source in question meets the criteria. Please do so, now. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is a mainstream media outlet with a vetting process and easily meets WP's definition on this basis.  People who think that Fox News is not considered a "reliable source" have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it does not meet this criteria, not only for Wikipedia, but for the topic itself.  If you have any facts aside from the arguments I have seen here showing it is not a reliable source, please provide them now.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how it works, nor is that the only criterion for inclusion. First, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that Fox News is not reliable.  Second, you need to be able to show that the author of the article is considered an authority on the topic.  Third, the material in question should be easily verified in other news reports by competing media outlets.  Fourth, the source cited in the article is "anonymous" and is being used by Fox News to directly challenge a story that appeared in the New York Times.  By so doing, Fox News is making an extraordinary claim: Sheikh Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times.  And yet, when one reads the story, one realizes that there is no evidence for this extraordinary claim, other than than the authority of Fox News itself who tells us we must believe them because an anonymous person said so.  Meanwhile, we have a memo from the Bush administration that says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, and we have multiple news outlets reporting it -- except Fox News.  What does that tell you? Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FoxNews is a reliable source. The reporter was a real reporter and not one of their commentators.  What matters is that a real reporter for a reliable source can be trusted to have had contacts with a government official.
 * This is no different than how we got our first information on EIT. It came from an ABC News reporter who had met with an unnamed CIA official.  We could have doubted his information, too, but there was no reasonable doubt that the ABC News reporter did indeed meet with a CIA official, and that the CIA official was making that claim.  It was quite proper to put such a claim here as long as we attribute it to an unnamed source for ABC News.
 * Your distrust of FoxNews is no different than others' distrust of sources like MSNBC or the Guardian (often called "al-Guardian") or the Institute for Southern Studies.
 * On the Institute for Southern Studies, yes it's "nonpartisan." They have to say that for tax reasons.  But it's run by Julian Bond, after all.  To describe them as "nonpartisan" is like describing the Christian Coalition as "nonpartisan."  That's also true, but we wouldn't describe them here that way lest some reader get the idea that they're unbiased.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please show me a reliable news source other than Fox News that has attacked the New York Times article and the Bush memo. Please explain why only Fox News is claiming that an "anonymous" source told them that Sheikh Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times.  When only one news source challenges all the others, and when they use "anonymous" evidence to do it, they must be discounted.  Furthermore, Fox News has a long and sordid record of poor fact-checking and distorting news stories for political gain.  In an encyclopedia that uses the best sources avaialable, they cannot be taken seriously.  Now, show me a reliable source other than Fox News that has challenged the memo.  Show it to me now. Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A "great deal of evidence Fox News is not reliable?" Please share with us your "evidence".  Thanks a lot.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox News Channel controversies. Now please stop changing the subject. Viriditas (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you'll note, there are also articles on these topics:
 * BBC controversies
 * CBS News
 * CNN controversies
 * United States journalism scandals
 * Nor does it end there:
 * Associated Press
 * 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies
 * Walter Duranty (who could be the biggest of journalism's embarrassment)
 * We could go on and on. Frankly, to put FoxNews beneath regular news sources is something I'd expect from dKosopedia.  That's especially so when we consider what we're talking about.  If you read the original source, the point FoxNews is making is the more rational one.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004) and this website. Fox News certainly comes at the bottom when we use the word "journalism".  These reports show that it is one of the most biased news sources in the world.  The transcript for the film is available here.  Their entire operation violates the very concept of journalism.  Given these and other facts, Fox News does not meet the criteria for a "reliable source", either on Wikipedia or anywhere else.  If you think they do, then please prove it.  The reliable source guideline states that such a source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  Clearly, Fox News does not. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I could easily counter that by directing you to opposing groups like the Media Research Center but I don't see where that gets us -- especially if you seriously believe that any organization run by Julian Bond could be referred to as "nonpartisan" without snickering. You evidently believe all of this stuff.
 * Any cursory reading of your materials on Outfoxed will bring up the names FAIR, Center for American Progress, and MoveOn. Has it occurred to you how rip-roaringly funny it is to cite them as though they are "objective" judges of character?
 * BTW: I've read a lot of those links.  I'm not at all impressed at how easily it can be taken apart.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) I hear the "fair and balanced" mantra on radio ads all the way driving home from work every evening. Just sticking to this one source and not getting into comparisons, their slogan is, quite frankly, a euphemism for "opinionated and one-sided." Any New Yorker will tell you the difference between the NY Times and Fox "News". "History serves politics" meet "History serves commentators and ratings." PetersV     TALK 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that "Reliable" is not the only measure to judge a media outlet by. Couple of the other dimensions is scope and depth of coverage. For example, on the issue of civil rights, you would be hard pressed to ever hear at Fox News about what is going on in Los Angeles County, California, today, regarding civil rights. I enclosed a fully referenced article a couple of times, but it looks like someone who doesn't want to hear about what is the true shape of civil and human rights today are deleting the whole sections. I would be grateful if whoever deletes it at least would justify himself/herself. Jz12345678 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678

