Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 31440, Jerusalem

12-10-19 Invalid Electronic Record Systems of the State and Federal US Courts Enablers of Human Rights Abuse and the Financial Crisis CYBERLAW 2013 paper - peer-reviewed and accepted
The attached manuscript details large-scale fraud in the California and US courts electronic record systems, Sustain, and PACER and CM/ECF, respectively. The attached paper was accepted for publication and presentation in CYBERLAW 2013 through scholarly peer-review process. Later, it was "rejected" through a dubious process by a self-identified "volunteer" and "logistics" of the organizers - IARIA International Academy, Research, and Industry Association. Previously, no US-based journal in Human Rights or Law and Technology, where similar manuscripts had been submitted, agreed to review such manuscripts. [2,3] Likewise, no US-based legal expert agreed to opine on the matter. [4,5,6] Similar papers have been peer-reviewed, accepted, published, and presented in Data Analytics, Data Mining, and World Criminology conferences in recent years. LINKS:
[1] 12-12-15 Correspondence with IARIA CYBRALAW 2013 re acceptance of paper documenting large-scale fraud in the electronic records of the California, US courts http://www.scribd.com/doc/117040512/ [2] 10-09-09 Press Release: Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow, Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review Asked for Acknowledgement of Receipt of Paper Submitted to the Journal http://www.scribd.com/doc/37198605/ [3] 10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System http://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/ [4] 11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud in the US courts http://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/ [5] 10-04-25 Request and Refusal of Opinion Letter by Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow in re: Alleged Fraud in PACER and CM/ECF http://www.scribd.com/doc/30485286/ [6] 11-07-21 Asking Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren to opine on evidence of largescalefraud in the electronic records of the US courts http://www.scribd.com/doc/60534491/

Invalid Electronic Record Systems of the State and Federal US Courts Enablers of Human Rights Abuse and the Financial Crisis
Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert (NGO) Jerusalem e-mail: josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org Abstract Recent peer-reviewed papers, detailed the invalidity and lack of integrity in the design and operation of the electronic record systems of the California and federal courts in the United States, primarily from system perspective. According to experts, today fraud in the state and federal courts is at unprecedented levels. The current report presents records from a series of cases, conducted under the electronic record systems, currently implemented in a) the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (LASC) - Sustain, and b) the US courts - PACER and CM/ECF. The cases document the propagation of simulated (mock) electronic legal public records by the courts to deprive the liberty and property of individuals with no due process of law. Other cases document conduct of simulated litigation and the publication of simulated court judgments on matters of high national public policy significance. In no case, where a court was noticed of the simulated nature of the proceedings and the records, up to the Supreme Court of the United States, did a court cease such conduct, or correct its false electronic public records. Such conduct is enabled through undermined authority and integrity of the offices of the clerks of the courts in the aftermath of implementation of the electronic record systems in the courts. Such conditions are serious violation of fundamental Human Rights of the People of the United States, and are central to the current socio-economic crisis. In civilized societies, where separation of the powers of the branches of government is established by law, and where no court is permitted to enact its own rules of operation, no court should be permitted to institute its own electronic record system.
Keywords-Information Systems;e-government; e-court; State of California; United States; Sustain; PACER; CM/ECF; eFraud; e-Law; Human Rights

Court procedures, and in particular, the maintenance of valid court records, have evolved over centuries and are at the core of Fair Hearing/Due Process. Essential to them are the coordinated actions of the two arms of the courts: The judicial arm judges who make decisions, and the ministerial (clerical) arm clerks who are custodians of the legal public records of the courts. The transition to electronic case management and public access systems, in any court, amounts to a sea change in court procedures, in matters ranging from certification, and authentication, through security and custody, to public access. Previous studies show that the transition to electronic record systems in the courts and prisons in the United States was not risk-free. [ iii , iv , v ] Such systems enable the widespread propagation of simulated legal public records of the court and with it, the conduct of simulated litigation. [vi] The current report focuses on review of a series of simulated records from cases in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, (LASC) and the US courts nationwide and proposes corrective actions. II. THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, ELECTRONIC RECORD SYSTEMS, AND INTEGRITY OF THE COURTS

Legal process, legal public records of the courts, and authority, duties and responsibilities of the clerks of the courts of the US courts are established by law, including, but not limited to: US Constitution, Article IV, 1; [vii] Judiciary Act (1789); [viii] Act of May 26, 1790; [ix] The Salary Act (1919); [x] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure/Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; [xi] Miscellaneous laws e.g., 28 USC 1691; [xii] Similar provisions are found in the California law: California Civil Code; [xiii,xiv] California Government Code; [xv,xvi,xvii] California Rules of Court; [xviii] Local Rules, Los Angeles County; [xix,xx]

I.

INTRODUCTION

The courts worldwide have implemented in recent decades electronic record systems for efficient management of court cases and public access to court records. The state and federal courts in the United States were some of the first to do so. Reports of the United Nations on 'Strengthening Judicial Integrity' encourage the transition. Indeed, there is no doubt that such systems could have improved the management of valid court records and transparency of the judicial processes. [i,ii]

Review of the electronic record systems of the LASC and the US courts makes it clear that the respective electronic record systems (Sustain; PACER and CM/ECF), are invalid, relative to the respective legal frameworks. [xxi], [App 1-5] Numerous experts opine that today the state and US courts experience a period of unprecedented corruption:

Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School, opined, "...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." [xxii] Corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (LASC), the largest county court in the United States, serving over 10 million residents, has been repeatedly documented for well over a decade. In 2001, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, later founding dean of University of California, Irvine law school, opined: This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted. [ xxiii ] And then Dean David Burcham of Loyola law school, Los Angeles, opined, judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." [ xxiv ] The 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the first ever Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, mostly based on documentation of fraud in court records, was incorporated into the official Professional Staff Report, with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession". [xxv] In a July 26, 2010 speech before the Conference of Chief Justices of the several states, Harvard law Prof Lawrence Tribe, in his capacity as Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, called for a halt in the disintegration of the state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations. [xxvi] The current study provides evidence that invalid electronic records systems enable and promote the propagation of simulated legal public records by the courts and undermine the integrity of the state and federal courts in the United States. III. METHODS

around 1985. According to the web site of Sustain Corporation, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Daily Journal Corporation (NASDAQ: DJCO), and Sustain systems are by now implemented in 11 states and 3 nations. Who in fact controls Sustain Corporation remains unknown. Previous reports documented the invalidity of Sustain: The LASC publishes its legal public records online, subject to a "disclaimer", stating that such records are not valid and authoritative court records. (Fig 1) In parallel, the LASC denies public access to records, e.g. the Register of Actions (California civil docket), which the LASC considers the valid court records, by concealing them in the case management system of Sustain.

Figure 1. Disclaimer in the online public legal records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, (LASC) in Sustain "this site does not consitute the official record of the court" [xxviii] In parallel, the LASC denies public access to valid court records.

