11-06-02 Eric Holder, US AG is asked to investigate integrity of computers of the US courts // La corrupción de los ordenadores de los Tribunales de EE.UU.// 腐败的美国法院的计算机
Comments, suggestions are solicited regarding request for investigation of the integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic public access and case management systems of the US courts by the US Attorney General Eric Holder
The electronic records systems of the courts affected a sea change in court procedures, but were never established by law or by rules of courts. Numerous deficiencies were identified in the systems, which undermine the rights of the People and Banking Regulation. US Attorney General is asked to initiate review and investigation. Unless integrity of the US courts is addressed, civil society and socio-economic development conditions are unlikely to improve.
US Attorney General
Los Angeles, June 2 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO), has published a draft request for review and investigation of the integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic public access and case management systems of the US courts by the US Attorney General Eric Holder. [[i]] The draft is circulated as a request for comments and suggestions prior to its submission to the US Attorney General.
The request notes that numerous deficiencies were identified in the electronic record systems of the US courts, to the degree that such systems seriously undermine the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the people, Banking Regulation, and the Rule of Law.
The request claims that the systems particularly harm pro se filers, who seek remedy for alleged abuse of their rights in the US courts, [[ii]] and that attempts to seek remedy such conditions through the US courts themselves were unsuccessful. [[iii],[iv]]
Conditions, which now prevail in the US courts, stand in stark contrast with the laws enacted by the US Congress, presidential directives, and regulations pertaining to the validation and authentication of records systems in the Executive Branch.
The request notes that thorough review of the records systems would be a lengthy process, and implementation of the necessary corrective measures even longer. However, timely response is requested, at least regarding intent, if any, by the US Attorney General to address the matter.
The writer, Joseph Zernik, PhD, has gained substantial experience in recent years in analysis of large government and corporate record keeping systems
The writer has gained substantial experience in analysis of large record keeping systems: [[v]]
- 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 computer science journal with an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada.
- His opinions in such matters were selected for presentation in international computer science and criminology conferences.
The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented invalid public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF) systems in the US courts, which undermine the integrity of US court records.
The request detailed numerous deficiencies in the electronic records systems of the US courts. Furthermore, implementation of the electronic records systems amounted to a sea change in court procedures. The US courts failed to publish valid Rules of Courts, to establish the new court procedures, deemed effective by the US Courts following the implementation of the systems.
Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF effectively established two separate and unequal classes in access to the courts and to court records, thereby allegedly discriminating against pro se filers and the public at large.
Pro se filers (non-attorneys) are routinely denied access to electronic filing and to court records through implementation of the systems. Therefore, the request claims that the systems undermine their Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.
The electronic public access and case management systems of the US Supreme Court undermine the foundation of the Rule of Law.
The request notes similar deficiencies also in the electronic systems of the US Supreme Court. [[vii]]
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 and Banking Regulation matters.
The request claims that restoration of integrity of the electronic records systems is essential not only for the protection of rights of the People, but also for restoring the integrity of US Banking Regulation. [[viii], [ix]] It claims that conduct of the courts is a key factor in the current 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.
Proposed corrective measures
The request also proposes corrective measures:
- 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 in the early 20th 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 authority of the US Attorney General was credited with restoring the integrity of the offices of clerks of the US courts a century ago. [[x]]
- Enactment of federal rules of electronic court records:
As part of the transition to electronic administration of government, the US Congress passed the E-Government Act (2002) and the E-Sign Act (2000). The US Department of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (2004) further established policies for validation and authentication of electronic systems and electronic records of the Executive Branch agencies. Standards were accordingly promulgated and applications were implemented. In contrast, the records systems, implemented by the US courts, were not covered by such laws and regulations.
- The People, and computing professionals in particular, should exercise their civic duties in ongoing monitoring of the integrity of electronic court records:
The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court stated that the right was necessary for the People “to keep a watchful eye on government”.
Once public access to electronic court records is restored, the People must keep a watchful eye on electronic court records. No other measure could substitute for scrutiny of court records by the People in safeguarding the integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
The request will be copied to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
[i] 11-06-02 DRAFT Request for US Attorney General Eric Holder’s Review of Integrity of Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts
[ii] May 30, 2011 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC – �master of the� Leave toe to file denied�
[iii] The core claims regarding critical deficiencies in PACER and CM/ECF were detailed in the Motion to Intervene under Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the Court was asked to initiate corrective actions, regardless of the Intervention in the individual case as well. The Motion to Intervene was denied, and there is no evidence of the initiation of any corrective actions:
January 7, 2011 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
[iv] The core claims regarding deficiencies in PACER and CM/ECF, and also regarding records management in the US Supreme Court were detailed in the Motion to Intervene under Fine v Sheriff in the US Supreme Court. The papers, duly filed in the US Supreme Court were �returned� by unauthorized Supreme Court employee, Court Counsel Danny Bickell:
April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court
i) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court
ii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene
iii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer
iv) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records
v) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference
vi) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendices
[v] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
[vi] Simulated Litigation, Simulated Minutes, Orders, Judgments, Dockets are used here in the sense established in the Texas Criminal Code:
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.
[vii] Regarding the public access and case management systems of the US Supreme Court, see:
a) 11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC invalid court records in a Simulated Litigation
b) 11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) – Request for Policy Statement by FEC s
c) 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER s
d) 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell for Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
[viii] Regarding the effects of the electronic records systems of the US courts on Banking Regulation, see [I,iii,vii], above.
[ix] Regarding the effects of the electronic systems of the US courts on Banking Regulation, see also:
1-02-05 Request No 2 for Impeachment of Judge JED RAKOFF Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in Re Conduct of Lindner v Amex (1:10-cv-02228)
[x] Messinger, I Scott: Order in The Court – History of Clerks of United States Courts, Federal Judicial Center (2002)
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
Flag Counter: 119
Total Reads: 443,060
Total Item Views: 355,338
WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?
* “…a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences.”
Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit.”
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
* “Innocent people remain in prison”
* “…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…”
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
* “…corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
* “On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations.”
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?
* “More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning “mandatory and enforceable” ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by “recent media reports,” the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others.”
More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011)
WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* “The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition…”
Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)
WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” on the US Department of Justice.
Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)