Overview section
The lead section is an overview (see WP:LEAD and we don't need two lead sections. We need one lead section, and additional sections describing the history of human rights in the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the lead section is an overview, and it should be neutral to adhere to WP:NPOV policy. I fixed this.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't fix anything. You restored unattributed, unquoted, plagiarized material whose words ideas belong to an author, and you did so in a way that made it seem like it was written in your own words rather than that of the author.  I've removed the plagiarized material for the second time.  Ideas and concepts from an author belong to that author, and need to be attributed directly to that author unless we are dealing with historical facts.  Furthermore, none of this appears in the body of the article, and therefore does not get to belong in the lead.  You are therefore being added to the ANI report I am writing. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it a precise quote? If not, this is not plagiarizm, but describing author's ideas with proper attribution. If it was direct quotation, why did not you simply insert a couple of " "?Biophys (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review the edit history for the proper sequence of events. I originally inserted attribution per NPOV, and it was reverted by Mosedchute.  Looking into it further, I noticed that it copied the exact words from the book, and I removed it.  If you think this quote should be in the lead section, then please show me what part of the article it summarizes. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Overview" section appears to be a legal Overview, explaining the basic contitutional and legal structural protections. I added the word "Legal" to it, and note that I clicked save before adding the link to this Talk page section in the edit summary, so I'm describing it here.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Overviews are lead sections, and there is much more to the history of human rights in the United States than a "legal overview". The scope of this article covers a lot of ground, from history, people, incidents, and ideas.  Please stop trying to fit the entire, round topic into one small square hole and use the talk page to propose your ideas rather than forcing them on everyone else. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The section literally discusses the legal structures underlying human rights law -- the Constitution, Domestic law and international treaties. Please stop unilaterally deleting sections, especi8ally with the ridiculous title "History" when the section is not remotely a complete history of anything, and in fact does not even discuss history in significant regard.  These sorts of WP:Disruptive editing and overtWP:POV edits -- especially the continued drive to actually jam pre-1865 history ABOVE EVEN THE CURRENT LAW in the racial equality section -- make the article difficult to edit in any regard.  Please stop all unilateral overriding of all other editors changes, WP:Edit Warring and WP:Ownership issues with this article immediately.  It is getting to the point where it literally makes it impossible to edit the article or participate in talk page discussions.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts show the opposite of what you claim. It is you who is unilaterally editing and removing material, and you are doing so to push a POV.  You need to stop plagiarizing authors, you need to start attributing opinions, and you need to stop trying to create two lead sections and force the scope of this article into a narrow, legal definition.  You are editing in bad faith and you are not following any Wikipedia policies or guidelines.  This is an encyclopedia where we deal with things like history.  I am getting sick and tired of cleaning up after your plagiarism, your false references, and your distorted, twisted, backwards-chronology of history.  Slavery did not come after LBJ signed civil rights legislation, it came before, and the history of human rights in the United States takes precendent to your warped, revisionist POV.  Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is too wordy to follow. Dear Viriditas, could you please explain me briefly what, in your opinion, is the POV Mosedschurte is pushing?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the lead section, or Mosedchute's modification of the racial and legal sections? There are multiple issues at work here.  I have no idea why he would take slavery and the origins of human rights in the U.S. out of chronoogical order or remove it from the lead, and I have no idea why he thinks this article is only about legal issues.  Wikipedia articles are broad in scope and cover the significant aspects of the topic.  Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Viriditas is the one who has last (and most) edited the Lede in the version now. This is part of the magic of this editor's claimed "discussion".  The editor unilaterally changes the lede, opens a talk page, dismisses others' comments and then reverts all other changes. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To remind you again, the talk page is used to discuss edits. Which edits are you having a problem with, and what changes would you like to see?  Please use this space to discuss them.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To Mosedschurte. I don't think that extensive editing of the Lede or other sections is a crime. You yourself also tend to edit the articles extensively. In addition, Viriditas ask concrete questions, whereas you used to avoid to answer concretely.
 * To Viriditas. I agree that the concept of human rights cannot be reduced to the legal issues only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The article in its current form entirely misses the mark on deterioration of Human Rights Conditions in the U.S., e.g. Los Angeles County, California
DETERIORATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IN THE PAST QUARTER CENTURY (1985-2009) . Los Angeles County, California, with over 10 million residents, is the most populous county in the U.S., and accordingly, the LA Superior Court is the largest of its kind in the U.S., perhaps in the world. Review of the record relative to Human and Civil Rights enforcement in California, and in particular in Los Angeles County, demonstrates worrisome deterioration, with the LA Superior Court and the LAPD in center stage as abusive of the civil and human rights of the county’s residents. Already in 2001, a U.S. judge was appointed as an Overseer for civil rights in the county. The abuses seen in LA County today, in part parallel conduct by the U.S. government abroad - e.g. in Guantanamo Bay and in Abu Ghraib. The scope of such abuses in Los Angeles County is much wider than in the two well publicized scandals off shore. However, lack of international attention, and failure of media to cover the dramatic events as they unfolds, leave such events, some of which are of historic proportions entirely overlooked. Events that were launched in LA County appear on an unstoppable trajectory to a constitutional crisis the like of which has never been seen in the U.S. history, perhaps since the restoration period, or before. Civil and Human Rights are the subject issue and abuse by the LAPD and the LA Superior Court. If during the Rampart scandal, the role of the judges of the LA Superior Court was covered up, and the blame was assigned all to police, now the judges seem to go out of their way to publicly demonstrate their disrespect for the law. The residents of LA County expect the U.S. Government to provide Equal Protection. Demands of this nature were filed already under the Bush administration, but U.S. officers then seemed to collude with the judges. Under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, and with some 10,000 black and Latinos held falsely imprisoned for over 10 years, one may hope for a change. But such change will have to come with a conflict in view of a group of some ~500 state judges, who are unified, aggressive, and flaunting their lawlessness. The conduct of U.S. Judges may play a pivotal role in the turn of events.

Key issues relative to Human Rights conditions in Los Angeles County: . 1) Origins - Iran Contra and drug sales for profit by CIA in LA County undermined the law enforcement authority of the U.S. government in LA County. . 2) The Rampart scandal (1998-2000) and the ongoing incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - are human rights disgrace of historic proportions. . 3) The payments that were "not permitted" to LA County judges, and retaliation against jailed Attorney Richard Fine. . 4) Denial of access to court records to inspect and to copy (Nixon v Warner Communication), First Amendment and Common Law rights that are safeguards for the integrity of the courts.