The underlying studies were focused on analysis of integrity of the electronic record systems of the LASC and the US courts nationwide. The studies were based on data mining, and not on legal analysis of the adjudication logic. Data mining methods were employed to examine the validity of records on their faces and infer rules of the systems, since in both Sustain and PACER-CM/ECF the courts keep such rules confidential. The current report emphasizes the presentation of a series of cases, which document the conduct of simulated litigation in the courts. [xxvii] The series is a small fraction of a large archive of such records from large number of cases in LASC and in the US courts nationwide. The cases were selected for reasons that are explained below. IV. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUSTAIN

In parallel, the LASC has ceased almost universally service and authentication/notice of entry of minutes, orders, and judgments by the Clerk of the Court. Moreover, the Clerk of the Court no longer enters judgments, as required by California Code and the Local Rules, to make judgments "effectual for any purpose", neither does the Clerk of the Court serve Notice of Entry of Judgment, nor maintains the public fundamental "Judgment Book" (on paper, or in other media), as required by California law. At the systems level, it is also be noted that the public records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (LASC), are maintained on servers, whose identity is uncertified. [ xxix ] In response to inquiries, the LASC claimed that the servers are under custody of the County of Los Angeles, not the LASC. A. The case of Barbara Darwish (1998-2006) Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) originated in a real estate purchase dispute. Review of the LASC's records in the case shows that a group of judges and the clerks colluded to take the 6-unit Santa Monica rental property of Defendant Darwish. The hallmark of the simulated litigation took place on May 13, 2002: Defendant Darwish appeared that morning in the LASC for the scheduled Jury Trial. Instead, she was deceived by the LASC and attorneys to proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where an anonymous Muni Judge conducted on the same afternoon a simulated Court Trial to take her property. (Fig 2) Darwish later identified the "Muni Judge" - John Segal.

Sustain, the electronic record system of the LASC, is believed to be one of the earliest in the nation, implemented

Superior Court records showed that neither a judgment, nor an appealable order was ever entered in this case in the manner required by California law to make it effectual for any purpose. However, the purported judgment was executed nevertheless by the LASC. Moreover, California Court of Appeal, 2nd District (Los Angeles) took three (3) simulated appeals in the case two of them were denied, and the third was voluntarily dismissed. (Table 1) One of the simulated appeals produced a "published decision", which permits "oral modifications" of real estate contracts, overturning hundreds of years of common law, distilled into the Statute of Frauds (1677). The case of Barbara Darwish commenced in 1998, a full decade prior to the onset of the "sub-prime crisis". The case shows that the routines of real estate fraud under simulated litigation in the LASC were already well estabslihed at that time, involving large number of judges, clerks, and attorneys.

and FBI Director with requests for Equal Protection of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, against racketeering by judges of the LASC.
Appeal # Judgment Date */ Notice of Appeal/ Trial Court Judge 09/05/02 12/19/02 Segal, John None Listed 11/24/04 Segal, John 04/26/06 11/24/04 Segal, John California Court of Appeal Justices Disposition

B163970

Curry, Daniel Vogel, Charles (Concur) Hastings, J. (Concur) Curry, Daniel Epstein, Norman (Concur) Hastings, J. (Concur) None Listed

B179667

Affirmed in full Final Signed Published 113 Cal.App.4th 1331 Affirmed in full Final Voluntary dismissal Final

B191327

Table 1: Summary of Appeals in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as they are recorded in the online public access system of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District. None of the appeals was lawfully taken from a valid, entered judgment or appealable order of the trial court. [App 8-9] * The public access system of the California Court of Appeal does not list any Dates of Entry of Judgments.

B. The case of Susan Lomas (2011-2012) In Lomas v Bank of America Corporation (KC0559379) in the LASC, Susan Lomas attempted to protect her real property against fraud by Bank of America. Judge Peter Meeka conducted on Lomas proceedings, which, as was later discovered, were secretly noted in the simulated minutes in Sustain, "off of the record". (Fig 3) The minutes were not served on Lomas, neither were they authenticated by the Clerk of the Court. Lomas's access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket), was and continues to be denied by the LASC. [App 10] The case of Susan Lomas commenced over 10 years later than the case of Barbara Darwish. The methods of conducting simulated litigation in real estate matters remained the same. However, in the case of Lomas, a bank was the primary beneficiary. The case is also of interest, since it commenced after FBI issued testimonies to the US Congress of no criminality by sub-prime lenders underlying the current crisis, while Bank of America Corporation was recipient of hundreds of billions of USD in US taxpayer bailouts, under representations of no fraud in its operation, and while large-scale fraud by lenders and the courts on the People were "settled" by the US government and the attorney generals of the several states. C. The case of Richard Fine (2007-2011) In litigation of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420), former US prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Attorney for Plaintiff, sought injunction against the County of Los Angeles, pertaining to a large real estate development project by private corporations. In the course of the litigation, Fine exposed and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of "not permitted payments", which were labeled by media "bribes". [App 11] Consequently, the State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007, and starting March 4, 2009 Fine was held by Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County in solitary

Figure 2. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - Register of Actions [California docket jz] in Sustain - the electronic record system of the Court. In this civil real property matter, Ms Darwish appeared on the morning May 13, 2002 for a scheduled jury trial in the Superior Court. Instead, she was deceived by attorneys and the Court to appear on the same afternoon for a "Court Trial" in the Culver City Municipal Court before "Muni Judge" , who remained anonymous. Declaration of Ms Darwsih clarified that it the "Muni Judge", who decided to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental property was Judge John Segal. [xxx]

The LASC continues to deny access to the paper court file in this case. Regardless, due to its extensive documentation, the case was key part of the evidence, repeatedly submitted since 2008 to the US Attorney General

"coercive confinement", which was then said to be indefinite. Eventually, Fine was released on September 17, 2010. No valid warrant, valid conviction, valid sentencing, valid booking records, or valid order for his release were discovered, only simulated legal public records. (Fig 4)

Figure 4. Inmate Richard Fine (1824367) - Online Inmate Information Center, Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Richard Fine was placed by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County under indefinite coercive solitary confinement, which ended up lasting 18 months. The fraudulent onine public legal records of his booking list him arrested and booked on location and by authority of the "Municipal Court of San Pedro", which did not and does not exist. The image is an excerpt from formal response by Sheriff Lee Baca to official inquiry by Michael Antonovitch, Supervisor of Los Angeles County, in this matter. [xxxii]

The case of Richard Fine was also part of the evidence, forwarded to the US Attorney General and FBI with requests for Equal Protection of the People of Los Angeles against racketeering by the LASC. V. FEDERAL US COURTS PACER AND CM/ECF

Figure 3. Lomas v Bank of America (KC0559379) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Minutes of August 12, 2010 "Ex Parte Motion to Stay Enforcement of Write for Possession". The Minutes state "The ex parte application is read and considered in chambers and off of the record" The Minutes were never duly served or noticed by the Clerk of the Court, and are missing the integral authentication record "Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk. [xxxi] Access to the Register of Actions (Califronia civil docket) in this case and most others in LASC is denied, even to parties in their own litigation.

PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Record) and CM/ECF (Case Management/Electronic Court Filing), the electronic record systems of the US courts were implemented nationwide by the Administrative Office of the US Courts approximately from the mid-1990s to the mid2000s at a cost that is estimated at billions of USD. The invalidity of PACER and CM/ECF as electronic record systems of the US courts was previously described. [xxxiii] At the system level, it should be noted that the identity of the servers, on which such legal public records are published, is not certified. [xxxiv] A. The case of Richard Fine (2008-2010) Once imprisoned by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Fine's habeas corpus petitions were filed in US Court, Central District of California, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the US Supreme Court. In all instances, the petitions were subjected to simulated review and denied. [App 12-13] While the case of Richard Fine was before the Supreme Court, Motion to Intevene was filed, which provided dertailed documentation of the simulated public legal records, which were produced in the case of Richard Fine by the Sheriff's Department, by the Los Angeles Superior Court, by the US Court, Central District of California, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the US Supreme Court. [App 13] The Motion to Intervene also included evidence of simulated records, which had been produced by Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickel in the same case.

Consequently, the State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007, and starting March 4, 2009 Fine was held by Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County in solitary "coercive confinement", which was then said to be indefinite. Eventually, Fine was released on September 17, 2010. No valid warrant, valid conviction, valid sentencing, valid booking records, or valid order for his release were discovered, only simulated legal public records. (Fig 4) [Appendix 11] Repeated requests were forwarded to Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and to the LASC during the period of Fine's confinement, to access valid legal public records, to correct the simulated legal public records, or to release Fine. The requests were ignored. Public access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in this case continues to be denied by the LASC.

The Motion to Intevene was duly filed with the Supreme Court, and stamped "RECEIVED". Later, the same papers were "returned" by Court Counsel Danny Bickell. [App 14] Media coverage of the case of Richard Fine was mostly left to off mainstream media. The rare reports by major media outlets were often partial, or even hostile to Fine. The case of Richard Fine provides unique documentation of in concert operation of invalid electronic record systems in the Sheriff's prison, in the LASC, in the three instances of the US courts to unlawfully deprive and individual of Liberty. A central recommendation of the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations Human Rights Council calls for the restoration of the right for Habeas Corpus in the United States. The recommendation originated from conduct of the US government relative detainees in Guantanamo Bay. However, as documented by the case of Richard Fine, through denial of access to honest courts and the conduct of simulated litigation, the right of Habeas Corpus is effectively denied also to "non-combatant" US citizens in the territorial United States. The case of Richard Fine also provides evidence that the US judges, up to the Supreme Court, are not willing, ready, able to address their own corruption. B. The case of Log Cabin Republicans (2004-2010) The litigation of Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425) in the US Court, Central District of California, and later Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634 and 10-56813) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, challenged the 'Don't Ask Dont Tell' policy of the US Armed Forces, pertaining to the service of gays in the military, on constitutional grounds. The matter was widely covered by major US and world media outlets over the years, it was hotly debated, and it kept the US Armed Forces, the US Congress, and the White House preoccupied and on alert for months, waiting for the outcome of the litigation. Review of the US District Court's records in this case shows: Both US Judges George Schiavelli and Virginia Phillips appeared as Presiding Judges in the case, both with no Assignment Orders. In 2004 Judge George Schiavelli issued a judgment in the case, in favor of the United States. The judgment was listed in the PACER docket as entered and was listed in the Judgment Index of the Court. Consequently, the case was deemed by court staff 'Closed'. The 2004 Judge George Schiavelli Judgment was never overturned through an appeal, or any other judicial process. In 2010 Judge Virginia Phillips appeared in the case and issued the opposing judgment, in favor of the Log Cabin Republicans. The 2010 Judge Phillips

judgment is also listed in the PACER docket "Entered", but is NOT listed in the Judgment Index of the Court. The Clerk of the Court denies public access to the NEFs (which the US courts deem authentication records) in this case. [App 7] The Clerk of the Court refuses to certify the PACER docket, or either of the two opposing judgments in this case.

The records of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, cannot possibly be deemed valid legal public records, either: A docket was opened for the appeal by the US Court of Appeals Clerk Molly C Dwyer from an uncertified judgment of the US District Court. The purported decisions by the Circuit Judges in the Appeal are all unsigned, unauthenticated records. The Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit denied a request for certification of the docket and decisions in the Appeal. While the appeal in this case was purportedly under review before the 9th Circuit Court, a Motion to Intervene was filed, which provided detailed documentation of the invalidity of the US District Court's judgment record, in which the appeal originated. The US Court of Appeals continued the simulated review of the Appeal nevertheless, and concluded it in a simulated published opinion. It should be noted that Log Cabin Republicans won the Civil Rights of gays in the Armed Forces through the services of a large banking law firm - Case & White, LLP. C. The case of Citizens United (2007-2010) The case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) in the Supreme Court of the United States, no doubt is one of the more important decisions of the US Supreme Court in recent decades. It was discussed in great details in the legal literature. Prof Erwin Chemerisnky, in an understatement, described it as follows:
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns is a stunning example of judicial activism by its five most conservative justices. In striking down a federal statute and explicitly overturning prior decisions, the court has changed the nature of elections in the United States. [xxxv]

Former President Jimmy Carter, protested the decision directly, saying:

we have one of the worst election processes in the world right in the United States of America, and it's almost entirely because of the excessive influx of money." [xxxvi]

record. Therefore, by the standards of the US courts themselves, such note could not possibly be an valid, authenticated court record.

Figure 7. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the US Supreme Court - excerpt from the online public docket: "Feb 22, 2010 JUDGMENT ISSUED". The respective Judgment record is yet to be discovered. It fails to be found among the online public records of the Supreme Court, Federal Election Commission failed to produce it in response to Freedom of Information Request, and an attorney for another party in the case confirmed that she had never been served with such "Judgment", either. United Nations reports on "Strengthening Judicial Integrity" list missing court records as a cardinal sign of corruption.

Figure 5. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1:07-cv02240), in the US Court, District of Columbia litigation commenced with an invalid summons record, missing the required Seal of the Court. The record was downloaded from the PACER docket in the case. The case originated in the US District Court, District of Columbia, with the issuance of invalid summons, missing the required Seal of the Court, (Fig 5) and proceeded with "off the record" minutes. (Fig 6) [App 18] The case ended in the Supreme Court of the United States with a dubious online public docket notation, "February 22, 2010 JUDGMENT ISSUED". (Fig 7) The docket fails to indicates that such judgment was also 'entered'. No matching judgment record has been found among the online public legal records of the Supreme Court, neither was one discovered by Federal Elections Commission, in response to Freedom of Information Request. (Fig 8) The Federal Election Commission refused to respond on request to explain, why it would not ignore a "Judgment", which had never been duly served, noticed, or entered. [App 19-20]

