10-06-05 Data Mining of the Online Records of the Networked US Federal Courts

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

1. Introduction

1

In this study we set out to demonstrate that an unprecedented transition, of historic magnitude - therecently completed conversion of the US courts from paper to digital administration - underliesprecipitous deterioration in integrity of the United States courts and Human Rights in the UnitedStates. Paper administrative procedures in the English speaking courts evolved over centuries, andformed the foundation of Due Process and Fair Hearings. The transition to digital administration of the US district courts and US courts of appeals was executed over a comparatively short time,through a large scale project, managed by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, an arm of the US judicial branch. Dual electronic public access – PACER, and case management/electroniccourt filing system - CM/ECF, were established.Due Process and Fair Hearings are fundamental Human Rights, and their essence can be viewed asdisambiguation of procedures and actions of the courts. The current study aimed to investigatethrough data mining the degree to which transition of the US courts to digital administrationinvolved substantial ambiguation of court procedures and court actions. Areas of review includeda) access to judicial records, b) notice and service of judicial papers, c) verification/authenticationof judicial records,

2

d) certification of paper filed by parties, and e) published rules of court.

Joseph Zernik, PhD *

*Human Rights Alert (NGO) , Los Angeles, California

Abstract:

The US federal courts have completed a decade-long project of networking coast to coast through a dual online public access and casemanagement systems. Data mining was conducted through the online publicaccess system. The records were found universally missing their authenticationinstruments, required by law to render them valid and effectual. Authenticationinstruments – previously public records – were now excluded from publicaccess and delegated instead to the case management system. Further reviewrevealed that records, which are today posted online in the public access systemwere a mixed population of authenticated and unauthenticated records, albeit –the public was unable to discern the difference. It is proposed that governmentnetworks, which are critical for the safeguard of Human Rights must besubjected to publicly-accountable validation (certified, functional logicverification). Mandated system transparency would permit ongoing public datamining – a prerequisite for integrity of the courts in the digital era.

* jz12345@earthlink.net

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Data Mining of the Online Records of theNetworked US Federal Courts

Key words:

United States district courts, case management systems, humanrights, Los Angeles, California, United States, justice system, law, fraud,corruption, judges

Digitally signedby JosephZernik DN: cn=Joseph

Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net,c=USDate: 2010.06.0606:07:26 +03'00'

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts1.1 Access judicial records – to inspect and to copy – a fundamental Human Right

Public access to judicial records – to inspect and to copy - is a fundamental right, which isquintessential for Due Process and Fair Hearings. In US law the right to access judicial records isconsidered a First Amendment right, as re-affirmed in

Nixon v Warner Communications

(1978).

3

In British law it is deemed a Common Law right. State of California law – the

California Public Records Act, California Government Code

§6254(f) states:

…public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the…agency and everyperson has a right to inspect any public record… [and to receive] an exact copy…

Judicial records, which were the core public paper records of the courts included the records, whichwere maintained by the Clerk of the Court - individual

Court Files

together with

Books of Courts,

including, but not limited to the

Index of All Cases

,

Calendars of the Courts

, Dockets - logs of allproceedings and all records that were entered in the respective Court Files, and

Books of Judgments

– logs and copies of all judgments and dispositive actions that were entered as valid and effectualoutcomes in the respective cases – in fact – the law of the land. Public access to these records wasconsidered an essential safeguard of the courts’ integrity.

Figure 1.

Historic, paper-based

Books of Court

-

Criminal Dockets;

City of Santa Monica, California

1.2 Notice and Service of Judicial Records

The right for notice and service of court papers is likewise a fundamental right, which isquintessential for Due Process and Fair Hearings. In the US courts, notice and service of courtminutes, orders, and judgments is incorporated as part of authentication of such court records bythe Clerk of the Court. The clerks would mail out to all parties on the service list authenticatedcopies of all court actions in a given case. Identical method of service and notice was applied to allparties.

1.3 Verification by Judge and Authentication by Clerk of Court Orders and Judgments,Certification of Court Dockets and Papers by the Clerk.Verification and authentication of court orders and judgments is a prerequisite for entry of such court records as honest, valid, and effectual court papers.

4

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Verification requirements originated in common law – graphical “wet” hand signatures weretraditionally required on all court papers - as symbols affixed with the intent to take responsibility.Such requirement were further declared in the US Constitution

5

and were further legislated in actsof US Congress.

6

Various other requirements relative to conduct of the courts, includingthe requirement for maintenance of dockets by the clerks, and the requirements pertainingto notice and service are prescribed by law in the

Federal Rules of Civil/CriminalProcedure.

7

The use of graphical “wet” hand signatures became obsolete with theimplementation of digital records, and new instruments had to be devised for verification andauthentication.

1.4 Published Rules Of Court

8

Procedures of the US Courts, which are not established by law, are governed by

Local Rules of Court

. The US courts were permitted to publish such rules in the

Rulemaking Enabling Act

28USC §2071-2077.

Local Rules of Court

should be published – as part of Due Process and FairHearings, and any proposed new rules must be posted for a reasonable time prior to their adoption,for public comment and challenge.

Local Rules of Court

typically govern specific procedures of the office of the Clerk of the Court pertaining to the filing of papers and their entry as valid andeffectual records of the court.

1.5 Computerized Relational Database Management Systems – a Government-OwnedSocial Network of Public Records – Open for Data Mining

9

The traditional paper-based

Court Files

,

Dockets

,

Index of All Cases

,

Calendars of the Courts

, and

Books of Judgments

included interrelated, redundant data. The redundancy in the requirement of keeping such records in physically separate books, in and of itself, generated critical safeguards forintegrity of the courts. Such system could be deemed as a particular type of relational databases.Implementation of such system as digital records likewise entailed the establishment of noveldigital relational databases. The networking of all US courts can be further seen as a subtype of social network, and given that its records are public by law – open to data mining.

1.6 Certified, functional logic verification

10

Transition of the court to digital administration required the adoption of digital verification andauthentication procedures for the individual records as well. Moreover, establishment of thesystem as a whole required that standard paradigms of system development would be followed –from specification through system design and implementation to system validation and functionallogic verification.

11

The system as a whole was developed by the Administrative Office of the USCourt, an arm of the judicial branch, and its specifications and validation/verification were neverpublished.2.

Objective

The current study aimed to investigate through data mining the online public records of the UScourts and evaluate the safeguard of the fundamentals of Due Process and Fair Hearings in thetransition from paper to digital administration of the courts. Moreover, the current study aimed toexplore the potential role of data mining of online public records of the court as an essential civicduty – public scrutiny of integrity of the courts and safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.