Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10-03-25 Request for Experts Opinions RE: CM/ECF - case management system of the US Dist Court Los Angeles s

10-03-25 Request for Experts Opinions RE: CM/ECF - case management system of the US Dist Court Los Angeles s

Ratings: (0)|Views: 895|Likes:
The case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems of the United States courts, are likely the largest Shell Game Fraud in the history of mankind.
Please also see:
10-03-27 - Addendum #1
10-04-06 - Addendum #2
The case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems of the United States courts, are likely the largest Shell Game Fraud in the history of mankind.
Please also see:
10-03-27 - Addendum #1
10-04-06 - Addendum #2

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Apr 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

11/20/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
Blog:http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs 
10-03-18 Request for Assistance in Obtaining Expert(s) Opinion
Neil SankeySankey InvestigationsBy Email: <nsankey@privateinvestigation.com>Dear Mr Sankey:Thank you for taking the time to meet me yesterday. I am seeking your help in obtaining expert(s) opinionregarding matters outlined in the attached
 Request for Expert(s) Opinion
pertaining to the manner in which theUnited States court system implemented the transition from paper to computerized administration of thecourts.The opinion would likely come from expert(s), who are based in Britain or a country that was part of theBritish Empire, where the legal system is of similar origins. The expert(s) must be well-recognized nationallyand internationally as a professional authorities in their fields, given the seriousness of the claims – large-scalefraud on the people by the United States courts relative to implementation in the recent decade of casemanagement/electronic court filing (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems which replaced paper-based administration of the courts.I look forward to hearing from you and subsequently from any experts that you would approach, whether theywould agree to assist in this matter, whether the request for opinion was adequately presented, and whatcompensation would be requested.Truly,Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/  http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine 
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,Coming soon- deep house music! 
Digitally signedby Joseph HZernik DN: cn=Joseph H
 
Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USLocation: LaVerne, CaliforniaDate: 2010.04.0623:07:26 -07'00'
 
Page 2/8 March 25, 2010
 Request for Expert(s) Opinions
In RE: Judicial Verification and Ministerial Attestation of Court Orders and Judgments as Practicedunder Digital Administration of the US Courts.
By Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles County, California
Executive Summary
In the context of the upcoming November 2010 Periodic Universal Review of the US by the UN High Commissioner for HumanRights, and also as part of intended complaints to be filed with the Basel Accords Committee on international banking in the contextof the current US financial crisis, opinion is sought by highly reputable authorities in law and/or computer science regarding validityand integrity, or lack thereof, of court procedures pertaining to judicial verification and ministerial attestation (here denotingcertification and/or authentication) of court orders and judgments at the US courts, in the context of the computerized casemanagement/ electronic court filing (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems which replaced in the past decade paper-basedsystems in administration of the US courts, and regarding the integrity and validity of court rules and court procedures that wereestablished as part of the process of transition management.
1
 The fundamental claims are:a) That the transition from paper-based to computerized system amounted to a sea change in the operations of the US Courts, andthat such change in court operations and court procedures was managed outside any recognizable, valid, lawful framework;b) That the transition from hand-signatures to RSA-encrypted digital signatures was implemented in a manner that deliberatelycreated ambiguity in judicial verification and/or ministerial attestation. Moreover, such ambiguity was amplified throughunprecedented, unlawful denial of public access to ministerial attestation records (the NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filings) inthe public access (PACER) system and in the offices of the clerks of the courts;c) That the transition as a whole deliberately generated vague and ambiguous procedures for the entry of orders and judgments,which in turn resulted in material, credibly evidenced deterioration in the integrity of the US courts and US justice system,unprecedented Human Rights abuses;
2
 d) That the remedy should include clear statement of the new court procedures in the Rules of Courts, as required by law, andpublicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of all case management and public access systems of thecourts.Therefore, the opinion sought is of seminal and global significance relative to government integrity in the digital age.
A. Introduction
Unprecedented transition, of historic magnitude - the conversion of the US courts from paper-based to digitaladministration underlies instant request for expert(s) opinion(s). Paper-based administrative procedures weredeveloped and codified over centuries, and embodied the foundation of Due Process. The transition tocomputerized administration was executed over a very short time in comparison, allegedly - with insufficientpublic oversight and accountability, and outside of any recognizable lawful framework. It is claimed that theresult had a major detrimental effect on integrity of the US courts in particular, and the democratic nature of US government in general.The opinions, which are sought in instant request fall between the fields of the law and computer science. Thespecific areas of relevance are the application of computerized database and case management systems indigital administration of the courts, and verification of digital court records, including, but not limited to the
1
Preliminary qualified opinion regarding allegations of fraud in the case management and public access systems of theSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, was previously obtained from a world class computer sciencescholar, Prof Eli Shamir:http://inproperinla.com/09-04-20-eli-shamir-opinion-letter-s.pdf 
2
See 10-03-23 Draft Outline – Los Angeles County, California, Human Rights Reporthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28795157/10-03-23-Draft-Los-Angeles-California-Human-Rights-Report-s 
 
Page 3/8 March 25, 2010
application of digital signatures in relationship judicial verification and ministerial attestation (here denotingcertification/authentication of court records by the clerk of the court). It is therefore also possible or evenlikely that the best opinions would be the product of collaborative efforts by two experts representing each of the respective fields.The requester, Dr Joseph Zernik, had no formal education in law, or law enforcement, and only minimalformal education in computer science. However, the requester investigated the matter and produced a novelworking model which was supported by evidence, and provided coherent explanations for the conduct of thecourt, which otherwise was incomprehensible.
B. Relevant Legal Fields and Authorities
The relevant aspects of the law pertain to:
1)
The requirements for verification by judges of court orders and judgments as a prerequisite for entry of such court records as honest, valid, and effectual court ordersand judgments.
3
 
Such requirements originated in common law which was shared by the US and British legal systems. In theUS such requirement originated in the US Constitution,
4
and respective Acts of US Congress.
 
The claim is that following introduction of computerized case management and public access systems, UScourts have ambiguated the nature of valid verification by judge(s), and have been posting court orders and judgments that were not verified by judges as valid and effectual court records, but were falsely represented inpublic access systems as such.
 2)
The requirements for review and certification by a clerk of papers filed by theadversarial parties in any given case
5
 
The role of the clerks as a check and balance to safeguard the integrity of the courts emerged over hundreds of years. The clerks had the authority to hold the seal of the court and certify and authenticate court orders and judgments, and control their entry into particular court file as valid and effectual court records.The claim is that that following introduction of computerized case management and public access systems, theUS courts have ambiguated the nature of certification/authentication by the clerk. Under the current system,attorneys who were authorized by the courts were permitted to file papers on behalf of adversarial parties withno review or certification by the clerk of the court prior to entry of such papers into court files.
3)
The requirement for certification/authentication of orders and judgments as a prerequisite for entry of such court records as honest, valid, and effectual court ordersand judgments.
The claim is that under the current system, the courts have engaged in posting court orders and judgments thatwere not certified/authenticated by the clerks as valid and effectual court records, but were falsely representedin public access systems as such, based on false dockets posted in the public access systems.
 
4)
Procedures for establishing valid and effectual Local Rules of Court.
6
 
3
The legal foundation for issues related to judicial verification and ministerial attestation are reviewed, and the citationsprovided in the attached short review:
NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) of the US Courts.
See under
Other Records.
 
4
Ditto.
5
Ditto
6
Rule Making Enabling Act:http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-rule-making-enabling-act-s.pdf http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-rule-making-enabling-act-review.pdf 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->