D. The case of Jeffrey Baron (2009-2012) Litigation of Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al (3:09-cv00988) in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas, originated in a contract dispute. Review of the records of the US District Court in this case shows: [App 15] Invalid summonses were issued by the Office of the Clerk Karen Mitchell with no seal of the court, as required by US law. Judge Royal Furgeson appears in the case with no Assignment Order at al. The purported Receiver, Attorney Peter Vogel, was appointed in November 2010 through an Ex Parte Emergency motion for Appointment of Receiver over Jeffrey Baron. The Order Appointing Receiver purported to give Vogel authority over the Person and Assets of Defendant Jeff Baron. The notion itself is akin to slavery. The Order Appointing Receiver fails to reference any section of the US code as the legal foundation for the establishment of such receivership. Numerous Motions, Minutes, Orders, and Clerks Notices of Delivery in this case were noted 'entered' in the PACER docket of this case, albeit - with no docket numbers, and/or with no hyperlinks to any electronic records. Such docket notes are opined as fraud on the court. Search of the Calendar of the Court for January 1, 1970 to March 11, 2012, showed 'No Schedule Found'. Regardless of multiple filings by Baron in the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, such corrupt court practices are permitted to stand. Conduct of the US judges in this case should be deemed extra-judicial conduct, which is not protected by any judicial immunity. Widespread corruption through the simulated establishment of receiverships was previously documented

Figure 6. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1:07-cv02240), in the US Court, District of Columbia simulated January 10, 2008 Minute record. The note in the online PACER record states: Proceedings held before a Three Judge Panel of Circuit Judge A Raymond Randolph and United States District Judges Royce C. Lamberth and Richard W. Roberts : Preliminary Injunction held on 1/10/2008. In contrast with other notations in the PACER docket, this critical Minute record fails to have a Docket number designated, and has no hyperlink to a

also in the State of California courts, e.g., in the case of Barbara Darwish, described above.

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

E. Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v Bank of America Corporation (BAC) (1:09-cv-06829) in the US Court, Southern District of New York, under Judge Jed Rakoff, is a landmark litigation in the current financial crisis. [App 21] The case originated in the unlawful taking of USD 5.8 billion by banking executives during the Merrill Lynch-BAC merger key event in the crisis. The case concluded with the executives never returning the funds to the stockholders, no individual being held accountable, and the stockholders paying a fine of USD 130 million to themselves through a special fund administered by the Court. Review of the public legal records in this case provides unique documentation of the conduct of simulated litigation, coordinated from the start by SEC prominent government agency, Bank of America the largest consumer bank in the United States, Jed Rakoff - a judge touted as one of the best qualified in the US in matters related to the stock market and white-collar crime, and Ruby Krajick Clerk of the Court, starting with the issuance of invalid summons (Fig 9), and continuing with a series of simulated proceedings and simulated minutes. (Fig 10) [App 21]
Figure 8. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the US Supreme Court a simulated court record, dated January 21, 2010, which was produced by Federal Election Commission in response to Freedom of Information request, in lieu of the February 22, 2010 Judgment. The record is signed by Cynthia Rapp. Her authority is unlisted, but she is believed to be an employee of the office of Court Counsel, not a Deupty Clerk of the Court.

Upon review of the records, a reasonable person would conclude that the criminal scheme in this case was coordinated by the Plaintiffs Judge Royal Furgeson, Clerk of the Court Karen Mitchell, Attorney Peter Vogel, and others in advance of filing the complaint. The case of Jeffrey Baron shows the absurd levels to which US judges today are ready, willing, able to extend their abuse, with guaranteed patronage by the review courts. The conduct of US judges, as seen in such cases, should be deemed extrajudicial conduct, which is not protected by any judicial immunity. Widespread corruption in receiverships was previously documented also in the State of California courts. The case of Citizens United is based on the controversial theory of Corporate Personhood, which is largely hinged on the case of Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886). The latter landmark decision is also distinguished for the irregularity of its records a dubious headnote by the reporter, stating that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating:

Figure 9. Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US Court, Southern District of New York Summons as Issued by the Clerk of the Court, and as executed. The summons is unsigned, and fails to show the seal of the court. (The record was obtained through Freedom of Information Act response.)

Figure 10. Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US Court, Southern District of New York excerpt from the PACER Docket. The January 12, 2010 entry includes a Docket Number and a link to an actual record. The January 19, 2010 entry has no Docket Number designated, and no link to any record. Therefore, no court record exists for the latter entry. Moreover, given the design of the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing), even had the respective record existed somewhere, it couldnt possibly have been authenticated, and therefore, would have been an invalid court record. Therefore, the multiple entries in the docket of this case, where no Docket Number and links are provided, should be deemed false and deliberately misleading docket notations.

The case should be considered of high public policy significance, since it documents the ongoing corruption of US banking regulations. The same case was given extensive coverage by major US and world media, touted as 'tough' banking regulation by Judge Rakoff. It is difficult to believe that experienced legal reporters of such media failed to realize the true nature of the litigation in the US District Court, Southern District of New York. [App 21] VI. DISCUSSION

A. Electronic record sytems and corruption of the office of the Clerk of the Court The general pattern that emerges from review of the electronic record systems of the courts of State of California and the US courts, and corresponding systems in other nations is the following: The systems rendered the nature of electronic signatures ambiguous in the transition from paper to electronic records. Electronic signatures, or equivalent, were implemented in such systems in a manner that is invisible to the public, and authentication records by the clerks of the courts was methodically eliminated from the public access systems, leaving the public unable to distinguish between valid and void legal public records. Public legal records that are published online as "Case Summary", or "Docket", fail to be published under the authority of the clerk, and the clerks refuse to certify them. In fact, such records are simulated legal public records. Conditions were created that enable and promote the conduct of simulated litigation and the propagation of simulated legal public records. B. Sustain - privatization of legal public records and of the Local Rules of Courts Public records emerged in the late middle ages as key instrument for the administration of a civilized society. The earliest public records were birth, marriages, and burial records. Later, in the English common law, court records

were accorded the same status. The public's right to inspect and to copy court records is considered essential for transparency and integrity of the courts and the judicial process. Implementation of an electronic record system for the LASC through the Sustain Corporation in fact amounts to 'privatization' of court records. Additionally, since the system implemented rules that are different from the published Local Rules of Court, and the LASC refuses to disclose, for example, the rules implemented in the Sustain for the entry of judgments, Sustain also represents 'privatization' of the Rules of Court. Implementing electronic record systems in the courts, could have enhanced transparency. In fact, as documented in the current report, the courts established "double book" systems, where the public is permitted access only to the records that are not deemed by the courts authoritative, while the public is denied access to the case management systems, holding additional or other critical court records. The office of the Clerk of the Court is deemed the lawful custodian of the public legal records of the courts of most 'western democracies'. The examples from the state and federal courts in the United States, presented in the current report, show that undermining the authority of the offices of the clerks of the courts was central to the implementation of unlawful electronic record systems. It should be noted that at the time of the passage of the Salary Act (1919), the federal courts were notorious for their corruption, described in the US Congress as "a sham and a burlesque". According to a historic study, published by the Federal Judiciary Center, key to the corruption was conduct of the offices of the clerks of the courts, and the Salary Act was credited as key to their reform. [xxxvii] It is proposed that repair of the electronic record systems, and with it, restoration of the accountability of the clerks of the courts for the integrity of court records, are essential for addressing the current conditions in the state and federal courts in the United States. C. Human error or mal intent? Mal-intent is most effectively demonstrated in the refusal of the relevant authorities to right the wrongs, after being duly noticed of their wrongful conduct. The current report documents the refusal of the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, the US Court, and the LASC, and the Los Angeles Sheriff to correct simulated legal public records in various cases, and unlawful denial of public access to court records, but are now held in confidence by the courts. It also documents the refusal of the US Attorneys' Offices, FBI, US Attorney General, and the US Congress to take corrective actions in view of such widespread corruption in the courts. Federal agencies, such as the Federal Election Commission, the Stock and Exchange Commission, and the US Attorneys' Offices, as well as law firms large and small are shown to collude with the courts in the conduct of simulated proceedings.