A fifth issue, which is not clearly enough defined yet to write it up, but may dwarf all others - is the looting of middle class families and homeowners throughout America in the current financial crisis. When it is done, distribution of assets in the U.S. will be rather different than it was in 2006, before we entered the crisis. Again - there is substantial evidence of collusion between large corporations, attorneys and the courts in defrauding home owners. Congress ran hearing on the subject, courts in Pennsylvania and Texas issued statements on the subject. But the scope is not at all clear yet. . 1) IRAN CONTRA SCANDAL AND DRUG SALES BY CIA IN LA FOR PROFIT (early 1980s-early 1990s) . The Iran Contra scandal have several convoluted parts to it, all of them must be deemed with the perspective of time total policy failures. It involved sales of missiles to Iran, at at time that U.S. Congress had an embargo imposed on such sales.  It therefore generated funds that were unaccounted for, and were to be used for supplying weapons to the contras, at a time that U.S. Congress imposed an embargo on such sales as well. . In addition, there was a disputable activity that was related to import of cocaine and crack cocaine from Latin America to California, and distribution of such drugs for profit by individuals who were presumed to be CIA patronized. . The fact that such drug sales took place is indisputable.  The dispute is primarily regarding the scope of the shipments, and whether the importation of drugs by CIA had a significant effect on the crack cocaine epidemic of those years. A Special Prosecutor Report on the subjected was published in December 1997 (ref). . It is also commonly agreed among criminologists and drug policy experts, that corruption of the justice system is one of the highest costs associated with a failed drug policy. Here- Federal agencies were involved in drug sales, while officially the President and first lady were cheer leading a War on Drugs. Obviously local law enforcement and other branches of federal agencies in Los Angeles County had to be informed. It is likely that such conditions, which continued for about a decade, entirely undermined any law enforcement authority that federal agencies had. Even today, it is not clear what level of control FBI or US Dept of Justice can exert over Los Angeles County, and that is likely to be at least in part the reason for the events described below. . 2) THE RAMPART SCANDAL INVESTIGATION (1998-2000) AND ITS AFTERMATH. . The investigation exposed human rights violations in Los Angeles County, California, including the false imprisonment of thousands of people, almost all of them black and latinos. The scandal was also characterized by clear racist undertones.  Nevertheless, today, almost a decade later, the perpetrators have largely not been prosecuted, and the victims - the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain incarcerated.  By conservative estimates some 10,000 Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)are still locked up in Los Angeles California, today, while the basic facts were established in the Rampart scandal investigations (1998-2000) - a 2-years, 200-investigator probe, which ended with no report was ever being written...

a) RESPONSES TO THE FACTS UNCOVERED IN THE INVESTIGATION (2000) . Local authorities on the law wrote during the investigation: “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.  How could so many participants in the criminal justice system have failed either to recognize or to instigate any meaningful scrutiny of such appalling and repeated perversions of justice?”

“…we felt a particular obligation to ensure that no aspect of the Los Angeles criminal justice system, including the lawyers and judges, escaped scrutiny.” Prof David W. Burcham, then Dean, and Prof Catherine L. Fisk, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Rampart symposium, 2000

“Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states. “ “…and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Erwin Chemerinsky, today Dean of Irvine Law School, University of California, 57 Guild Prac. 121 2000

b) THE FIRST RAMPART TRIAL AND REVERSAL OF JURY VERDICT (2000) . After the First Rampart Trial ended in jury conviction of 3 of the 4 police prosecuted (November 2000), the trial judge overturned jury trial in a special ruling from home (December 22, 2000). That signaled the end of prosecutions of police in that matter, and also the end of any release of the victims..

c) U.S. V CITY OF LA, AND THE CONSENT DECREE AND APPOINTMENT OF OVERSEER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (2001) . Following the episode of the First Rampart Trial, the U.S. Government filed a complaint at the U.S. District Court in LA, (U.S. v City of LA et al 2:2000cv11769). the complaint was framed under 42 USC § 14141 which prohibits for government officials or authorities from engaging " in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

The city, mayor, city council, police chief, police commission, were all among those named defendants, and expectations were that it could cost the city billions, and that there could also be criminal liability to some who were accountable. Therefore, the city opted to yield, and the complaint resulted in the U.S. Government and the City of LA entering the Consent Decree (June 2001), which led to the appointment of an Overseer for civil rights, for a term of 5 years, during which the city and the LAPD had to demonstrate meeting specific goals relative to civil rights protection.

Within a couple of years after the Consent decree was signed, the City of LA and the LAPD were reported as non-cooperative in periodic reports of the Overseer. As a result, the Consent Decree Bureau, and the Overseer, never ended their term as anticipated in 2006, and today, it appears that the office has become a permanent part of life in LA. Major obstacles that were noted as preventing progress: First - the city and LAPD were required to allow the Overseer access to certain computer systems and databases of complaints, violations, incidents, and that it appears to have never happened. Second - pursuant to the Consent Decree narcotics officers of the LAPD were required to provide periodic financial disclosures. However, when the Overseer tried to enforce that provision, the narcotics officers refused to comply en masse, and surprisingly - police chief Bratton supported their position that such provision was invasion of privacy. Obviously - there was a reason why such provision was included in the Consent Decree, and the City and Police consented. Although no report states it directly, review of the few cases of victims that were released makes it clear that the issues underlying the Rampart scandal were related to drug sales for profit by police, and elimination of any persons who stood in their way. In fact, the scandal, as a whole, started in 1998, when a police officer from the undercover narcotics unit, Rafael Perez, was caught stealing 6 lbs of cocaine from police safe. His investigation, and later plea bargain, opened the way to exposure of police practices that were prevalent for some time. The description from the investigation included numerous cases of framing - planting drugs and weapons on persons, then having them convicted and sentenced to long prison terms, as well as torture to extract confessions. Other instances were reported, of killing, maiming, and robberies by police. However, in the absence of a a final report it is difficult to ascertain the true scope of the abuses. However, the absolute refusal of the narcotics officers to comply with the requirement for financial disclosure raises the concern that even today they engage in drug sales for profit in LA County, as apparently was the situation prior to the scandal.

Of note - the Consent Decree was framed under the section related to abuse of civil rights of juveniles under the color of law. A parallel section in the code is generalized. By using the section 14141, the Consent Decree at once recognized that the scandal involved various types of abuse of juveniles, but also could be seen as limiting the authority of the Overseer. Regardless, there is no evidence to show that even a single juvenile was ever released from jail or prison in LA by the Overseer.

Of interest, the term of the Overseer for Civil Rights in LA almost overlaps the term of another Overseer appointed during President George W Bush administration - for the Guantanamo Bay detention center. With that - the close relationship between abuse of civil rights by U.S. Government off shore and at home is clearly established. In both cases, in review, it may be concluded that the appointment of overseers was meant a priori as a fig leaf, nothing more. Perhaps the best proof of that was the record of a yet third Overseer - appointed to ascertain that prisoners in California are receiving at least minimal medical care. After the first overseer appeared to be determined to achieve improvement, and took steps to seize funds from the California government for such purpose, he was replaced with a more restrained Overseer.

The size of the California prisoner population, the cost of imprisonment, and the existence of a privatized prison industry, combined - create incentives for imprisonment, lawful or false, and reduction of expenses to increase profit margins. There is no report known by this writer of any kick-backs in California relative to the Rampart-scandal, but a notorious case was exposed in Pennsylvania in early 2009, where two state judges received kick-backs for falsely sentencing juveniles for confinement. Obviously- in juvenile hall, the cost of imprisonment is much higher than in adult institutions. By law, prison authorities must take responsibility for education of the juveniles, including Special Education, Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) and other services that are required in public school as part of Americans with Disability Act and other laws governing Special Education.

The victims of the Rampart scandal, both juveniles and adults, are expected to be almost entirely black and Latinos, based on the composition of the victims who were released during the investigation (less than 200 by estimates). Under President Bush's administration, the U.S. Department of Justice in its highest ranks, was molded to support his policies relative to expanding the legal limits on torture, and acknowledging the legal validity of the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. Obviously, under such litmus tests for the senior political appointees, it was impossible to get any response to requests for action by the U.S. government in regards to Civil Rights disgraces in LA. However, after the election of President Obama, and the appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder, both of whom identify themselves as black, one would expect that action would be forthcoming towards righting of this human rights disgrace, which is of historic proportions.

There are no good enough estimates of the number of the Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), in part - since there was no report written of the investigation. Some unwritten accounts lead to the estimate of 10,000 as a conservative one, relative to direct victims of the 70-80 police officers of the Rampart Division who were investigated and documented during the probe of 1998-2000. A PBS report from 2001 provides estimates from 8,000 (by prosecutors) to 15,000 (defense attorneys) and up to 30,000 by some other groups. In comparison, the total number of detainees in Guantanamo was at the most about 750, including those who stayed there for a very short period. In contrast, all of the Rampart-FIPs were sentenced to long prison terms. The only other comparable even in U.S. history is the internment of Japanese American during WW II. But that case, too, does not compare in its scope, severity, and length, to the case of the Rampart-FIPs. In fact, one can safely state that the Human Rights record of the U.S. government, and also of the American public is questionable at best, when such conditions have been allowed to prevail for that long.

Officially, the blame for such human rights abuses were attributed to police, and police alone. However, as reflected in the opinions quoted above, such claims are not believable. In fact, it is widely believed that prosecutors and certain judges were intimately involved in the scandal, and that the prosecutions were stopped exactly for that reason, and that is also why a report was never issued. . . d)THE BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL REPORT (2006) . The definitive, most recent official report of the situation relative to the Rampart scandal and the FIPs, is the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report, issued in 2006. The panel, chaired by Los Angeles black attorney/civil rights activist Connie Rice, was commissioned by the LAPD in 2003, after the then new police chief, Bratton, realized that there was no report concluding the Rampart investigation, and therefore no guideline for any corrective actions.  The report of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel is unique in its approach.  On the one hand - it refused to issue the "final report", as charged.  It stated clearly(p 47):

"LOS ANGELES INSTITUTIONS FAILED TO RESPOND ADEQUATELY TO THE CRASH CRISIS The facts that best support this conclusion arc that a federal court had to take over Los Angeles police reform and that no public entity conducted an independent investigation with the capacity, authority and resources to properly investigate the extent of the alleged corruption or its causes. In addition, after numerous scandal related criminal trials and pleas, multiple LAPD investigations and over 80 internal Boards of Rights, four major reports and a failed civil grand jury inquiry, the following basic facts about the Rampart CRASH corruption remain unknown or disputed: • Whether the scandal was about two officers guilty of isolated criminal misconduct or about policing systems that tolerated routine abuse and criminality by a significant subcult in its ranks. • How many officers committed crimes or serious misconduct.? The scope of misconduct at issue (ranging from unjustified shootings, framings and beatings to falsifying arrest reports and fabricating probable cause). • How many officers committed crimes or serious misconduct. • The scope of misconduct at issue (ranging from unjustified shootings, framings and beatings to falsifying arrest reports and fabricating probable cause). • The extent of Rampart CRASH-like misconduct in the CRASH units of other divisions, other specialized units and LAPD policing generally. • The extent of corrupt acts, if any, by Rampart CRASH alumni who graduated into Metro, Internal Affairs and other coveted and specialized units. • Why CRASH supervisors and others in LAPD silenced whistleblowers who tried to warn about CRASH insubordination and misconduct. • How many of Perez' specific allegations were fully investigated and verified. • Why the DA's declination memos explaining the reasons for not charging Rampart related cases submitted by LAPD did not address a number of cases of alleged misconduct, including several allegedly unjustified shootings. • How many officers were administratively investigated or sent to Boards of Rights as a result of Perez' allegations. • Why an after-action report on LAPD's response to the CRASH crisis could not get written. • Why the Boards of Rights were allowed to fail on such a large scale, • Whether the USCIS (formerly known as the INS) investigated Perez' allegations that its agents helped deport gang members or others who filed complaints against LAPD officers.''(p47) . The report went in great length into interviews with police, prosecutors, and judges, trying to document how those in charge of the justice system in LA rationalize the continued false imprisonment of thousands of innocent people. Such accounts, mostly claimed that release of the FIPs was impossible, since it would lead to collapse of the justice system... summarized as follows: . "While the criminal justice system could sustain overturning scores of criminal prosecutions tainted by Rampart CRASH corruption, thousands could have meant the collapse of the entire LA County criminal justice apparatus." "Facing a choice between containment or catastrophic failure, the operators of any system-law enforcement, prosecutors and judges-inexorably choose containment. It is not that individuals or entities conspired to cover up corruption; it is that when a window on its true extent opened, they simply closed it."(p48) . The report also describes the conditions at the criminal division of the LA Superior Court, as such where criminal defense attorneys may be subject to undue pressure to the detriment of their clients. The report brings some testimonials that such conditions continue today. . e) SCOPE OF THE ABUSES WAS UNDER ESTIMATED IN 2000, SINCE POLICE ARTIFICIALLY LIMITED THE INVESTIGATION . The Blue Ribbon Review Panel also makes it clear that the official name of the scandal "The Rampart area corruption incident" was entirely false - the conduct documented in the Rampart division was not limited to the Rampart division at all. However, police hierarchy prevented any investigation beyond the boundaries of the Rampart division, even though clear lead pointed to other stations as well, in an attempt to contain the damage. Obviously, the conduct documented in the investigation was not an "incident", but rather the outcome of prevalent norms for some years prior to the investigation.  Therefore, while the number of 10,000 may be consider a conservative estimate for the number of the Rampart-FIPs, such number only refers to those who were documented directly or indirectly relative to the conduct of specific police officers from the Rampart division. It is almost certain that the same or similar conduct to some extent took place in some other stations. . f) "EXTERNAL INVESTIGATION" IS RECOMMENDED . As a result of such conclusions, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel refused to provide an estimate of its own, and also refused to provide a "final report". instead, it issued a recommendation - that LA Government is unable to investigate itself, and there is an urgent need for an "external investigation".

