Human Rights Alert

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: Blog: Scribd:


10-05-02 Repeat Request for Opinions by Harvard, Yale Deans re: Large-scale Fraud in US Courts Computers

Harvard Law Dean - Prof Martha Minow; Yale Law Dean - Prof Robert Post

Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:02 +0300 To:, From: joseph zernik Subject: Repeat request for opinions by Deans of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School in re: Alleged largescale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and case management systems of the United States courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively. Prof Martha L Minow Dean, Harvard Law School By ermail

Prof Robert C Post Dean, Yale Law School By email RE: Repeat request for opinions by Deans of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School in re: Alleged large-scale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and case management systems of the United States courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively. Dear Prof Minow and Prof Post:

Page 2/8

May 2, 2010

I write to repeat the request for opinions regarding alleged large scale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and case management systems of the United States courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively. [1] Please also notice, attached below, a news article and comments from the ABA Journal in re: Kids for Cash in Luzerne County, PA vs Los Angeles County, CA. [2] Please also notice the opinions of two California law school deans quoted among the comments. The ongoing large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, provide a clear example of the profound harm to the rights of all in the US from the alleged fraud in PACER and CM/ECF. The case of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) itself, came for review before the US District Court, Central District of California under US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769). The outcome of that litigation was the June 2001 Consent Decree, which served as the purported legal foundation for the office of Overseer of Civil Rights (2001-2009) in Los Angeles. However, the Consent Decree itself is alleged as typical product of the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF. It appears as a valid court record in PACER, but it is alleged that it was never truly entered and authenticated. Furthermore, the US District Court, Central District of California, now denies access to the records of the case with no explanation at all. Key provisions of the Consent Decree were later never enforced. Such Consent Decree is alleged as void, not voidable court record, which was deemed as void by the Court, but posed in PACER as a false and deliberately misleading record. I hope that this additional information would move you to reconsider the request for opinions. The alleged fraud in PACER and CM/ECF in its essence is simple: [1] All authentication records were universally removed from PACER - the online public access system, and US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals across the country are denying public access to such court records - NEFs at the US District Courts, and NDAs at the US Courts of Appeals. Access to the authentication records is now permitted only to attorneys authorized in a given case. In parallel - the US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals have been publishing in PACER a large volume of void, not voidable, false and deliberately misleading minutes, orders, judgments, and mandates, with no valid authentication at all. However, the public is unable to discern such false and deliberately misleading court records from those that truly required "full faith and credit", since the public is unable to view the authentication records. You are again called upon to reconsider your duties to the public at large, to review the evidence, [1] and to issue opinions on this critical matter, which pertains to the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all who reside in the US.


Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO

Page 3/8 CC: 1) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - Founding Dean, University of California Irvine Law School 2) Prof David Burcham - Former Dean, Los Angeles Loyola Law School 3) Law School faculty 4) UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. LINKS/ ATTACHMENTS:

May 2, 2010

[1] Solicitation of Expert Opinions regarding alleged fraud in the online public access (PACER) and case management system (CM/ECF) of the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. • - of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s •

casemanagement -system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine • system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s [2] Kids for Cash in Luzerne County, PA vs Los Angeles County, CA.


Ex-Judge to Plead Guilty in Kids-for-Cash Scandal; Is He ‘Singing Like a Bird’?
Posted Apr 30, 2010 8:09 AM CDT By Debra Cassens Weiss • • • • Email Print Reprints

Former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan has agreed to plead guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy in the $2.8 million “kids for cash” scandal.

Conahan faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when he is sentenced, according to the Legal Intelligencer and the Associated Press. The agreement does not include a minimum sentence; instead it

Page 4/8 specifies the penalty will be “determined by the court.”

May 2, 2010

According to the Intelligencer, “The sentiment from several sources upon reviewing the plea deal was: ‘He must be singing like a bird.’ ” The sources said Conahan essentially ran the county and will be expected to name lawyers or others in the alleged conspiracy.

Conahan and another judge, Mark Ciavarella Jr., were accused of accepting kickbacks in exchange for jailing juveniles in a private detention facility. A federal judge rejected a plea deal last year that called for sentences of 87 months in prison, saying the defendants had not accepted responsibility for their wrongdoing.

Ciavarella’s lawyer, Al Flora Jr., told AP that his client maintains his innocence. ''He's going to trial,'' Flora said.
Related Topics

Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice, White Collar Crime, Judiciary, Legal Ethics

1.B. McLeod Apr 30, 2010 8:27 AM CDT If so, I hope he knows “The Olde Triangle.” That could come in pretty handy for the next few years or so.

2.John M Apr 30, 2010 9:39 AM CDT Moon River would probably be more useful.

3. Plea Deal Apr 30, 2010 10:19 AM CDT He pleas down from 48 counts to 1 count, when the feds had him clean on every issue? Nice to be connected.

4. Houman Apr 30, 2010 11:25 AM CDT How did he manage to strike a deal that would put him out on the street again someday? What lawyer could suppress the thought that every day these men walk free is a disgrace to the profession?