D. Simulated courts are state crime organizations, and are inherent to the constitutional and socio-economic crisis in the United States and beyond. The leap, taken by the judges of the State of California and the United States in implementing invalid electronic record systems stands in contrast with hundreds of years established court procedures and the respective laws of the State of California and the United States. In criminological terms, through undermining their own integrity, such courts are transformed into state crime organizations. Conduct of the state and US courts amounts to serious violation of the Human Rights of the People of the United States. It also amounts to abandonment of the US Constitution by the judiciary and the legal profession, as a class. No attempt was made to review procedures set in place, under such circumstances, for apostille certification of California and US court records, pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961). Compliance of the US government with its duties and obligations, pursuant to the Convention, is likely to be undermined. It is increasingly recognized that the current global socioeconomic crisis is founded on an epidemic of legal/banking fraud. The cases, reviewed in the current report, document that such conditions in the state and US courts are routinely used to abuse the rights of individuals, and serve the interests of financial corporations. Peer-reviewed papers and reports detail similar conduct in the courts of the State of Israel. [ xxxviii ] Preliminary surveys suggests that similar, invalid electronic record systems have been instituted in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany. [xxxix,xl] VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conduct of the California and federal courts, detailed in the current report, should be deemed violation of the fundamental Human Rights of the People of the United States, and voiding of the US Constitution. Senior members of the judiciary and the legal profession exploited the transition over the past three decades to new electronic record systems to undermine the integrity of offices of the clerks of the courts, and with them, integrity of the entire justice system. Concomitantly, false perception of enhanced public access and enhanced transparency of the courts was affected. Corrective actions at this time in the United States would require not only the reversal of an enormous number of fraudulent court records, but also a large-scale Truth and Reconciliation Commission on judges, clerks, and attorneys, who partook in betrayal of the law in various levels. In fact, Senator Patrick Leahy, the veteran Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called already in 2009 for a Truth and Reconciliation on the US Department of Justice. [xli] Corruption of the justice system is inherent the current global socio-economic crisis. If left unaddressed, current conditions in the state and US courts are likely to lead to

further abuse of the Human Rights of the People of the United States and further socio-economic deterioration. VIII. NO COURT OF A CIVILIZED NATION SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ITS OWN ELECTRONIC RECORD SYSTEM The current report advocates the following logic: Any information system (whether on paper or electronic) is an assembly of rules of operations, regardless of whether it is based on computer (manmade), or natural (human) language. 2. Any electronic information system that runs the operations of a court is an assembly of rules of operations of such court. 3. In civilized societies, where separation of the powers of the branches of government is established by law, and where no court is permitted to enact its own rules of operation, no court should be permitted to institute its own electronic record system. 1. ONLINE APPENDICES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Human Right Alert (NGO), Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States Los Angeles County, Califronia, as incorporated into the 2010 Human Rights Council Report with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" (2010) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/ Zernik, J., "The Los Angeles Superior Court - Widespread Corruption, Patronized by the US Government" (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/46460640/ Zernik, J., " Beyond voting machines - case management systems of the courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court" (2008) http://www.scribd.com/doc/110477747/ Zernik, J., " Computers & the courts: Sustain - case management system of the Los Angeles Superior Court Registers of Action" (2008) http://www.scribd.com/doc/110475097/ Shamir, E., "Opinion regarding Sustain, electronic record system of the Los Angeles Superior Court", (April 20, 2009) http://www.scribd.com/doc/46069337/ Zernik, J., "Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts", International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/ Zernik, J., "NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)", (2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/55862403/ Zernik, J., "Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal Judge, John A Clarke Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak and others in the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE: Conduct of pretense litigation alleged real estate fraud by the Court." (2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/ Zernik, J., "Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Complaint for Public Corruption against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, RE: Conduct of three pretense appeals alleged real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts." (2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/

[10] Zernik, J., " Lomas v Bank of America - Fraud and Extortion

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

continue in the California Court of Appeal ", (2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/54620265/ Zernik, J., "Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420) - Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Los Angeles Superior Court, and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and others for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights" http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/ Zernik, J., "Habeas Corpus in the United States the case of Richard Isaac Fine" http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/ Zernik, J,. Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) in the US Suprme Court Motion to Intervene and concomitantly filed papers (2010): 1. Amended Motion to Intervene http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/ 2. Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/ 3. Amended Request for Corrections of US Supreme Court Records http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/ 4.Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/ 5. Amended Appendices http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/ Zernik, J,. "Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) in the US Suprme Court Criminal Complaint for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights against Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell, filed with the US Attorney Office, Washington, DC" (2010)

ii

iii

iv

vi

United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center, Report of the First Vienna Convention Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6 (2000) United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center, Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption, CICP-10 (2001) Zernik, J., Data Mining as a Civic Duty Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010) Zernik, J., Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) Zernik, J., "Design and Operation of the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts are Linked to Failing Banking Regulation", Data Analytics 1:83-93 (2012) "Simulated litigation", "simulated decisions", "simulated service", "simulated justice system" here refer to conduct defined as felonies 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.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/ [15] Zernik, J., "Ex Parte Receivership over the Person and

Property of Defendant Jeffrey Baron racketeering in the US District Court in Texas is patronized by the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit" http://www.scribd.com/doc/84950169/ [16] Zernik, J., "Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit the outcome of simulated litigation". (2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/84773296/ [17] Zernik, J., "Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Motion to Intervene" (2011)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/ [18] Zernik, J., "Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

vii

US Constitution, Article IV, 1, declares:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

viii

(1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC invalid court records in a case of Simulated Litigation" (2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/56080106/ [19] Zernik, J., "Repeat request for a signed FEC FOIA response No 2011-46 RE: Citizens United v FEC", May 17, (2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/55610098/ [20] Zernik, J., "RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC", (May 24, 2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/56145482/ [21] J. Zernik, "Design and Operation of the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts are Linked to Failing Banking Regulation", Data Analytics 1:83-93 (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/104880125/

The Judiciary Act (1789) established under express terms the position of federal court clerk, who is responsible for maintaining the records of his court and for issuing the writs summoning jurors. But as indicated by the acts additional requirement that the clerks faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties of [the] office, he was expected to provide other services as well. ix The Act of March 27, 1804, states:
That, from and after the passage of this act, all records and exemplifications of office books, which are or may be kept in any public office of any state, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any other court or office in any other state, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept or of the governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or the keeper of the great seal of the state, that the said attestation is in due form, and by the proper officer and the said certificate, if given by the presiding justice of a court, shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or if the said certificate be given by the; governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the state in

REFERENCES

which the said certificate is made. And the said proceedings of the said court.

