High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Human Rights Alert
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog:
Scribd:
11-06-xx Request for review of integrity of the electronic public access and case management systems ofthe US courts by the US Attorney General
Timely response requested within 30 days. Time is of the essence!
Eric Holder,US Attorney GeneralBy email and by faxDear Attorney General Holder:I write to request, pursuant to your Oath of Office, that you perform your duties and review and investigate theintegrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic public access, case management and electronic filing systems of theUS courts.The electronic records systems of the courts affected a sea change in court procedures, but were never established bylaw or by rules of courts.Numerous deficiencies were identified in the electronic record systems of the US courts, to the degree thatsuch systems seriously undermine the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the people, BankingRegulation, and the Rule of Law.As detailed in the press release, linked below, related to conduct of Judge Richard J Leon of the US DistrictCourt, DC, conditions that now prevail in the US courts are particularly harmful to
pro se
filers, who seek
remedies for alleged abuse of their rights in the US courts. []
Attempts to seek remedy such conditions through the US courts themselves were unsuccessful. [,]Conditions, which now prevail in the US courts, stand in stark contrast with the laws enacted by the USCongress, presidential directives, and regulations pertaining to the validation and authentication of recordssystems in the Executive Branch.Unless integrity of the US courts is addressed, civil society and socio-economic development conditions are unlikelyto improve.It is apparent that thorough review of the records systems of the US courts would be a lengthy process, andimplementation of the necessary corrective measures even longer. However, I request that your officerespond within 30 days on this important matter, at least regarding your intent, if any, to address the matter.
A. The writer, Joseph Zernik, PhD, has gained substantial experience in recent years in analysis of large government and corporate record keeping systems
As documented in the biographical sketch, linked below, [] the writer has gained substantial experience inanalysis of large record keeping systems:
•
His opinions in such matters were reviewed and adopted by the United Nations official Staff Report,as part of 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States.
•
His opinions in such matters were supported by law enforcement and computer science experts.
•
Papers he authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in an international computerscience journal with an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada.
Page 2/2 June 2, 2011
DRAFT
•
His opinions in such matters were selected for presentation in international computer science andcriminology conferences.
B. The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented invalid public access (PACER) andcase management (CM/ECF) systems in the US courts, which undermine the integrity of US courtrecords.
1. Implementation of the electronic records systems amounted to a sea change in court procedures. The UScourts failed to publish valid Rules of Courts, to establish the new court procedures, deemed effective bythe US Courts following the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF.2. The systems enable the publication of simulated PACER dockets, and simulated court orders and judgments, which the clerks of the US courts refuse to certify. []
v
3. In implementing the systems, the US courts failed to establish a legally valid and publicly recognizedforms of digital signatures of judges and clerks.4. In implementing the systems, the US courts established invalid, simulated authentication records (NEFs -Notices of Electronic Filing in the District Courts, and NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity in the USCourts of Appeals), which replaced the valid Certificates of Service, which were used prior toestablishment of PACER and CM/ECF. []
vi
5. Elimination of the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs) from public access in the PACER docketsmakes it impossible for the public to distinguish between valid and void court records.6. Routine failure of the US Courts to docket the summonses in the PACER docket, apparently violates theDuties of the Clerks pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
, and enables the initiation andconduct of entire cases as simulated litigation with no valid summonses ever issued or executed. [
]7. Routine failure of the Clerks to file valid Assignment Orders for judges and Referrals Orders forMagistrates apparently violates Due Process rights.8. Routine publication in PACER dockets of simulated minutes, orders, and judgments, which are unsignedand/or unauthenticated, or without docket number and link to any record at all undermines EqualProtection and Due Process rights.9. Failure to establish valid access authorities for court personnel in CM/ECF enables the publication of minutes, orders, and judgments in the PACER dockets by unauthorized court personnel, who are notDeputy Clerks.10. Procedures that were effectively established by the US courts in CM/ECF enable the appearance of attorneys, who are not Attorneys of Record, with "no communication with clients" clause. The practice iscommon in cases involving financial institutions and government officials and undermines the integrity of the courts. [,]
viiiix
11. Procedures that were effectively established by the US courts in CM/ECF enable the publication of papersin the PACER dockets by attorneys with no prior review by authorized Deputy Clerks, in apparentviolation of the letter and the spirit of the
Judiciary Act
(1789).12. PACER was implemented with various modifications in the various US courts and courts of appeals, andenables the denial of public access to critical court records (Summonses, papers filed by parties, JudgmentIndex, Calendars of the Courts, Docket Activity Report, Corporate Parent Reports, etc) in an arbitrary andcapricious fashion in the various courts, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.[]
x
13. The US courts failed to publish the procedures pertaining to encoding of actions in CM/ECF. However,review of the system documents that false encoding is commonplace, e.g.:
a)
“Motion” encoded as “Misc” – so that no action is opened and no action needs to be terminated.
Page 3/3 June 2, 2011
DRAFT
b)
Entire cases are conducted as simulated litigation, where “No status pending is open, no statuspending was terminated in this case”.
C. Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF effectively established two separate and unequal classesin access to the courts and to court records, thereby allegedly discriminating against
pro se
filersand the public at large.
1.
Pro se
filers are routinely denied access to CM/ECF, andtherefore denied access to electronic filing, andalso access to inspect and to copy critical court records. [
]2. The cost and time required to file on paper by far exceed the cost and time required for electronic filing.3. The denial of access to CM/ECF by
pro se
filers enables court personnel to arbitrarily eliminate from thePACER dockets papers, which were duly filed by pro se filers. [
]
4.
The denial of public access to court records that are excluded from the PACER dockets, and are accessibleonly through CM/ECF (e.g. NEFs, NDAs), effectively denies public access to critical court records inapparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.
5. Through all the features listed above, the US courts electronic systems (PACER and CM/ECF) enable theconduct of cases as simulated litigation, particularly in civil rights matters, where the complainants are
prose
filers. [
]
D. The electronic public access and case management systems (name unknown) of the US SupremeCourt undermine the foundation of the Rule of Law
[
]1. The systems enable the publication of dockets, journals, decisions, and judgments by US Supreme Courtpersonnel of unknown authority, which are vague and ambiguous – public access is denied to valid,signed and authenticated court records.2. The systems enable the issuance of US Supreme Court notices, decisions and judgments by unauthorizedpersonnel.3. The systems enable the denial the right to file papers in the US Supreme Court by unauthorized personnel.
E. Conditions, which were established through implementation of the electronic records system,undermined the integrity of the US courts in both Human, Constitutional and Civil Rights andBanking Regulation matters.
If not for the protection of rights of the People,addressing the issues outlined above is required for restoring
the integrity of US Banking Regulation. [
,
] It is claimed that conduct of the courts is a key factor in thecurrent financial crisis, which is often overlooked.Unless the issues are addressed, it is unlikely that US Banking Regulation will be restored.Therefore, it is claimed that addressing these issues is essential for restoring both civil society and socio-economic development.
F. Proposed corrective measures
1. Restoring the integrity of the offices of the clerks of the US courts:It is claimed that conditions that today prevail in the US courts are similar to those that prevailed inthe early 20
th
century, and that both then and now, such conditions are central cause of the socio-economic crises. The
Salary Act
(1919), which placed the clerks of the US courts under the
Add a Comment