Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas might not be the only judge feeling a tad uncomfortable in the coming days. Thomas is under scrutiny for his failure to disclose his wife’s income for at least five years–and possibly going back more than 20 years. But we are seeing signs that other stories soon will be breaking about judicial chicanery.

Federal and state judges are among those likely to hold Swiss bank accounts that have become the subject of a WikiLeaks investigation, reports a California-based human-rights organization.

Closer to home, we’ve had considerable interaction in recent weeks with two federal judges–William M. Acker Jr. and Abdul Kallon, both of the Northern District of Alabama. We soon will be presenting detailed information showing that Acker and Kallon are violating their oaths to uphold the law. We have seen evidence that at least one of these judges has engaged in a possible criminal conspiracy.

The WikiLeaks banking story began when former Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer handed over two computer disks containing information about thousands of offshore accounts. Elmer claims the disks provide evidence of massive potential tax evasion and other illegal activities involving international bankers. Swiss officials have arrested Elmer for possible breach of banking-secrecy laws, an action that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange condemned.

U.S. judges, at both the federal and state level, probably are in the middle of the Swiss banking activity, says Joseph Zernik, Ph.D., of Human Rights Alert (NGO), a Los Angeles organization devoted to exposing human-rights violations by the American justice system.

In a blog post dated January 17, 2011, Zernik writes:

In view of the pending WikiLeaks release of Swiss banking data, Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, suggest that significant numbers of U.S. and state judges are likely to be among U.S. citizens holding numbered bank accounts in Switzerland.

Review of numerous cases in the U.S. and state courts shows a tight alliance between judges and large financial institutions, in disregard of the judges’ oaths of office, through the conduct of alleged fraud on the courts in litigation involving financial institutions. Such conduct undermines the stated U.S. government efforts to establish honest and effectual banking regulation.

How would judges benefit from offshore accounts? It would allow them to hide their financial ties to financial institutions and then rule unlawfully in favor of those institutions in court. The whole process, if proven, would amount to a massive fraud on American courts. Writes Zernik:

A growing body of evidence suggests that both U.S. and state judges have accepted financial benefits from large financial institutions. In 2008 Dr Zernik filed requests with California Judge Terry Friedman (Los Angeles Superior Court), U.S. Judge Virginia Phillips, and U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) for statements on the record regarding financial benefits to them or family members residing with them from such institutions (pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics). All three refused to provide such statements.

In 2009 whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld led to the discovery that an estimated 40,000 U.S. wealthy citizens were holding Swiss numbered accounts with UBS-AG. Birkenfeld was swiftly sentenced by a U.S. court to years in federal prison. He was never able to collect rewards provided by the False Claims Act and stated U.S. policies, which could have amounted to billions of U.S. dollars. The criminal prosecution of the culprits–banking executives–never materialized, and the U.S. government negotiated an agreement with the Swiss government, according to which the names of the vast majority of the offenders were never released by UBS-AG.

Banking executives feel free to violate the law, Zernik writes, because they know it is unlikely they will face prosecution in American courts:

Regardless of mounting credible evidence of racketeering by Bank of America and its senior executives, including Brian Moynihan, U.S. banking regulation agencies refuse to take action. It is claimed that conduct of such agencies is caused, at least in part, from the realization that under conditions that prevail today in the U.S. courts, there is no way to prosecute banking executives.

Human Rights Alert suggests that U.S. officials in general, and state and U.S. judges, in particular, are likely to be among the Swiss accounts holders. Moreover, a Swiss law, which would prohibit deposits by U.S. government officers while in office in Swiss bank accounts, is likely to materially affect restoration of U.S. government and U.S. financial markets integrity and stability.

Through the pending release of both U.S. and Swiss banking records WikiLeaks is therefore likely to support effective banking regulation in the United States, where U.S. agencies and the U.S. courts are acting in disregard of the law.

All of this hits close to home for your humble blogger. I haven’t written much lately about my personal legal situation, but that’s about to change. Mrs. Schnauzer and I have seen disturbing signs that U.S. judges William M. Acker II and Abdul Kallon are either grossly incompetent, corrupt–or both.

Acker is overseeing my employment lawsuit against the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Kallon is handling lawsuits Mrs. Schnauzer and I have filed against unethical debt collectors (NCO and Ingram and Associates) and against Shelby County officials and individuals regarding an unlawful sheriff’s deed that was placed on our house. All three cases have grown out of interactions with our criminally inclined neighbor, Mike McGarity, and his ethically challenged attorney, William E. Swatek.

We don’t know if Acker or Kallon are involved with Swiss bank accounts, but we have seen signs that they favor corporate interests. There is little doubt that my termination at UAB was driven by individuals with ties to former Republican Governor Bob Riley, his son Rob Riley, and the Business Council of Alabama. I know of at least one case, a whistleblower complaint involving Medicare fraud, where Acker made a number of curious rulings that favored Rob Riley.

At the heart of the NCO/Ingram case is an alleged debt on an American Express card. Before being appointed to the federal bench, Kallon worked at the Birmingham firm of Bradley Arant Boult and Cummings. That is one of the most conservative, pro-business law firms in the state–and for good measure, it has strong ties to the Riley family; Rob Campbell, Bob Riley’s son-in-law, works there.

American Express certainly qualifies as a major player on the U.S. financial scene, and if handled correctly under the law, our lawsuit probably would reveal any number of unlawful actions by AMEX and companies associated with it.

Are Acker and Kallon trying to protect corporate interests in Alabama? Are my wife and I dealing firsthand with the corrupting influence that financial institutions have on our court system–the very issue on which Joseph Zernik has reported?

Whether or not Swiss bank accounts are involved in our personal court cases, the answer to both of those questions appears to be yes. And we will be providing details about the actions of Acker and Kallon in upcoming posts.