The Salary Act (1919) made all clerks of the US courts salaried employees of the federal government, under the direct authority of US Attorney General senior officer of the executive branch. xi Rules of Civil Procedure/Rules of Criminal Procedure provide additional details regarding the duties and responsibilities of the clerk relative to the legal public records of the courts, including, but not limited to the ones below. Rule 4 says:
RULE 4. SUMMONS (a) Contents; Amendments. (1) Contents. A summons must: (A) name the court and the parties; (B) be directed to the defendant; (C) state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or if unrepresented of the plaintiff; (D) state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend; (E) notify the defendant that a failure to appear and defend will result in a default judgment against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint; (F) be signed by the clerk; and (G) bear the court's seal. (2) Amendments. The court may permit a summons to be amended. (b) Issuance. On or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal, and issue it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant. A summons or a copy of a summons that is addressed to multiple defendants must be issued for each defendant to be served. (c) Service. (1) In General. A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service. (2) By Whom. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint. (3) By a Marshal or Someone Specially Appointed. At the plaintiff's request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauper is under 28 U.S.C. 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. 1916. (d) Waiving Service. (1) Requesting a Waiver. An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The plaintiff may notify such a defendant that an action has been commenced and request that the defendant waive service of a summons. The notice and request must: (A) be in writing and be addressed: (i) to the individual defendant; or (ii) for a defendant subject to service under Rule 4(h), to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process; (B) name the court where the complaint was filed; (C) be accompanied by a copy of the complaint, 2 copies of a waiver form, and a prepaid means for returning the form; (D) inform the defendant, using text prescribed in Form 5, of the consequences of waiving and not waiving service; (E) state the date when the request is sent; (F) give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent or at least 60 days if sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States to return the waiver; and (G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means. (2) Failure to Waive. If a defendant located within the United

States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose on the defendant: (A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and (B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses. (3) Time to Answer After a Waiver. A defendant who, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver need not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent or until 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States. (4) Results of Filing a Waiver. When the plaintiff files a waiver, proof of service is not required and these rules apply as if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver. (5) Jurisdiction and Venue Not Waived. Waiving service of a summons does not waive any objection to personal jurisdiction or to venue. (e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed may be served in a judicial district of the United States by: (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. (f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States: (1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; (2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice: (A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction; (B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or (C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by: (i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or (ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders. (g) Serving a Minor or an Incompetent Person. A minor or an incompetent person in a judicial district of the United States must be served by following state law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state where service is made. A minor or an incompetent person who is not within any judicial district of the United States must be served in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f)(2)(A), (f)(2)(B), or (f)(3). (h) Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant's waiver has been filed, a domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a common name, must be served: (1) in a judicial district of the United States:

(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or (B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant; or (2) at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i). (i) Serving the United States and Its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees. (1) United States. To serve the United States, a party must: (A)(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district where the action is brought or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk or (ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney's office; (B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and (C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the agency or officer. (2) Agency; Corporation; Officer or Employee Sued in an Official Capacity. To serve a United States agency or corporation, or a United States officer or employee sued only in an official capacity, a party must serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or employee. (3) Officer or Employee Sued Individually. To serve a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States behalf (whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in an official capacity), a party must serve the United States and also serve the officer or employee under Rule 4(e), (f), or (g). (4) Extending Time. The court must allow a party a reasonable time to cure its failure to: (A) serve a person required to be served under Rule 4(i)(2), if the party has served either the United States attorney or the Attorney General of the United States; or (B) serve the United States under Rule 4(i)(3), if the party has served the United States officer or employee. (j) Serving a Foreign, State, or Local Government. (1) Foreign State. A foreign state or its political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality must be served in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1608. (2) State or Local Government. A state, a municipal corporation, or any other state-created governmental organization that is subject to suit must be served by: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer; or (B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant. (k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service. (1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located; (B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or (C) when authorized by a federal statute. (2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:

(A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws. (l) Proving Service. (1) Affidavit Required. Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the server's affidavit. (2) Service Outside the United States. Service not within any judicial district of the United States must be proved as follows: (A) if made under Rule 4(f)(1), as provided in the applicable treaty or convention; or (B) if made under Rule 4(f)(2) or (f)(3), by a receipt signed by the addressee, or by other evidence satisfying the court that the summons and complaint were delivered to the addressee. (3) Validity of Service; Amending Proof. Failure to prove service does not affect the validity of service. The court may permit proof of service to be amended. (m) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1). (n) Asserting Jurisdiction over Property or Assets. (1) Federal Law. The court may assert jurisdiction over property if authorized by a federal statute. Notice to claimants of the property must be given as provided in the statute or by serving a summons under this rule. (2) State Law. On a showing that personal jurisdiction over a defendant cannot be obtained in the district where the action is brought by reasonable efforts to serve a summons under this rule, the court may assert jurisdiction over the defendant's assets found in the district. Jurisdiction is acquired by seizing the assets under the circumstances and in the manner provided by state law in that district.

Rule 5 says:
RULE 5. SERVING AND FILING PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS (a) Service: When Required. (1) In General. Unless these rules provide otherwise, each of the following papers must be served on every party: (A) an order stating that service is required; (B) a pleading filed after the original complaint, unless the court orders otherwise under Rule 5(c) because there are numerous defendants; (C) a discovery paper required to be served on a party, unless the court orders otherwise; (D) a written motion, except one that may be heard ex parte; and (E) a written notice, appearance, demand, or offer of judgment, or any similar paper. (2) If a Party Fails to Appear. No service is required on a party who is in default for failing to appear. But a pleading that asserts a new claim for relief against such a party must be served on that party under Rule 4. (3) Seizing Property. If an action is begun by seizing property and no person is or need be named as a defendant, any service required before the filing of an appearance, answer, or claim must be made on the person who had custody or possession of the property when it was seized. (b) Service: How Made. (1) Serving an Attorney. If a party is represented by an attorney, service under this rule must be made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party. (2) Service in General. A paper is served under this rule by: (A) handing it to the person; (B) leaving it: (i) at the person's office with a clerk or other person in charge or, if no one is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the office; or

(ii) if the person has no office or the office is closed, at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; (C) mailing it to the person's last known address in which event service is complete upon mailing; (D) leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address; (E) sending it by electronic means if the person consented in writing in which event service is complete upon transmission, but is not effective if the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served; or (F) delivering it by any other means that the person consented to in writing in which event service is complete when the person making service delivers it to the agency designated to make delivery. (3) Using Court Facilities. If a local rule so authorizes, a party may use the court's transmission facilities to make service under Rule 5(b)(2)(E). (c) Serving Numerous Defendants. (1) In General. If an action involves an unusually large number of defendants, the court may, on motion or on its own, order that: (A) defendants pleadings and replies to them need not be served on other defendants; (B) any cross claim, counterclaim, avoidance, or affirmative defense in those pleadings and replies to them will be treated as denied or avoided by all other parties; and (C) filing any such pleading and serving it on the plaintiff constitutes notice of the pleading to all parties. (2) Notifying Parties. A copy of every such order must be served on the parties as the court directs. (d) Filing. (1) Required Filings; Certificate of Service. Any paper after the complaint that is required to be served together with a certificate of service must be filed within a reasonable time after service. But disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and requests for admission. (2) How Filing Is Made In General. A paper is filed by delivering it: (A) to the clerk; or (B) to a judge who agrees to accept it for filing, and who must then note the filing date on the paper and promptly send it to the clerk. (3) Electronic Filing, Signing, or Verification. A court may, by local rule, allow papers to be filed, signed, or verified by electronic means that are consistent with any technical standards established by the Judicial Conference of the United States. A local rule may require electronic filing only if reasonable exceptions are allowed. A paper filed electronically in compliance with a local rule is a written paper for purposes of these rules. (4) Acceptance by the Clerk. The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice.