The LAPD made substantial efforts to address the issues that came to light in the Rampart investigation. The Blue Ribbon Review Panel documents such efforts and the achievement that could be documented. However, the report deems such improvements as not likely to be sustainable without a major change in police culture. . f) RESPONSE OF LAPD POLICE CHIEF BRATTON TO THE BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL REPORT (2006) . The report was delivered in July 2006, and the response of police chief Bratton was stated as follows: "Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton appeared at the Police Commission's special public meeting this afternoon on the blue ribbon report, "Rampart Reconsidered: The Search for Real Reform Seven Years Later." Chief Bratton thanked the report's primary author, Ms. Connie Rice for her work. "I'd like to thank Connie Rice and her committee for carrying out the mandate to produce, once and for all, a comprehensive and objective Rampart after-action report."  Chief Bratton also acknowledged the leadership of the current and former Police Commission presidents and Los Angeles mayors. "My initial reaction is a favorable one, but, as you might expect, I reserve the right to take exception to some of the findings and recommendations," Bratton added. The LAPD will review the report and work to implement its recommendations within the Department's own "State of the Department" action plan, which was begun in October 2004. The blue ribbon report's most significant finding is the need for more officers, a clarion call Chief Bratton has made since he took office in October 2002. Mayor Villaraigosa and the City Council heard the call and authorized an expansion of 1,000 officers. Their commitment is an important step to bringing about operational and cultural changes called for in the report. "Professor George Kelling's research has shown the best way to reduce the effects of ‘stranger policing' is to get the cops out of the police cars and interacting with the people they serve," Bratton said. "Out of necessity, LA has policed from police cars for 50 years, in order to handle a large area and population with half the cops of any other major city." Bratton added, "One has only to look at the changes in Mac Arthur Park, Hollywood, and Baldwin Village to see the effects of close interaction with the community." "This is not a sprint, but a marathon," the Chief said. "We've made monumental changes in LAPD, but we are still not where we want to be. Our action plan is the road map to get there --- to make Los Angeles the safest big city in America. And we are committed to doing it constitutionally, compassionately, and consistently." . h) IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL- THE MACARTHUR PARK MELEE- MAY 2007 . Indeed, the speculation by the report authors about difficulties related to police culture, and police chief Bratton focus on Mac Arthur Park as an indicator for progress, converged less than a year later, when police officers from the Metro division engaged in violent attack on a May day parade/picnic in that park. The event was caught on videos, and some television crews were among those harmed.  Some of the recording were permanently posted on You Tube.  The incident came to be officially known as the "Mac Arthur Park Melee".  . i) GENERAL OUTCOMES OF THE SCANDAL: 1. The City of LA ended up paying substantial sums to the few victims that were released, but nowhere near the sums that could have been paid had the victims been all released. 2. In the course of such litigations, a U.S. Judge in LA permitted claims for damages against the LAPD to be filed pursuant to civil RICO Claims (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC § 1964) - an unprecedented claim. 3. One must count with the losses also the enormous recurring sums that are waisted from the public coffer on false imprisonments of thousands of people for long terms. 4. The underlying corruption in the justice system in LA was not directly addressed, it was instead covered up. 5. One of the most disturbing parts of the case is the evidence that federal agencies were tied to both the scandal and the cover up. The "federal option" was never applied to the police officers who were convicted by jury, then had their sentence voided by a judge. In contrast, Rafael Perez, the police officer who signed a plea bargain, but was openly warned not to speak out, ended up being subjected to a federal prosecution, which both he and his attorney claimed they were led to believe was covered by the plea agreement. . . 3) FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO INSTITUTE FAIR TRIBUNALS - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2,7,8,10,11, & 12 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. . Six of the first dozen articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights require that government establish a fair justice system. Conditions prevailing today in some parts of the U.S. fail to meet such requirements. In Los Angeles County, conditions are approaching extremes. . a) ORGANIZED CORRUPTION OF THE JUDICIARY - RACKETEERING - FOUND ONLY IN CHICAGO AND CALIFORNIA . Review of the enforcement records of the justice Department, Section on Public Integrity (ref)as well as other resources regarding litigations against judges reveals that in only two regions of the U.S. judges have been indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of racketeering pursuant to criminal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC § 1961–8) Cook County (Chicago) Illinois, and California. In San Jose, California, the Presiding Judge of the U.S. District Court, Robert Aguilar, was convicted of Racketeering (ref), and in San Diego, California, a number of state judges, attorneys, and others were convicted (ref). Similarly, direct evidence for organized widespread corruption of the California judges in LA County is overwhelming (see below), but conspicuously, there is no evidence of any enforcement action in LA County in the past 25 years! Conditions of the justice system that deteriorate to the point that judges engage in racketeering are generally unheard of in western democracies. Therefore, it is likely that such findings reflect a more fundamental deficiency in the justice system in the U.S., perhaps imbalance of authority among the branches of government that allows judges to extend themselves far outside the realm of the law before they would be concerned about enforcement. Given the deference to the judiciary in the U.S., which seems misplaced, there is not enough research on the subject, but it is likely that such findings as listed above, which are unique to the U.S. among western democracies, are also correlated with other findings unique to the U.S.