Human Rights Alert

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

Blog:

http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/

Scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

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

Transition of the US courts from paper-based administration to one based on digital records was anevent of historic proportions. Accordingly it was accompanied by sea change in court procedures, suchwhich have evolved over centuries as key safeguards for integrity of the courts. Failure to manage thetransition in compliance with the law resulted in major deficiencies in the US courts today, which wereclaimed as key factor in precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the USin recent decades.In April 2010 report,

[1]

filed with the United Nations by Human Rights Alert (NGO), large-scale fraudwas 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 Rulesof 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 - onlyto counsel authorized in a given caption; (c) Denial of public access to such authentication records of theUS courts, even upon request to access court records - to inspect and to copy - pursuant to FirstAmendment rights and

Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc

(1978); (d) Routine issuance by the UScourts of minutes, orders, judgments, and mandates with no authentication at all. Such records, whichare deemed by the courts themselves as void, not voidable, are posted in PACER as "entered" – was partof false and deliberately misleading PACER court dockets.Such fraud was alleged as the enabling tool for routine abuse of Human Rights at the United Statescourts in both civil and criminal litigations. For example, such fraud was alleged as having effectivelydenied access to the US courts in the habeas corpus and related petitions and appeal of the falselyhospitalized, 70 yo, former US prosecutor Richard Fine,

[2] [3]

As detailed in papers filed with the USSupreme Court in

Fine v Sheriff

(09-A827), such fraud was also alleged as a routine in litigationsinvolving large financial institutions, undermining effective banking regulation in the United States.

[4]

The papers also provided documentation of inexplicable discrepancies in the above referenced captionbetween 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 andwith no notation at all.

[6]

Similar fraud was alleged in the online public access and case management systems of variouscorrectional institutions, particularly in Los Angeles County, California, where the online public accesssystem was demonstrated as showing no valid records, or no records at all, for approximately half of theinmates, 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 rightto access court records - on the US courts themselves...

Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph

Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net,c=USDate: 2010.05.1012:10:40 +03'00'



Page 2/3 May 10, 2010

Although such deficiencies were first analyzed in the US courts, it is expected that similar problems mayarise 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 theUnited States by the United Nations, pending November 2010, may serve as a wake up call newsafeguard 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) Reporthttp://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 Reviewhttp://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 andrelated 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-sb)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 vSheriff (09-A827) - Inexplicable records of the US Supreme Courta)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