Human Rights in the Digital Era

A call for publicly accountable validation of the

online public access (PACER) and case
management (CM/ECF) systems of the US federal
courts...

Submitted by Human Rights Alert (NGO) to

US Secretary of State and US Attorney
General as part of the 2010 review by the UN
of Human Rights in the United States
 Human Rights –
Ratified International Law
• The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights - was adopted by the UN in 1948 in
the wake of WW II, through efforts
spearheaded by Eleanor Roosevelt – then
US Ambassador to the UN.
• The Declaration was later ratified as
International Law.

2
 Integrity of the Courts –
Prerequisite for Human Rights
• Six of the first twelve Human Rights pertain to
duties and obligations of each nation’s government
to secure integrity of National Tribunals for
Protection of Rights.
• In the US – such tribunals are the US federal
courts.

3
Due Process & Fair Hearings –
Fundamentals of Human Rights
• Due Process - a fundamental Civil
Right in US law
• Fair Hearings - a fundamental Human
Right in ratified international law

4
Due Process & Fair Hearings -
Disambiguation
Disambiguation of court procedures and
court records is a cornerstone of Due
Process & Fair Hearings:
1. Published Rules of Court
2. Notice and service of court records
3. Public access to court records – to inspect
and to copy

5
 General Claim – Ambiguity in
US Court Procedures and
Court Records
• Substantial ambiguity was introduced in
court procedures and court records in the
US federal courts as part of transition to
digital administration of the courts.
• Such ambiguity in itself constitutes serious
violation of Human Rights of all who reside
in the US.
6
 Integrity of the Courts in the
Digital Era
• Courts world-wide have transitioned from
paper records to digital records
• The transition involved a sea change in
conduct of the courts and in court records.
• The transition, if improperly managed –
poses a major risk for integrity of the courts
and for their role in protection of Human
Rights.

7
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by
the UN of Human Rights in the US
• 2010 – First ever US UPR
– April 2010 - Submissions due by stakeholders
– August 2010 - Response due by the US State Dept
– November 2010 - Review session and US UPR Report
– > November 2010 - US State Dept-UN to discuss future
goals for Human Rights in the US
• 2014 - Next US UPR

8
2010 US UPR Submission by
Human Rights Alert (NGO) –
General Claims
Serious widespread violations of
Human Rights by the US federal courts
were enabled by new computerized
systems installed at the US federal
courts – PACER & CM/ECF.

9
2010 US UPR Submission by
Human Rights Alert (NGO) –
Resulting Alleged Violations
1. Large-scale false imprisonments
2. Abuse of the right for possession
3. Dysfunctional banking regulation
and corrupted litigation practices by
financial institutions.

10
 PACER & CM/ECF –
Definitions
• PACER -
Online Public Access to Court Records
• CM/ECF –
Case Management and Electronic Court Filing

11
 PACER & CM/ECF –
Scope
• The new systems were established in US federal
courts US-wide by the Administrative Office of
the US Courts.
• The project took over a decade to complete
• Cost was estimated at the low $ billions
• No evidence of any oversight outside the
judicial branch

12
 PACER & CM/ECF –
Public Access to Court Records
• PACER access is permitted at a fee to the public
at large and to pro se litigants*
• CM/ECF access is permitted only to attorneys
authorized by a given court in a given case.

* Pro se litigants– self-represented litigants

13
 PACER & CM/ECF –
Access to Authentication Instruments

• PACER - Universally excludes verification

and authentication instruments.
• CM/ECF – Includes verification and
authentication instruments.

14
Verification & Authentication of
Court Records
• The Problem – Distinguishing honest, valid, and
effectual court records from:
– Proposed order and judgments,
– Unentered (“lodged”) orders and judgments
– False and deliberately misleading court records.
• The Solution –Defined, valid, reliable, secure,
published court procedures for verification and
authentication of honest, valid, and effectual court
records -minutes, orders, judgments.

15
 Verification & Authentication
are Required by the US Constitution
US Constitution, Article IV, § 1:
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.

