Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@
earthlink.net,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net c=US
Date: 2010.05.10
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 12:10:40 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-05-10 Human Rights in the Digital Era – Call for Publicly Accountable Validation
of Computers of the Justice Systems

Transition of the US courts from paper-based administration to one based on digital records was an
event of historic proportions. Accordingly it was accompanied by sea change in court procedures, such
which have evolved over centuries as key safeguards for integrity of the courts. Failure to manage the
transition in compliance with the law resulted in major deficiencies in the US courts today, which were
claimed as key factor in precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the US
in recent decades.

In April 2010 report, [1] filed with the United Nations by Human Rights Alert (NGO), large-scale fraud
was alleged in the United States courts online public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF)
systems. The essence of the alleged fraud was and is: (a) In the failure of the courts to spell out in Rules
of Court their new verification and authentication procedures, as required by law; (b) In the omission of
all authentication records (NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filing and NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity)
from public access in PACER - such records are today accessible only in CM/ECF, and there too - only
to counsel authorized in a given caption; (c) Denial of public access to such authentication records of the
US courts, even upon request to access court records - to inspect and to copy - pursuant to First
Amendment rights and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978); (d) Routine issuance by the US
courts of minutes, orders, judgments, and mandates with no authentication at all. Such records, which
are deemed by the courts themselves as void, not voidable, are posted in PACER as "entered" – was part
of false and deliberately misleading PACER court dockets.

Such fraud was alleged as the enabling tool for routine abuse of Human Rights at the United States
courts in both civil and criminal litigations. For example, such fraud was alleged as having effectively
denied access to the US courts in the habeas corpus and related petitions and appeal of the falsely
hospitalized, 70 yo, former US prosecutor Richard Fine, [2] [3] As detailed in papers filed with the US
Supreme Court in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), such fraud was also alleged as a routine in litigations
involving large financial institutions, undermining effective banking regulation in the United States. [4]
The papers also provided documentation of inexplicable discrepancies in the above referenced caption
between the online public access records and the true court file records of the US Supreme Court itself.
[5] However, such papers were omitted from the docket of the US Supreme Court with no authority and
with no notation at all. [6]

Similar fraud was alleged in the online public access and case management systems of various
correctional institutions, particularly in Los Angeles County, California, where the online public access
system was demonstrated as showing no valid records, or no records at all, for approximately half of the
inmates, where the case of Richard Fine was but one example. [7]

The solution proposed in the submission to the United Nations: Publicly accountable validation
(certified functional logic verification) of online public access and case management systems of the
justice system, and strict enforcement of the law - Rulemaking Enabling Act and First Amendment right
to access court records - on the US courts themselves...

Page 2/3 May 10, 2010

Although such deficiencies were first analyzed in the US courts, it is expected that similar problems may
arise in any nation where the justice system transitions to digital records based administration. [8]
Therefore, the November 2010 the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the
United States by the United Nations, pending November 2010, may serve as a wake up call new
safeguard for Human Rights in the digital era worldwide.

LINKS:

[1] April 2010 report filed with the United Nations by Human Rights Alert (NGO):
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Filed-UPR-Report-with-the-
United-Nations
b) Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/10-04-18-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Submission-to-the-United-
Nations-for-the-2010-Universal-Periodic-Review-of-the-US-s
c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Appendix-for-Submission-
to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010-UPR-of-the-United-States-s
d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/10-04-13-UPR-Tool-Kit-Urban-Justice-Center-USA-provided-
by-UN-office-of-High-Commissioner-for-Human-Rights

[2] Richard Fine - a Review

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/09-12-17-Richard-Isaac-Fine-Review-e

[3] Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

[4] April 23, 2010 US Supreme Court conference in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - Motion to Intervene and
related papers filed by Dr Joseph Zernik
a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-1-Amended-Motion-to-
Intervene-s
b) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-2-Amended-Request-for-
Lenience-by-Pro-Se-Filer-s
c) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-3-Amended-Request-for-
Corrections-in-US-Supreme-Court-Records-s
d) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-4-Amended-Request-for-
Incorporation-by-Reference-s
e) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendices-s
f) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendix-IX-b-
Zernik-s-Declaration-in-re-April-16-2010-search-for-records-in-the-Courts-microfilm-judgm

[5] March 12, 2010 purported denial by Associate Justice Kennedy of Fine's Application in Fine v
Sheriff (09-A827) - Inexplicable records of the US Supreme Court
a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306342/10-04-21-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-US-Supreme-Court-list-of-
orders-for-March-8-15-2010-failing-to-show-denial-of-Fine-v-Sheriff-by-Justice-Kennedy
b) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304940/10-04-21-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-US-Supreme-Court-online-
docket-showing-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Kennedy-s

Page 3/3 May 10, 2010

c) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306238/10-03-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Copy-of-the-Application-
from-US-Supreme-Court-file-failing-to-show-note-of-its-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Ken
d) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30325195/10-04-21-Chief-Justice-Roberts-Asked-to-Secure-Integrity-of-
Richard-Fine-Docket

[6] April 23, 2010 denial by US Supreme Court conference of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - Omission of
Papers filed by Dr Joseph Zernik from the US Supreme Court Docket with no notation at all.
a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/10-04-20-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Face-pages-of-five-filings-
by-Dr-Joseph-Zernik-with-stamps-showing-receipt-by-the-US-Supreme-Court-s
b) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30428469/10-04-23-10-00pm-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Docket-of-the-
US-Supreme-Court-listing-neither-filing-of-Dr-Zernik-s-Motion-to-Intervene-nor-the-rejection
c) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30366354/10-04-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Zernik-Declaration-Re-
Danny-Bickell-and-Filing-at-the-US-Supreme-Court

[7] Online public access and case management system (CMS) of the sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles
County, California: Large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California are alleged
through holding of inmates based on false records, routinely posted by the Sheriff’s Department in its
online public access system “Inmate Information Center”, while denying access to the true arrest and
booking records, which are public records by California Public Records Act – GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 -
6276.48
a) Data Survey
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24809956/10-01-04-Los-Angeles-Sheriff-Department-Inmateinformation-
Center-data-survey-Jose-Martinez-s
b) Data Survey
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/10-01-11-Sheriff-s-Department-of-Los-Angeles-County-
Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s
c) Data Survey
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24816245/10-01-05-Sheriff-s-Department-of-Los-Angeles-County-
Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-John-Smith-s
d) Data Survey
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28350775/10-03-14-Survey-of-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-
Department-Inmate-Information-Consecutive-Numbers-s
e) Data Survey
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25315610/10-01-16-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-Departmentinmate-
data-survey-VINE-vs-Inmate-Information-Center-re-Jose-Martinez-Jose-Rodriguez-s
f) Addendum to Complaint filed with the Sheriff’s Department – alleged fraud in Booking
Terminals
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28322231/10-03-13-Addendum-to-Complaint-Sc2262473-Sheriff-s-
Department-re-Alleged-Fraud-in-Booking-Terminals-s

[8] January 2010 inexplicable features in new case management system introduced in the Israeli courts:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31135733/10-01-17-Tel-Aviv-Israel-Judges-Rage-Against-Big-Brother-
Software-Haaretz-com-s