Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of theNetworked US Federal Courts

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO) , Los Angeles, California

jz12345@earthlink.net http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert Abstract: US federal courts have completed a decade-long project of networking coast tocoast through. Data mining was conducted through the online public access system toexamine validity and integrity of records and of the system as a whole. Many recordswere not verified at all. Moreover, records were universally missing their authenticationcounterparts, required by law to render them valid and effectual. The authenticationcounterparts – previously public records – were now excluded from public access.Records, which were today posted online in the public access system, included both validand invalid, void records. However, the public was unable to discern the difference. Thesystem as a whole was deemed invalid. Case management systems of the courts must besubjected to certified, functional logic verification. Mandated system transparency shouldpermit ongoing data mining, and the computing/informatics community should lead theway in monitoring integrity of the courts in the digital era.

Key words:

relational databases, functional logic verification, case management systems,United States courts, human rights, Los Angeles, California, United States, justicesystem, law, fraud, corruption, judges

1 Paper vs Digital Administration of the Courts

The Transition of the US courts to digital administration was executed over a comparativelyshort time, through a large-scale project, managed by the Administrative Office of the USCourts, an arm of the US judicial branch. Dual systems were established: PACER – for publicaccess to court records, and CM/ECF – for case management/electronic court filing. Thesystems are effectively a series of relational databases.

With it – a sea change was affected incourt procedures. In contrast, procedures for paper administration of the English speaking courtsevolved over centuries, and formed the foundation of due process and fair hearings rights.Disambiguation of court procedures and court records was the cornerstone for such rights.Therefore, the current report employed data mining to examine the newly established digital

Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik DN: cn=JosephZernik, o, ou,

email=jz12345@earthlink.net,c=USDate: 2010.06.2500:46:20 +03'00'

2administration of the US courts for the following fundamentals of due process: a) valid,published rules of court, b) public access to judicial records – to inspect and to copy, and c)verification

and authentication of judicial records, including notice and service of judicialpapers. Finally – validity of the systems as a whole as assessed.

1.1 Valid Published Rules of Court

Procedures of the US courts under paper administration evolved from the English legal system,and were established in

US Code of Civil/ Criminal Procedures

iii

and published

Local Rulesof Court,

which the courts were authorized to adopt,

subject to prior publication of such rulesfor public comment and challenge. The transition to digital administration of the US courtsinevitably entailed a sea change in court procedures, which had to be established by law or by thepublication of new local rules of courts. The current report documents the failure of the UScourts to publish their new rules pertaining to the new digital procedures.

1.2 Public Access to Judicial Records – to Inspect and to Copy

The right for public access to judicial records – to inspect and to copy – was well established inboth US and in common law.

Judicial paper records, which were maintained by the Clerk of theCourt included individual

Court Files

together with

Books of Courts,

including, but not limited to the

Court

Dockets

- logs of all valid proceedings and all valid records pertaining to

the respective courtfiles by the clerk

. The transition to digital administration of the courts entailed substantial changes, notby necessity, of the well-established set of judicial records. Moreover, through differential individualauthorities, it became much easier to conceal digital judicial records. The current report documentsuniversal denial of public access to critical judicial records, which are the authentication counterparts of individual court records in all courts that were examined.

Figure 1.

Historic, paper-based

Books of Court

- Criminal Dockets; City of Santa Monica, California

The author is grateful for helpful discussions with civil rights attorneys and computer science professors.

In this paper, document verification refers to signature - “wet”, or digital - by an authorized person – symbolsaffixed with the intent of taking responsibility, in the common law sense; system verification, or system validation,refers to logic verification in the computer science sense.

1.3 Verification and Authentication of Judicial Records

Verification by a judge and authentication by a clerk of court orders and judgments were aprerequisite for entry of court records as honest, valid, and effectual court papers in court filesand dockets. These requirements were founded in the

US Constitution

, in early

Acts of USCongress

, and in the

US Code of Civil/ Criminal Procedures

vii

viii

. Notice and service of judicial records - court minutes, orders, and judgments were an integral part of the authenticationprocedures mandated on the clerks for all court minutes, orders, and judgments. The clerkswould mail out to all parties in a case certified, authenticated copies of all judicial records, jointly satisfying both the authentication

per se

and the notice and service requirements. In thetransition to digital administration of the courts, new procedures were devised for the digitalverification by judges, for the purported certification of entry of the records, and for theconstruction of dockets by the clerks. Additionally, service and notice were made possiblethrough electronic mail. The current report documents deficient or invalid authentication of court records, effectively eliminating any valid certification by the clerk, and universal denial of public access to the authentication records.

1.4 Proposed Solutions

The current report documents compromised integrity of the US courts, undermined through theinstallation of invalid, unverified digital administration systems. Solutions are readily available,which could make digital administration of the courts honest and secure, by far superior to paperadministration of the courts. The relational databases,

which form the foundation of digitaladministration of the US courts, must be subjected to certified, functional logic verification.Transparency should be required, to allow ongoing data mining by the public at large – formonitoring integrity of the courts. The computing/informatics community should assume aleading role in the safeguard of human rights and democratic nature of society in the digital era.

2 Objective

The current report investigated through data mining the online public records of the US courtsand evaluated the safeguards for the fundamentals of due process and fair hearings in thetransition from paper to digital administration of the courts. Moreover, the report examined thepotential role of data mining of online public records of the courts as an essential civic duty –public monitoring of the integrity of the courts.