- the populist movement of Jail4judges, and the high, or extreme, dependent on perspective, percentage of the adult population that is incarcerated, at enormous cost to society. . b) THE OPPOSITION OF THE LOS ANGELES JUDGES TO RELEASE OF THE RAMPART-FIPs IS INEXPLICABLE IN ANY TERMS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW< HONESTY, OR THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE. . Los Angeles County is also unique in that the California State District Attorney office, Los Angeles, keeps an office for Integrity of the Justice System. However, as noted above, there is no record of enforcement action against a judge in LA County by either state or federal agencies. In general, the balance of power is such that indictment and prosecution of a State Judge by state law enforcement is unlikely.  Such enforcement is almost always by FBI or the Public Integrity Unit of the Justice Department. . The anomaly of the position of the California State judges in Los Angeles County is also evidenced in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006) cited above, relative to the Rampart scandal.  Such report quotes judges justifying the continued incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs by concern regarding stability of the justice system. And the U.S. Judge Overseer is unable to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree. The overseer was appointed in 2001, but the record fails to show him releasing even a single Rampart-FIP. One must recall that the Code of Conduct of U.S. judges (ref), and likewise, the California Code of judicial Ethics (Ref), prescribe that a judge who is reliably informed of an unethical situation,such as the false imprisonments in LA, must initiate corrective actions. None of the state or federal judges in California has done any of that. In contrast, within a month after two Pennsylvania judges were indicted and arrested for falsely convicting juveniles and sentencing them for prison terms, the Pennsylvania Judiciary, of its own volition, established a panel to expediently review the judicial acts of these two judges, and void any judgments or convictions that were deemed false or inadequate (Ref). . The official blame for the Rampart scandal false convictions and false sentencing was attributed to police alone. However, a reasonable person reviewing the data would surely conclude that prosecutors and judges were involved as well. That sentiment is heard already in the writing from 2000 of the legal scholars quoted above. Regardless, even if one accepted that notion, there is no way to explain the conduct of the LA judges since the Rampart scandal and to this date, and their failure to take action to release the FIPs. Moreover, as described in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), they are most likely some of the staunchest opponents of any attempt to release the Rampart-FIPs. . c)SECRET CORPORATIONS AND SECRET FUNDS HELD BY THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES (1998-9) . In parallel to the Rampart scandal investigation, a series of three reports were published by the Washington DC "Insight Magazine", describing a series of secretive corporation which held various funds from different sources, and were controlled by the judges of LA County, outside of any funds accountable through a recognizable budgetary process(1). Although the existence of such funds that were unaccounted for should be considered in and of itself evidence of widespread corruption, there is no record of any action by IRS or FBI in this matter. . d)ALL LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES (>500) TOOK PAYMENTS THAT WERE "NOT PERMITTED", ~$45,000 PER JUDGE PER YEAR, AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE SUCH FACT, WHILE ROUTINELY JUDGING IN FAVOR OF THE PAYER - LOS ANGELES COUNTY (1990's-2009) . In the years 2007-2009 other evidence for widespread, organized corruption of the California State judges in LA County emerged through the efforts of a few individual, one of them - a former U.S. prosecutor, anti-trust attorney Richard Fine. It turned out that while the California Constitution allows judges to be paid only by the State Treasury, and while the judges completed on an annual basis disclosure forms declaring any outside income, the judges had been paid about $45,000 per judge per year by the Los Angeles county,failed to list such outside income in their annual disclosures, failed to disclose such payments to parties before them in cases involving LA County was a party, and according to reports, also routinely judged in favor of LA County. In October 2008, after a series of legal actions, the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, San Diego, published its decision that such payments were "not permitted" (Ref). In lay person's language such payments would be called "bribes". Media quoted comments in public appearance by the California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, immediately after that ruling, that such conditions in LA County amounted to denial of "access to the courts" and "fair trial" - basic civil and human rights. . The ruling by the San Diego court could have major implications - in fact, it could be construed as key ruling that would enable criminal prosecution against such judges, And given the organized nature of the offence, and the pattern and enterprise, it could probably qualify as racketeering. Moreover, it could have meant that the judges had to refund to LA County such funds that were paid but were "not permitted". Moreover, they should have stopped accepting such funds. Finally - any judge, U.S. or California, who was reliably informed of the scandal, was prescribed by the Code of Judicial Ethics (3),to initiate corrective actions, such as voiding the judgments issued by such judges in cases where LA County was party to litigation. However, following the pattern of conduct established relative to the Rampart-FIPs, it soon became clear that none of the above was going to happen. . e) THE JUDGES HIRE A LOBBYIST TO INSERT A PROVISION THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE INTO THE BUDGET BILL.(2009) . The LA judges tried to overturn the decision of the San Diego Court by appealing to the California Supreme Court. When the California Supreme Court refused to review the case, the judges of LA are reported by media to have retained a lobbyist, at $60,000, who within the span of a few days they managed to affect the insertion of a little noticed provision into the large budget bill just prior to its final vote and delivery to the Governor for signature. The California State Legislature never debated such provision, and it is questionable whether the members of the legislature even knew about it (4). Such bill theoretically pardoned the judges for any criminality associated with their past conduct, and immunized them for any criminality associated with continued payments that are "not permitted". Needless to say, such law is unconstitutional on its face. Moreover, conditions where judges, as an organized group, hire a lobbyist to alter State Law through unscrupulous methods, with the goal of establishing a law that is unconstitutional on its face; moreover - they do so after the unconstitutionality of such law, as practiced by them for over a decade had already been ruled upon by California court -- is incompatible with any notion of judges who are faithful to the law, or otherwise are complying with the code of ethics.

CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS: . Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.

In sum, conditions in Los Angeles County, California, were brought to the brink by the California judges, soon after the election of President Obama. In fact, the judges took a position that is comparable to establishing a renegade court in Los Angeles County. It is evident that the citizens of the county are unable to assert their authority over the judges, neither can the civilian county leaders, or for that matter the State Attorney General. It is such conditions that require that the U.S. Government initiate action to establish "Equal Protection" under the U.S. Constitution for the 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County. Such action could be directed through the U.S. District Court in LA. After all- it is the U.S. Courts who are supposed to safeguard the civil rights of the people. However, as seen in the case of the Rampart-FIPs and the Overseer, it is not likely to happen that way. . 4) THE JUDGES OF LA SUPERIOR COURT ENGAGE IN A RETALIATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST ATT RICHARD FINE, FORMER U.S. PROSECUTOR, ~70 YEARS OLD, WHO WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN EXPOSING THE "NOT PERMITTED" PAYMENTS. HIS LICENSE WAS REVOKED, AND HE IS NOW INDEFINITELY JAILED IN LA FOR CONTEMPT.  CONDITIONS OF HIS JAILING ARE CONTRARY TO ANY NOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. . Beyond all the above, the Los Angeles Superior Court initiated in the past 2 years a coordinated campaign of harassment, retaliation, and intimidation against Att Richard Fine, who was one of the leaders of the campaign to expose and to ban the impermissible payments.   First - he was charged in administrative court of the California State Bar Association with "Moral Turpitude". Such charge is typically reserved to sexual misconduct between counsel and client.  In this case, the charge of Moral Turpitude was construed to encompass Att Richard Fine's filing of complaints against Los Angeles County judges in relationship to the impermissible payments. Subsequently, Att Richard Fine's license to practice law was revoked.(5) Along the way, Judge David Yaffe, continued to preside in a case where Att Richard Fine was appearing. Att Richard Fine requested that Judge David Yaffe be disqualified from any involvement in his case, since he was Judge Yaffe was one of the judges who received the impermissible payments. Judge Yaffe refused to disqualify, found Att Richard Fine twice in contempt of the court, and on March 4, 2009, had Attorney Fine jailed indefinitely for contempt (Ref). . a) U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LOS ANGELES, FAILS TO PROTECT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE JAILED ATT RICHARD FINE, IN FACT COLLUDING WITH THE LA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES, AND WITH THAT - BRINGS THE CONDITIONS TO AN UNPRECEDENTED CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS . The jailing of Att Fine, identified as a civil rights leader in LA County, and even more so - the conditions and events that followed, brought the human rights record in LA County to level of abuse that was difficult to perceive just a few years ago. It also appears that the LA County Judges are determined to establish the fact that the U.S. Government under President Obama is unable to enforce the U.S. Constitution in LA County. . Att Fine has been kept for about 3 months in solitary confinement.  Most of this time he was never allowed to get outside his cell. Moreover, he was not allowed any access to paper and pen, so that he wouldn't be able to write any papers to file in court. Att Fine nevertheless had from time to time been able to talk by phone, and he dictated a Habeas Corpus petition, which was filed March 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court in LA (Ref). . Circumstances surrounding the review of that petition were far from the role advertised for the U.S. Courts as the guardians of civil rights. The U.S. magistrate, Carla Woehrle, for example, in response to a motion by the LA County Sheriff, rejected the filing of some of Att Fine's papers as deficient - since Att Fine had not signed them in person. Obviously he could not sign them since the LA County Sheriff jailed him under abusive conditions, which did not allow him to practice his First Amendment rights. With such ruling, the U.S. Magistrate, not only sanctioned the abusive practices of the LA Judges and Sheriff relative to the jailing of Att Richard Fine, she also allowed them to benefit a second time from such abuse, by rejecting the filing of his papers. By mid June, 2009, the U.S. Magistrate denied the Habeas Corpus Petition of Att Richard Fine (Ref), and his appeal of that decision is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The papers filed on behalf of Att Richard Fine as a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th circuit, are no better than those filed for his habeas corpus petition. Signatures are missing, and it appears that the dictation by phone did not work effectively.(Ref) . The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District finds itself in a junction that we doubt any court in the U.S. had ever been before. The Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit would have to decide between its duties to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and its loyalty to a renegade group of over 500 California state judges, who so far managed to secure the support of at least some U.S. District Court judges in LA. . e) CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN LA COUNTY ARE IN THE BALANCE, BUT SO FAR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION. . Beyond the extreme abuse of Att Richard Fine, the situation appears to signal entire abandonment of adherence to civil rights in Los Angeles County. One telling sign is the silence of mainstream media, who appear intimidated and would rather just avoid reporting on the matter. Rumors that at times are false, and also false documents claimed to be Fine's petitions were circulated, and given that none was signed, it was at time unclear which records are authentic. The only record that is certainly authentic, albeit - edited, is a phone call recording of Att Richard Fine, describing in his own voice his conditions in the Los Angeles Jail. (Ref) Conditions in LA County are already such that are far removed from any semblance of civil rights under the Amendments. If the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit deny the Att Richard Fine Petition, one can expect that the judges would keep him jailed indefinitely, as a sign of their power, and LA County would be fairly characterized as having fallen into tyranny of the courts. . The conflict is likely to reach Washington DC expediently. In fact, it is already there. A complaint filed May 1, 2009 in Washington DC called upon "U.S. Officers to perform their duties" relative to enforcement of the law in LA County(Ref). The U.S. Officers at bar are Director of the U.S. Dept of Justice, and Assistant Director of FBI. Moreover, a special request (ex parte) was filed in early May in that complaint for an order on FBI and US DOJ to secure paper and pen for Att Richard Fine. Had that motion been heard, the current crisis could probably be averted, since Richard Fine could file a petition that would have made it much easier for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal to accept his position.

f)MEDIA QUOTES: . “Los Angeles County has the best courts that money can buy”. KNBC, Los Angeles (October 16, 2008) . “This extraordinary judicial action of ordering the indefinite incarceration of such a prominent attorney whose long and distinguished career included service in the U. S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. followed an intensive exchange where attorney Fine objected to Judge Yaffe's failure to disqualify himself. According to Richard Fine, Judge Yaffe along with all of the Los Angeles County judges have each been accepting up to hundreds of thousands of illegal dollars from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, that is specifically prohibited by the California Constitution and the Canons of Judicial Ethics.” Full Disclosure Network, Los Angeles (March 4, 2009) . “Private party payments to the judiciary would be condemned by the U.S. government in other parts of the world. The U.S. Federal government must uphold the same principle of law here at home. The judges in California did not disclose their "bribes". Evidence shows the 430 judges in Los Angeles county consistently decided cases in favor of Los Angeles County.” “Richard I. Fine is a political prisoner. He is currently being held without a release date, without bail, and in solitary confinement,. He is 69 years old, a former Department of Justice lawyer fighting for his client's rights. The California judiciary has responded by retaliating against him, disbarring him and throwing him in jail for having done so. “ AHRC News (April 16,2009) . 5) VIOLATIONS OF FIRST AMENDMENT AND COMMON LAW RIGHTS- TO ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS TO INSPECT AND TO COPY, WERE THE BASIS FOR THE USURPATION OF POWER BY THE LA COUNTY CALIFORNIA STATE JUDGES- IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPUTERIZING OF THE COURTS. . Looking back at human and civil rights conditions in LA County,

6) REFERENCES . 1) The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County, by Erwin Chemerinsky (2000) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf . 2) Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report(2006) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf . 3) Frontline broadcast with estimates of the numbers of Rampart-FIPs http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf . 4) General record deposit http://inproperinla.com/ . 5) Two Pennsylvania Judges indicted http://inproperinla.com/09-02-11-two-pennsylavnia-judges_indicted.pdf . 6) Pennsylvania judicial panel reviews convictions of indicted judges. http://inproperinla.com/09-03-26-penn-court-corrective-action-s.pdf

7) Judge Robert Aguilar, San Jose, California convicted of Racketeering; http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-us-v-aguilar-a-docket.pdf . 8) Judge Frega, San Diego, U.S. Court conviction for racketeering http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-usa-v-frega-DOCKET.pdf

9) Public Integrity Section, U.S. Dept of Justice annual reports. http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-doj-public-integrity-section-reports/

10) Rampart scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal . 11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_decree . 12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy, 13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_United_States . 14) Failed drug policy corrupts the justice system: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-doj-drug-policy-War%20on%20narcotics%20imperils%20justice%20system.pdf

15) Secret corporations and secret fund accounts held by the judges of LA Superior Court http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-99-04-11-la-sup-ct-slush-fund.pdf . 16) Decision of the California Court of Appeals, 4th District, San Diego that LA Judges took payments that were "not permitted" http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf . 17) KNBC ran a short segment on October 16, 2008: http://inproperinla.com/08-10-16-knbc-los-angeles-county-got-the-best-court-money-can-buy-s.pdf

18) California Code of Judicial Ethics http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-ca_code_judicial_ethics-s.pdf . 19) Passage of California Budget bill with provision allowing impermissible payments to judges.

20) December 1997 Special Prosecutor Report on CIA Drug Sales in LA http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-doj-oig_special_9712_full-report-cia-drug-sales-in-la.pdf

21)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US . 22)Petition pending before the 9th Circuit Court of appeal in re: Habeas Corpus denial by US District Court, Los Angeles https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=09-71692&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y . Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-71692 Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County Appeal From: US District Court for Central California, Los Angeles Docketed: 06/03/2009 . 24)Habeas Corpus Petition by jailed Att Richard Fine, denied. https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?156797741033736-L_801_0-1 . Richard I Fine v. David P Yaffe CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-03315-JFW-CW Assigned to: Judge John F. Walter Referred to: Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Western Division - Los Angeles Date Filed: 05/11/2009 Date Terminated: 05/20/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General) Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant Petitioner Richard I Fine represented by Richard I Fine BK#1824367 Twin Towers Correctional Facility 450 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 310-277-5833 PRO SE . 25) Habeas Corpus Petition by jailed Att Richard Fine, denied. https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100118899381401-L_801_0-1 . U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-00639-BEN-PCL Fine v. Yaffe et al Assigned to: Judge Roger T. Benitez Referred to: Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) Date Filed: 03/27/2009Date Terminated: 04/06/2009Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)Jurisdiction: Federal Question Petitioner Richard I Fine 1824367 Twin Towers Correctional Facility 450 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90086 PRO SE. 26) Litigation by Att Richard Fine relative to revocation of his license for filing complaint against judges. https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?933722668694662-L_801_0-1 . Richard I Fine v. State of Bar of California et al Assigned to: Judge John F. Walter Referred to: Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Date Filed: 05/02/2008 Date Terminated: 04/17/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional - State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Questio Plaintiff Richard I Fine represented by	Richard I Fine 468 North Camden Drive Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 310-277-5833 PRO SE . 27) Another action initiated against Att Richard Fine through the Californai State Board, while he is in jail https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102517386671374-L_801_0-1 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Western Division - Los Angeles CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-mc-00129-ABC FineAssigned to: Judge Audrey B. Collins In Re Richard Isaac Fine In the Disciplinary Matter of Date Filed: 05/27/2009 Richard Isaac Fine 468 N Camden Beverly Hills, CA 90210 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED .

28) The original California State Board action https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?490557605366691-L_801_0-1 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Western Division - Los Angeles CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-mc-00189 Fine In Re Richard Isaac Fine In the Disciplinary Matter of Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Date Terminated: 02/01/2008 Richard I Fine Richard I Fine & Associates 468 N Camden Dr, Ste 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 310-277-5833 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED . 29) Habeas Corpus Petition https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103341593185206-L_801_0-1 . U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-00819-W-POR Fine v. Yaffe Assigned to: Judge Thomas J. Whelan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) Date Filed: 04/13/2009Date Terminated: 05/05/2009Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 540 Mandamus & Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant Petitioner Richard I Fine PRO SE. 30) Booking record of Att Richard Fine http://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fine-inmate-information-center-%20booking-details.pdf . 31) Full Disclosure Network on the jailing of Att Richard Fine http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-full-disclosure-network-att-richard-fine-jailed-in-attempt-to-disqualify-la-judge.pdf

32) Full Disclosure Network on Fine’s Habeas Corpus Petition http://inproperinla.com/09-04-08-full-disclosure-network-on-richard-fine-habeas-corpus.pdf

33) Full Disclosure Network on Habeas Corpus Petition http://inproperinla.com/09-04-11-full-disclosure-network-on-fine-jailing-us-court-orders-la-sheriff-to-decide-on-release-of-judicial-critic-attorney-held-in-contempt-by-judge-yaffe.pdf

34) Consent Decree – The case that is the legal basis for the appointment of the Overseer for Civil Rights in Los Angeles in June 2001 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?486918992065255-L_801_0-1 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Western Division - Los Angeles CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:00-cv-11769-GAF-RC USA v. Los Angeles City of, et al Assigned to: Judge Gary A. Feess Referred to: Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman Demand: $0 Related Case: 	2:08-cv-00784-GAF-RC Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Date Filed: 11/03/2000 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff Plaintiff United States of America . Jz12345678 (talk)Jz12345678 Jz12345678 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678 . Jz12345678 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678 [This is my first - and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this project!]

Jz12345678 (talk)Jz12345678

Jz12345678 (talk)Jz12345678

Hey, well, if you are willing to make the edits needed, you can add information. However, minor slip ups of the law aren't that important for this article. Long term abuse would have to be proven. Good luck- and God bless. --Rockstone35 (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop replacing this ridiculously long entry. You keep insisting on "getting passed the bias of MSM" when it's that very 'bias' that determines what makes it into a wikipedia article and what doesn't. See WP:RS. Soxwon (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)