(A) the jury returns a general verdict; (B) the court awards only costs or a sum certain; or (C) the court denies all relief. (2) Court's Approval Required. Subject to Rule 54(b), the court must promptly approve the form of the judgment, which the clerk must promptly enter, when: (A) the jury returns a special verdict or a general verdict with answers to written questions; or (B) the court grants other relief not described in this subdivision (b). (c) Time of Entry. For purposes of these rules, judgment is entered at the following times: (1) if a separate document is not required, when the judgment is entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a); or (2) if a separate document is required, when the judgment is entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a) and the earlier of these events occurs: (A) it is set out in a separate document; or (B) 150 days have run from the entry in the civil docket. (d) Request for Entry. A party may request that judgment be set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a). (e) Cost or Fee Awards. Ordinarily, the entry of judgment may not be delayed, nor the time for appeal extended, in order to tax costs or award fees. But if a timely motion for attorney's fees is made under Rule 54(d)(2), the court may act before a notice of appeal has been filed and become effective to order that the motion have the same effect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 (a)(4) as a timely motion under Rule 59.

Rule 77 says:
RULE 77. CONDUCTING BUSINESS; CLERK'S AUTHORITY; NOTICE OF AN ORDER OR JUDGMENT (a) When Court Is Open. Every district court is considered always open for filing any paper, issuing and returning process, making a motion, or entering an order. (b) Place for Trial and Other Proceedings. Every trial on the merits must be conducted in open court and, so far as convenient, in a regular courtroom. Any other act or proceeding may be done or conducted by a judge in chambers, without the attendance of the clerk or other court official, and anywhere inside or outside the district. But no hearing other than one ex parte may be conducted outside the district unless all the affected parties consent. (c) Clerk's Office Hours; Clerk's Orders. (1) Hours. The clerk's office with a clerk or deputy on duty must be open during business hours every day except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. But a court may, by local rule or order, require that the office be open for specified hours on Saturday or a particular legal holiday other than one listed in Rule 6(a)(4)(A). (2) Orders. Subject to the court's power to suspend, alter, or rescind the clerk's action for good cause, the clerk may: (A) issue process; (B) enter a default; (C) enter a default judgment under Rule 55(b)(1); and (D) act on any other matter that does not require the court's action. (d) Serving Notice of an Order or Judgment. (1) Service. Immediately after entering an order or judgment, the clerk must serve notice of the entry, as provided in Rule 5(b), on each party who is not in default for failing to appear. The clerk must record the service on the docket. A party also may serve notice of the entry as provided in Rule 5(b). (2) Time to Appeal Not Affected by Lack of Notice. Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (4)(a).

Rule 58 says:
RULE 58. ENTERING JUDGMENT (a) Separate Document. Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion: (1) for judgment under Rule 50(b); (2) to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b); (3) for attorney's fees under Rule 54; (4) for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or (5) for relief under Rule 60. (b) Entering Judgment. (1) Without the Court's Direction. Subject to Rule 54(b) and unless the court orders otherwise, the clerk must, without awaiting the court's direction, promptly prepare, sign, and enter the judgment when:

Rule 79 says:
RULE 79. RECORDS KEPT BY THE CLERK (a) Civil Docket. (1) In General. The clerk must keep a record known as the civil docket in the form and manner prescribed by the Director of the

Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made. (2) Items to be Entered. The following items must be marked with the file number and entered chronologically in the docket: (A) papers filed with the clerk; (B) process issued, and proofs of service or other returns showing execution; and (C) appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments. (3) Contents of Entries; Jury Trial Demanded. Each entry must briefly show the nature of the paper filed or writ issued, the substance of each proof of service or other return, and the substance and date of entry of each order and judgment. When a jury trial has been properly demanded or ordered, the clerk must enter the word jury in the docket. (b) Civil Judgments and Orders. The clerk must keep a copy of every final judgment and appealable order; of every order affecting title to or a lien on real or personal property; and of any other order that the court directs to be kept. The clerk must keep these in the form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. (c) Indexes; Calendars. Under the court's direction, the clerk must: (1) keep indexes of the docket and of the judgments and orders described in Rule 79(b); and (2) prepare calendars of all actions ready for trial, distinguishing jury trials from nonjury trials. (d) Other Records. The clerk must keep any other records required by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
xii

(d) Upon order of the court in any action or special proceeding, the clerk shall mail notice of entry of any judgment or ruling, whether or not appealable. (e) The Judicial Council shall, by January 1, 1999, adopt a rule of court for the purposes of providing that, upon entry of judgment in a contested action or special proceeding in which a state statute or regulation has been declared unconstitutional by the court, the Attorney General is promptly notified of the judgment and that a certificate of that mailing is placed in the court's file in the cause.
xv

California Government Code 69843 says:

The clerk of the superior court shall issue all process and notices required to be issued.

xvi

California Government Code 69843 says:

The clerk of the superior court shall keep the minutes and other records of the court, entering at length within the time specified by law, or forthwith if no time is specified, any order, judgment, and decree of the court which is required to be entered and showing the date when each entry is made. Failure so to enter the date or failure to enter the order, judgment, or decree within the time specified in this section shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the entry.
xvii

California Government Code 69844.7 says:

Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, in those counties where it is required by court order or rule that the clerk of the superior court place individual minute orders in the court's file of actions in chronological order, and if it is otherwise required by law that as a prerequisite to destruction of such records a microfilm copy thereof be made, the clerk shall not be required to keep a minute book but shall be required to keep minutes. Nothing contained herein shall eliminate the requirement for a judgment book where judgments and decrees are required to be entered.

28 USC 1691 says:

All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.
xviii

California Rules of Court say:

Chapter 3. Service and Filing Rule 1.21. Service a) Service on a party or attorney Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Serve and file As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different method for filing or service, a requirement to serve and file a document means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other person or entity when required by statute, rule, or court order, and that the document and a proof of service of the document must be filed with the court. (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (c) Proof of service As used in these rules, proof of service means a declaration stating that service has been made as provided in (a) and (b). If the proof of service names attorneys for separately represented parties, it must also state which party or parties each of the attorneys served is representing. (Subd (c) adopted effective January 1, 2007.) Rule 1.21 amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 2007.

xiii

California Civil Code, 664 says:

When trial by jury has been had, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the verdict within 24 hours after the rendition of the verdict, whether or not a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict be pending, unless the court order the case to be reserved for argument or further consideration, or grant a stay of proceedings. If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the decision of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered.

xiv

California Civil Code, 665 says:

(a) In any contested action or special proceeding other than a small claims action or an action or proceeding in which a prevailing party is not represented by counsel, the party submitting an order or judgment for entry shall prepare and mail a copy of the notice of entry of judgment to all parties who have appeared in the action or proceeding and shall file with the court the original notice of entry of judgment together with the proof of service by mail. This subdivision does not apply in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation. (b) Promptly upon entry of judgment in a contested action or special proceeding in which a prevailing party is not represented by counsel, the clerk of the court shall mail notice of entry of judgment to all parties who have appeared in the action or special proceeding and shall execute a certificate of such mailing and place it in the court's file in the cause. (c) For purposes of this section, "judgment" includes any judgment, decree, or signed order from which an appeal lies.

xix

The Local Rules, County of Los Angeles, Rule 1.6 says:

1.6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ... (16) To exercise and perform all of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the County Clerk and Clerk of the Superior

Court required or permitted by the court to be exercised or performed by the Executive Officer in connection with judicial actions, proceedings and records under Government Code section 69841 et seq. Those powers, duties and responsibilities include: a) To accept, process and file papers in connection with any action or proceeding before the court, including but not limited to those relating to the court's original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction and appeals from the court; to maintain and manage court records; t o microfilm court records; to keep and dispose of papers, documents, files and exhibits in accordance with law; b) To maintain indexes of all court files; to keep a register of actions or its alternate; c) To issue process and notice; to accept service on parties; to enter defaults; to transmit transcripts on change of venue; d) To be present at each session of court and with the judge in chambers when required; to administer oaths; to keep the minutes and other records of the court; e) To enter orders, findings, judgments and decrees; to accept confessions of judgment for filing; to authenticate records; to certify abstracts of judgment; to keep a judgment book or its equivalent; f) To collect, receipt, deposit and account for fees for filing, for preparing or certifying copies and for other fees; to receive jury fees, bonds, undertakings, fines, forfeitures and revenues; to keep money deposited in court, including but not limited to funds received in connection with minor's compromises; to recover county costs in judicial commitment proceedings; g) T o maintain statistical and financial records; to prepare reports to the Judicial Council and other state and county offices as required by law or policy; h) To prepare the clerk's transcript on appeal and transmit the record and exhibits to the reviewing court; i) To receive wills of decedents; j) To take bail and related matters as provided in the Penal Code; k) To manage court calendars, including the calendaring of cases and hearings and the maintenance of court calendars and schedules; l) To print and sell court forms and rules of court; to procure supplies; m) To keep and affix the seal of the court to appropriate instruments; n) To keep and maintain in his or her office in each district, a separate file for each civil action or proceeding pending in that district, in which he or she must place and keep, except as otherwise provided in these rules, the original of all pleadings and other papers on file in the action or proceeding, whether filed before or after the adoption of this rule; o) To keep in his or her office in each city in which a department of a district is or shall be established a register of actions in paper or electronic form for all civil actions and proceedings pending in the department or departments there established; p) To enter the minutes of the proceedings of the court in minute books or in electronic form; q) To execute documents on order of the court. (See Local Rule 3.213(c).); r) Subject to approval of the Presiding Judge, to appoint those deputies pursuant to Government Code section 71620 as are necessary to ensure the prompt and faithful execution and discharge of the duties and responsibilities of his or her office; (17) To negotiate contracts on behalf of the court, in accordance with established contracting procedures and all applicable laws; and (18) To perform other duties as the Presiding Judge directs.
xx

FORM AND EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT; ATTORNEYS FEES 3.213 FORM OF JUDGMENT (a) Original and Copy. Whenever a proposed judgment is submitted to the court, the original shall be accompanied by a complete, legible copy. (b) Form of Judgment. Judicial Council judgment forms must be used whenever required. When a lengthy or detailed judgment is necessary, or when different relief is sought against different defendants, a specially prepared judgment may be used. Specially prepared judgments must include the full names of the parties for whom, and against whom, the judgment is rendered, including their capacities as plaintiffs, defendants, cross-complainants, and cross-defendants. (c) Execution by Clerk of Documents. If a judgment awards real or personal property and t he necessary documents for the transfer are not at that time executed, the court will order the execution of those necessary documents by the proper party by a date certain. On order of the court, the Clerk has the authority to execute documents specified in the courts order if the obligated party failed to do so. (d) Entry of Judgments, Orders, and Decrees. Judgments, orders, and decrees rendered by t he court will be entered by the clerk in judgment books kept by the clerk either in the Public Services Division of the Central District or the clerks office in each of the several districts. The judgment, order, or decree will be entered in the judgment books in the district in which it was rendered. (e) Possession Plus Money. If plaintiff seeks recovery of both an amount owed and goods in which plaintiff holds a security interest to secure payment of the amount owed, the judgment must provide that sale of the goods should first take place pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code section 9504 and thereafter the proceeds of the sale will be credited against the amount owed prior to issuance of a writ of execution on the balance . (Rule 3.213 new and effective July 1, 2011)
xxi

Zernik, J., "Design and Operation of the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts are Linked to Failing Banking Regulation", Data Analytics 1:83-93 (2012) xxii Paltrow, S., "Special Report: The watchdogs that didn't bark", Reuters, December 22, 2011. xxiii Chemerinsky, E., "The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County", Guild Prac 57:121133, 2001 xxiv Burcham, David and Fisk, Katherine, "Policing the Criminal Justice System", in: Loyola Symposium: The Rampart Scandal, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 34:336-543 (2001) xxv United Nations Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review United States Professional Staff Report (2010) xxvi Tribe, L., Speech delivered at the Annual Conference of Chief Justices, National Defender Leadership Institute (2010) xxvii "Simulated litigation", "simulated decisions", "simulated service", "simulated justice system" here refer to conduct defined as felonies 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.

The Local Rules, County of Los Angeles, Rule 3.213 says:

(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.
xxviii

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles online public records disclaimer, accessible at: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp xxix Web page of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, at: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/ xxx Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Register of Actions (California Civil Docket), accessible at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34498017/ xxxi Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Lomas v Bank of America (KC0559379) Minutes, accessible at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51157264/ xxxii Antonovich, M, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "January 8, 2010 response from Sheriff Lee Baca in re: Arrest and booking records of Inmate Richard Fine (1824367)", including attachments, accessible at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/ xxxiii Zernik, J., "Design and Operation of the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts are Linked to Failing Banking Regulation", Data Analytics 1:83-93 (2012) xxxiv Administrative Office of the US Court, Opening page of "PACER", accessible at: http://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/courtinfo.pl?court=E_nysb xxxv Chemerinsky, E., "Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling", Los Angeles Times (January 22, 2010) xxxvi Barrow, B., "Jimmy Carter: Citizens United Ruling, 'Financial Corruption' Are Threatening Democracy", Huffington Post, September 12, 2012 xxxvii Messinger, I. S., "Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts", Federal Judicial Center (2002) xxxviii Zernik, J., "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Record Systems of the Courts of the State of Israel", Data Analytics 1:31-38 (2012) xxxix Zernik, J., "Preliminary Review of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom", (2012), , accessible at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106077048/ xl Zernik, J., Preliminary review of the electronic records of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/107097024/ xli Leahy, P., Transcript of Speech in Georgetown University, September 2, 2009.