16
Verification & Authentication
are Required by US Statute
US Act of May 26, 1790:
…That the act of the legislatures of the
several states shall be authenticated by
having the seal of their respective states
affixed thereto; That the records and judicial
proceedings of the courts of any state shall
be proved or admitted, in any other court
within the United States, by the attestation of
the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed…

17
Verification & Authentication
Of Paper Records
Court procedures for verification and authentication of
paper records were well established for generations:
• Assigned judge verified orders/ judgments by his/her
hand-signature and date.
• Authorized clerk authenticated the record by his/her
hand-signature and date with court seal/stamp.
• Verified and authenticated records were entered in court
files as such and thereby became public records –
accessible to all.

18
Verification & Authentication
Of Digital Records
Unreasonable ambiguity was introduced in
verification/authentication of digital court
records in PACER & CM/ECF:
• No law established the new digital
verification/authentication procedures.
• No Rules of Courts were published to
establish the new digital verification/
authentication of court records

19
 Verification/Authentication in
CM/ECF– Current Procedures
Based on CM/ECF Users’ Manuals of
federal courts across the US:
1. NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) are
the new digital authentication instruments.
2. RSA-encrypted Court Stamps replace the
hand signature of the clerk and the seal of
the court.

20
Verification/Authentication in
CM/ECF– Current Procedures
3. Authentication instruments are separate
from the respective court records.
4. Authentication instruments are included in
CM/ECF, and excluded from PACER

21
 Digital Court Stamp
in CM/ECF

• dcec – District Court Eastern California

• Stamp ID – unpublished definition.
• Date – mm/dd/yy
• File Number – unpublished definition 22
Dockets Authentication in PACER –
Current Procedures
1. The PACER docket defines the case file.
2. Case dockets are part of PACER.
3. Docket data for each record include a docketing text
defining the record.
4. The docketing text ends with:
(<initials>) (Entered: <date>).
5. No published foundation for the practice.
6. No evidence that the courts consider such practice as
valid and effectual authentication of the docket entry.

23
 PACER -Dockets Authentication
SHEPTOCK et al v. FENTY et al (1:09-cv-00672)
US District Court, Washington DC
Date Filed # Docket Text

05/22/2009 21 ORDER denying 5 Motion for Preliminary

Injunction from the PI hearing held on May
21, 2009. Status conference set for June 26,
2009 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Reggie
B. Walton on 05/22/09. (TH, ) Modified on
5/22/2009 (TH, ). (Entered: 05/22/2009)

24
 PACER & CM/ECF –
General Deficiencies
1. The systems in general are not founded in law or in
published Rules of Court
2. Separate and unequal access systems were
established at the US federal courts
3. Parties in litigations are arbitrarily segregated in
such systems

25
 PACER & CM/ECF –
General Deficiencies
4. The public is denied access – to inspect and
to copy - to the NEFs – the authentication
instruments of court records.
5. Pro se litigants are denied access to court
records – NEFs - even in their own cases.
6. The nature of docket authentication is
entirely undefined in available sources.

26
 PACER & CM/ECF –
General Deficiencies
7. The courts routinely post in PACER dockets
records that were never authenticated and
must be deemed void, not voidable.
8. The public and pro se litigants are denied
the ability to distinguish between void, not
voidable records and honest, valid, and
effectual court records.

27
 PACER & CM/ECF –
General Deficiencies
9. Such conditions at the US federal courts are
allegedly routinely abused to deprive persons
of their Human Rights.

28
 Existing Evidence
1. Evidence of denial of access to court records – to
inspect and to copy - particularly to NEFs in
various US courts and courts of appeals.
2. Evidence of transactions in PACER dockets by
unauthorized court personnel.
3. Court filings, court minutes, orders, judgments,
and mandates in various cases which were served
on parties with invalid NEFs or no NEFs at all.

29
 Existing Evidence
4. Court filings, court minutes, orders,
judgments, mandates, where invalid NEFs
were discovered in court files, but where
records were posted as “entered” in
PACER dockets online.
5. Evidence of refusal of senior US officers
of the Judicial and Executive Branches to
respond / initiate corrective actions.