5. John M Apr 30, 2010 11:30 AM CDT Which lawyer? The defendant or the prosecutor? In the former, the lawyer’s obligation is to his client, not to the larger

Page 5/8

May 2, 2010

concept of justice or what is or is not a “disgrace”. If he suppressed that to vent his feelings of a larger justice he would be betraying that justice in the same way that the judge had. As for the prosecutor, maybe it sucks, but the world isn’t always the one you want. He’s got one count of racketeering which could potentially net him a score in the pokey. And even if he gets the minimum he will never be in a position to do what he did again. Take the blessings you got and move on.

6. Walt Fricke Apr 30, 2010 3:34 PM CDT #5, Amen. Distributive justice is tricky when more than one person has ideas about how to distribute it.

7. Belly B Apr 30, 2010 4:25 PM CDT Comment removed by moderator.

8. #8 Jim-OH 2010-04-30 19:13 0400 parents Apr 30, 2010 6:15 PM CDT Many attorneys are disappointed at the judges conduct. I wonder how the parents and kids felt about him.

9. Joseph Zernik May 1, 2010 7:31 AM CDT One must wonder why racketeering and false imprisonments in Luzerne County, PA, are prosecuted by Federal agencies, while similar conditions in Los Angeles County, California, are fully patronized by FBI and US Department of Justice. Already during the Rampart corruption scandal (1998-2000), false imprisonments of thousands of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) was documented. They are almost exclusively blacks and Latinos, and by estimate about a third of them were still juveniles at the time of their framing. However, Federal agencies permitted the Los Angeles County justice system to investigate, prosecute, and judge itself, with predictable outcome. By 2006, the LAPD’s Blue Ribbon Review Panel concluded “Innocent people remain in prison”. It also stated that the LA county justice system tolerated “a subcult of criminality in the ranks”, and called for an external investigation. No external investigation was ever instituted to this date.

Joseph Zernik Los Angeles County, California

Page 6/8 LINKS: [1] The Rampart FIPs - a Review

May 2, 2010

10. B. McLeod May 1, 2010 11:05 AM CDT Zernik neglects to mention that he was a dissappointed litigant who could not manage to avoid losing his home, and that he has since filed bogus cases and attempted to intervene without standing in cases involving others. (A Google Scholar search will bring up the cases). Now, instead of seeking treatment for what appear to be fairly obvious issues, he contents himself (if one could call it that) with strange and unbalanced posts concerning various aspects of various court systems. Evidently, it is all he has left in life.

11. Joseph Zernik May 1, 2010 11:56 AM CDT Mr McLeod failed to respond in on the matter itself in any way at all: * The acclaimed PBS Frontline series - LAPD Blues - estimated in 2001 (and updated in 2008), the number of those falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to long terms by the corrupt justice system of Los Angeles County, California at 8,000 - 16,000, or more. [1] * The official LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel concluded in 2006 that such persons remained in prison. By estimate, only about 150-200 of the Rampart-FIPs were freed over the years through reversal of their false convictions. [2] * Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, in reviewing the case in 20001 wrote: “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” [3] * Then Dean, Prof David Burcham and Prof Katherine Fisk, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, in reviewing the case in 2001 wrote: “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.” [4] The obvious question remains unanswered: Why did FBI and US Department of Justice permit, and continue to permit the large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California? Any response on the matter would be greatly appreciated… Joseph Zernik Los Angeles County, California

LINKS: [1] PBS Frontline - Rampart False Imprisonments

Page 7/8 [2] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006)

May 2, 2010 [3] Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County, California: [4] Prof David Burcham and Prof Katherine Fisk “Policing the Justice System”

12. B. McLeod May 1, 2010 4:11 PM CDT It must be a broad-based conspiracy to “get” Zernik, or make him look crazy. (er).

13. Joseph Zernik May 1, 2010 6:14 PM CDT The opinions quoted above included those by the team of Public Broadcasting Service Frontline series, makers of the acclaimed series - LAPD Blues - to this dates posted online, providing a living monument for the large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California. Other opinions were by a notable constitutional scholar and law school dean - Erwin Chemerinsky, and by another dean and law professor from yet another California law school. The official Blue Ribbon Review Panel named prominent Los Angeles County attorneys among its members, it was commissioned in 2003 and published its official report in 2006 after a three year study. A reasonable person would find it hard to dismiss all these weighty opinions with no counter argument or counter opinion on the matter itself at all. In fact, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel directly addressed the issue of conspiracy theories in its 2006 report - as quoted below, among other highlights from the report: p60 “Unanimously, criminal defense attorneys and civil plaintiffs’ attorneys believe ... innocent people remain in prison. “ p58 Los Angeles Superior Court’s must be “examine[d for] its role in accepting pleas from innocent defendants and failing to detect police perjury or the conviction of the innocent.” p48 “ enforcement, prosecutors and judges - inexorably chose containment. It is not that individuals or entities conspired to cover up corruption; it is that when a window on its true extent

Page 8/8 opened, they simply closed it.” p64 “The response by police to the Blue Ribbon Panel report was of interest in that it failed to ever mention past present or future investigation into the Rampart scandal abuses that were the reason the Panel was instituted, and were the subject of its report. Obviously the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of…” Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California

May 2, 2010

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful