PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.

net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Human Rights Alert

Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Date: 2011.06.23 14:50:34 +03'00'

11-06-23 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit, Accepts then Rejects Notice of “Unprofessional Conduct” Regarding Large-scale Fraud in the Electronic Records of the US Courts
Through fraud in PACER and CM/ECF the US courts under the 9th Circuit routinely deprive the People of liberty and property, and possibly also of life. Chief Judge Kozinski was asked to initiate corrective actions as part of his administrative duties. “Corruption of the US courts under the 9th Circuit has reached a level that has not been seen in a century or more. The beneficiaries of the corruption are often government officials, financial institutions, and other large corporate interests.”

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit
th

Los Angeles, June 23 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) released email correspondence with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (copied below): • In his message to Chief Judge Kozinski, Dr Zernik provided Judge Kozinski notice and credible evidence of large-scale fraud in the electronic records (PACER and CM/ECF) of the US courts under the 9th Circuit, which is routinely employed to deprive persons of liberty and property, and possibly also of life. Initial response from Judge Kozinski confirmed receipt of the message. Second response from Judge Kozinski, issued 15 minutes later, stated, “Your message is being returned…”

• •

Both responses were issued in the late night hours by Kozinski himself, or by a person authorized to access the account on behalf of Kozinski. The US courts of appeals are second only to the Supreme Court of the United States in their authority, and the 9th Circuit is by far the largest of the US courts of appeals, covering the western region of the United States. Dr Zernik has documented the conduct of simulated litigation [i] in numerous cases in the US courts from coast to coast, enabled through fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF. [ii] The notice to Chief Judge Kozinski focused on such cases from the 9th Circuit. Dr Zernik has acquired substantial experience in analyzing fraud in court records in state and US courts, and his opinions have been repeatedly supported by highly-reputed fraud experts and through peer-review by computer science and criminology scholars. [iii] “Corruption of the US courts under the 9th Circuit has reached a level that has not been seen in a century or more,” says Dr Zernik, “the beneficiaries of the corruption are often government officials, financial institutions, and other large corporate interests.” LINKS:
[i] Review of various manners of conduct of simulated litigation, enabled through PACER and CM/ECF: [1] 11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud in the US courts http://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/

Page 2/5

June 23, 2011

[2] 11-02-09 PRESS RELEASE: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Simulated Appeal from a Simulated Judgment of the US District Court http://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/ [3] 11-06-22 PRESS RELEASE Judge Guilford Refuses to Opines on Fraud in the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts http://www.scribd.com/doc/58486479/ [ii] Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows: Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to: (1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or (2) cause another to: (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document. (b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered. [iii] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch http://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/ _____

Correspondence of Dr Zernik with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 1) Zernik to Kozinski
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 To: Chief_Judge_Kozinski@ca9.uscourts.gov From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net> Subject: Request for opinion, corrective actions regarding fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts. Dear Chief Judge Kozinski: I write to provide you credible evidence of "unprofessional conduct" in the US courts under the 9th Circuit, and to request that you initiate corrective actions, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges. The example, outlined in the press release below, focuses on one type of fraud, [1] enabled in PACER and CM/ECF, as seen in the GITMO habeas corpus case in US District Court, Washington DC, related to the alteration of a court order document. However, the links below the press release detail a number of other fraud types, enabled in PACER and CM/ECF. In particular, the link to the filing under Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, [2] provides examples, all of which come from the US District Court, Central District of California. Some of the fraud types detailed in that filing are: 1) Conduct of entire litigations, where all the minutes, orders, judgments, were listed as "entered" in the PACER docket, but none of them was issued with a valid electronic authentication record (NEF - Notice of Electronic Filing). Therefore, pursuant to the General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California, such judicial records, in fact, were not deemed by the court itself as "entered", valid, and effectual judicial records. 2) Routine denial of public access to the NEFs, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. In the cases of pro se filers, such access was denied to individuals even in their own cases, in apparent violation of Due Process rights. 3) Appearance of judges and magistrates in cases, where the Assignment/Appointment Orders were issued with invalid NEFs. Therefore, such judges and magistrates appeared with no judicial authority at all, and should be deemed as having engaged in extrajudicial conduct from the bench, with no judicial immunity at all. 4) Conduct of litigations, where summonses were not docketed, in apparent violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (Duties of the Clerk). Furthermore, in some cases of pro se filers, the office of