30
 Case Study
FINE v SHERIFF (2:09-cv-01914)
US District Court, Los Angeles, California

• Habeas Corpus of 70 yo, former US

Prosecutor Richard Fine
• Held since March 4, 2009 in solitary
confinement in a hospital room in Los
Angeles, California
• No warrant was ever issued for his arrest.
• No judgment or conviction was ever
entered in his case.
31
 US Court, Central District of California
Digital Records Authentication
An unsigned, unauthenticated General Order 08-02 was published
by the Court, which explicitly defined authentication procedures for
court records by NEFs bearing encrypted digital signatures.

32
General Order 08-02 – states in pertinent part:
Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described herein is deemed
proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court. The NEF contains the
date of electronic distribution and identification of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California as the sender. An encrypted verification code appears in
the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic document stamp shall
be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the transmission and
associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has
been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the
document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that
the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.

33
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt #1)
Docketing Text
Date Filed # Docket Text

04/20/2009 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by

a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case
assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson and
referred to Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle. (Filing fee $ 5: FEE PAID.),
filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.
(Attachments: # 1 Part 1 of Petitioner, # 2
Part 2 of Petitioner, # 3 Part 3 of
Petitioner)(ghap) Modified on 3/24/2009
(ghap). (Additional attachment(s) added on
3/24/2009: # 1 Part 2 of Petition, # 2 Part 3
of Petition, # 3 Part 4 of Petition)
(ghap). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
34
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt #1)
Docketing Text
1. The record was stated as “filed” on March 20, 2009
2. The record was stated as “modified” in an undisclosed
manner on March 24, 2009.
3. The authority for the modification was never disclosed –
surely not by filer Richard Fine.
4. The docketing text was by (ghap) – an unidentified
person of undefined authority.
5. Donna Thomas (dt)– an unauthorized person entered a
total of 15 records in the docket of the case.

35
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt #1)
NEF

36
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt #1)
NEF
1. Docketing text in the CM/ECF NEF differs from
the text, which appears in the PACER docket.
2. Court Stamp appears at the bottom of NEF
3. The Court Stamp was issued by an unidentified
person of undefined authority.

37
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Mandate by US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Dkt #59)
Docketing Text

Date Filed # Docket Text

02/18/2010 59 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re:

Petition for Certificate of
Appealability 34 , CCA
# 09−56073. The Decision of the
District Court is AFFIRMED.
Mandate received in this district on
2/18/2010. (lr) (Entered: 02/23/2010).

38
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Mandate by US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Dkt #59)
Docketing Text
• Docketing was by (lr) an unidentified person, of
undefined authority.
• False definition of the respective court record the
Court of Appeals’ Mandate –
– It was represented in the US Court of Appeals as a
mandate on Appeal from the June 29, 2009 Judgment
of the US District Court, Los Angeles
– It was represented in the US District Court docket as a
mandate on “Petition for a certificate of appealability.”

39
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Mandate by US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Dkt #59)
NEF

40
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Mandate by US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Dkt #59)
NEF

1. No “Court Stamp” appears at the bottom of NEF at all.

2. Therefore –a reasonable person would conclude that the
record bears defective authentication and that such record
was and is a void not voidable court record.

41
 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Outcome of Ambiguous Records and Court
Procedures – Alleged Abuse of Human Rights

1. Ongoing alleged false imprisonment of Richard

Fine – a 70 yo, former US prosecutor.
2. Richard Fine has been held for over a year, in
solitary confinement in a hospital room, with no
medical justification for the hospitalization.
3. No warrant for his arrest was ever discovered

42
4. No judgment/conviction were ever entered in his case.
5. Richard Fine had discovered, exposed, and denounced
the taking by ALL California judges in Los Angeles
County of “not permitted” payments (~$50,000 per judge
per year) for over a decade.

43
 Conclusions
1. Minutes Orders, and Judgments, which were not
authenticated at all, were routinely issued and served by
the US courts.
2. Minutes, Order, and Judgments, which were not
authenticated at all, were routines posted online as
“entered” in PACER dockets.
3. A reasonable person, who was denied access to the
NEFs, was likely to conclude that such papers were
honest, valid, and effectual court record, which required
“full faith and credit”.

44
4. A reasonable person, had access to the concealed NEFs been
permitted, would have likely concluded that such records were never
meant by the courts themselves as honest, valid, and effectual records,
which required “full faith and credit”.
5. However, pro se litigants, the public at large, and even accomplished
attorneys were and are unable to discern honest, valid, and effectual
court records from dishonest, invalid, ineffectual court records.
6. Therefore, the evidence is compelling that through installing PACER
and CM/ECF considerable ambiguity was introduced into records and
procedures of the US federal courts.

45
 Attempts to Address Deficient
Integrity of the Courts in Los
Angeles County, California
1. The lack of integrity in court records and procedures
in the cases of Richard Fine and others was repeatedly
noticed to the Clerk of the Court and the Chief Judge
of the US federal court.
2. Such senior officers of the US federal court were
asked to initiate corrective actions.
3. US Department of Justice was noticed as well, and
requests were filed with FBI and US Attorney General
for Equal Protection of the 10 million residents of Los
Angeles County.
4. Inquiries were issued by US Senator Dianne
Feinstein and US Congresswoman Diane
Watson on FBI and US Dept of Justice in the
matter.
5. Senior US officers at FBI and US Dept of
Justice provided responses to US Congress,
which were alleged as fraud on US Congress.
6. Complaint alleging such fraud was filed with US
Department of Justice Inspector General, and
Inquiry by US Senator Feinstein on the matter
was issued as well.
7. Response by US Department of Justice Inspector
General is overdue.
 Proposed Solution
Publicly accountable validation (certified
functional logic verification) of online public
access and case management systems of the
courts -- pursuant to the Rulemaking
Enabling Act.

48
 Proposed Language for
UN-UPR Report
1. Compelling evidence was provided of
unreasonable ambiguity in the US federal courts
records and court procedures - relative to
verification and authentication of court records,
such that require ‘full faith and credit.’
2. Such ambiguity was related to the installation of
computerized public access and case management
systems – PACER & CM/ECF at the federal
courts

49
3. Concerns were raised that established principles of Due Process and Fair
Hearing were undermined, or failed to be fully sustained in PACER &
CM/ECF:
a. Published Rules of Court
b. Notice and service of court records
c. Public access court records – to inspect and to copy
4. The US is called upon to document that such principles of Due Process and
Fair Hearings are fully upheld in PACER and CM/ECF and related
practices of the US federal courts.
5. Publicly accountable validation of case management and public access
systems of the courts is recommended in courts of all member nations.

50
 Expert Opinions
• To be completed

51
 Links to Key Records
1. Press Release
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Filed-UPR-Report-with-the-United-Nations
2. Submission
http://www.scribd
.com/doc/30147583/10-04-18-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Submission-to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010-Universal-Pe
3. Appendix
http://www.scribd
.com/doc/30163613/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Appendix-for-Submission-to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010
4. Human Rights in the Digital Era
http://www.scribd
.com/doc/31136665/10-05-10-Human-Rights-in-the-Digital-Era-A-Call-for-Publicly-Accountable-Validation-of-the-Justice-System-C

52
5. UN UPR Fact Sheet
http://www.scribd
.com/doc/29112068/10-03-29-United-Nations-Universal-Periodic-Review-of-Human-Rights-Basic-Facts-About-t

6. UN UPR “Tool Kit”

http://www.scribd
.com/doc/29867561/10-04-13-UPR-Tool-Kit-Urban-Justice-Center-USA-provided-by-UN-office-of-High-Commi
7. Declaration re: Attempt to access US district court records on September 18, 2009
http://www.scribd
.com/doc/28340080/09-09-18-Declaration-of-Joseph-Zernik-in-Re-Denial-of-Access-to-Court-Record
8. Declaration re: Attempt to access US District Court records on December 29, 2009
http://www.scribd
.com/doc/24747753/09-12-29-Declaration-of-Joseph-Zernik-in-Re-Visit-to-United-States-District-Court-Los-Angeles
9. Declaration re: Attempt to access US District Court records on March 24, 2010
http://www.scribd
.com/doc/28932321/10-03-25-Declaration-of-Joseph-Zernik-in-re-Visit-to-US-Dist-Crt-Los-Angeles-and-Opinion-re-Integrity-

53
 Contact Information
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526
La Verne, California 91750
Email: <jz12345@earthlink.net>

54