Page 3/5

June 23, 2011

the clerk adulterated the summonses to make them invalid, or simply refused to issue summonses. The integrity of the litigation under such circumstances was undermined from the start. 5) Appearances of Attorneys, who were not authorized by any party as Attorney of Record, and filed false and deliberately misleading papers, which were listed as "entered" in the PACER docket, with no prior review by the Clerk of the Court. 6) Routine listing of minutes, orders, and judgments as "entered" in the PACER dockets by persons, who were not authorized as Deputy Clerks, and therefore with no lawful authority. 7) Universal denial of access to CM/ECF to pro se filers, as stipulated in the General Order 08-02. The implementation of PACER and CM/ECF amounted to a sea-change in court procedures. Such court procedures had been established for centuries, as the foundation of Due Process. However, it should also be noted, that all US district courts under the 9th Circuit, which were surveyed, without exception, failed to publish Local Rules of Court, providing the legal foundation for their new court procedures, in apparent violation of Due Process rights. For example, the US District Court, Central District of California, purports that the operation of PACER and CM/ECF is founded in the General Order 08-02. However: 1) A General Order should not be used to substitute for Local Rules of Court. 2) The General Order 08-02 was published online with no name or signature of the judge who generated that Order. 3) Requests to access a copy of the General Order 08-02, which was signed by an authorized judge, and authenticated by an authorized clerk of the court, were repeatedly denied. Furthermore, upon information and belief, not such copy existed. The fraud in the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF, is routinely employed for the conduct of simulated litigation [3] and for the denial of the rights of individuals for liberty and property and for equal protection under law and to wrongfully benefit the interests of government officers and large corporations. Cases of simulated litigation under the 9th Circuit are abundant. Therefore, it is likely that upon exhaustive search, simulated litigation in cases pertaining to the Death Penalty would also be discovered. Surely, you realize the grave significance of conditions that are summarized above, and detailed in the links below. Therefore, I hope that you would respond, and provide some indication of your position in this matter. Given your administrative duties, I also hope that you would indicate in your response, whether you intend to initiate any corrective actions in this regard. Looking forward to hearing from you, Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (NGO)
LINKS [1] "Fraud" is used here, as opined by the writer, Joseph Zernik, PhD, and as supported by professional computer science and criminology peer-review and by the opinions of leading scholars in the computer science field. Regarding Dr Zernik's credentials in analyzing fraud in large corporate and government computer systems, please see:

Page 4/5

June 23, 2011

11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch http://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/ [2] 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/ [3] Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows: Texas Penal Code 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to: (1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or (2) cause another to: (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document. (b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.

________
PRESS RELEASE

Judge Andrew Guilford, US Court, Central District of California, refuses to opine on fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts "Any 'well-qualified' judge, who works with the systems on a daily basis, must be aware of the fraud perpetrated on the People through PACER and CM/ECF." Regardless, there is no evidence that any US judge has initiated corrective actions.

US Judge Andrew Guilford US District Court, Central District of California

[See the press release, as incorporated in the email notice to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58486479/ - JZ]

2) Kozinski to Zernik #1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,411,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="295039080" To: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net> Subject: Request for opinion, corrective actions regarding fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts. From: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:17:03 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on 09MAIL02a/M/09/USCOURTS(Release 8.0.2FP3 HF28|December 28, 2009) at 06/23/2011 01:17:03 AM X-ELNK-AV: 0 X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000; Return Receipt Your Request for opinion, corrective actions regarding fraud in document: the electronic record systems of the US courts. was received by: at: 06/23/2011 01:17:38 AM

Page 5/5

June 23, 2011

3) Kozinski to Zernik #2
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,412,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="323190101" To: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net> Subject: AutoReply-External:Request for opinion, corrective actions regarding fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts. X-KeepSent: 06F5FCDB:66BBD741-882578B8:002EE3D2; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2FP1 HF324 May 07, 2009 From: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:33:45 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on 09MAIL02a/M/09/USCOURTS(Release 8.0.2FP3 HF28|December 28, 2009) at 06/23/2011 01:33:46 AM, Serialize complete at 06/23/2011 01:33:46 AM X-ELNK-AV: 0 X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
*** ATTENTION *** Your message is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. not accept messages from outside the federal judiciary intranet. ----- Original message ----> joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net> > 06/23/2011 01:15 AM > > To > > Chief_Judge_Kozinski@ca9.uscourts.gov > > cc > > Subject > > Request for opinion, corrective actions regarding fraud in the > electronic record systems of the US courts. > > Dear Chief Judge Kozinski: Please be advised that this account does

[Remainder of message – as shown above under 1) Zernik to Kozinski - jz]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful