Skip to content

11-06-21 Large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts // Fraude a gran escala en los sistemas de registro electrónico de los tribunales de EE.UU. // 大型欺诈在美国法院电子记录系统

June 22, 2011

Additional evidence of fraud in PACER and CM/ECF: The Document Verification Utility, as described in the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois


Implementation of electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic court filing), has been opined fraud on the People by the US judiciary, as a class. The systems undermine the integrity of the US courts. The new evidence pertains to the “Electronic Document Stamp”, which replaced the hand-signature of the clerks of the US court on all authentication records, and the “Document Verification Utility”. Combined, the two enable authorized court personnel to examine the integrity of court records. In contrast, the People are denied access both to the Stamp and the Utility, making the falsification of records in the US courts commonplace conduct. Conditions that now prevail in the US courts are nothing less than a shell game fraud.

Los Angeles, June 21 – Implementation of electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic court filing), has been opined fraud on the People by the US judiciary, as a class. The systems undermine the integrity of the US courts. [[i],[ii],[iii]] Numerous examples have been documented of fraud in US court records, related to the denial of access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) – the electronic authentication records in CM/ECF – and false employment of the NEFs in both obscure and high-profile cases: [[iv],[v],[vi],[vii],[viii],[ix]]

  • Prior to implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the courts employed the Certificate of Service by the Clerk of the Court as the paper authentication record. The Certificate was a public record.
  • Following implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the courts employ the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) as the electronic authentication record. Public access to the NEFs is denied. [[x]]
  • The Certificate of Service included a certification statement, “I, the undersigned, hereby certify…”, and the hand signature of a Deputy Clerk, identified by name and authority.
  • The NEF includes no certification statement, and neither a hand nor digital signature.  Instead, an Electronic Documents Stamp (a checksum string) appears in the NEF. Additionally, the name and authority of the person, who issued the NEF are not publicly accessible. Instead, the NEF is described as “automatically issued”.

The Electronic Document Stamp, as used in CM/ECF, is not valid even as a checksum string. The People are denied access to the checksum algorithm, which would have enabled them to test the integrity of court documents bearing the Stamp.

New evidence pertaining to the implementation of the Electronic Document Stamp has been discovered in the CM/ECF Ver4.0 User Guide in the US District Court, Northern district of Illinois. [[xi],[xii] ] The records describe the access permitted to CM/ECF users in the Court to a “Document Verification Utility”.

Access to the Utility has not been discovered in user manuals and user guides from other US courts, which have been surveyed. However, it is evident that such access must be provided to authorized court personnel involved in administration of the systems.

Figure 1: Document Verification Utility as described in the CM/ECF User Guide of the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois. The Utility enables authorized person to determine, if a court record was adulterated. The People are denied access to the Utility, and also denied access to the Electronic Document Stamp, which is used in the Utitlity.

Significance of the NEF in filing and entry of records is evident in the General Order 09-014 of the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois: [[xiii],[xiv]]

______________

 

 

 

 

II. Definitions

(C) “Notice of Electronic Filing” is the notice generated by ECF upon the completion of an

electronic filing.

V. Consequences of Electronic Filing

(A) Electronic transmission of a document to ECF consistent with these rules, together

with the transmission of a Notice of Electronic Filing from the court, constitutes

filing of the document for all purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the local rules of this court, and constitutes

entry of the document on the docket kept by the Clerk of the Court under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 58 and 79 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49 and 55.

______________

Combined, the attached records document that CM/ECF users in the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, are provided with a utility to verify the integrity of electronically filed court records, based on integrity of the “Electronic Document Stamp”. However, the People, who are permitted only PACER access, are denied access to the same utility.

Figure 2: Apparent adulteration of a key record in a GITMO habeas corpus case in the US District Court, Washington DC, was reported by ProPublica. Had the People been permitted access to the Electronic Document Stamp and the Document Verification Utility, definitive evidence of the adulteration would have been readily provided.

For example, had the People been permitted access to the NEFs and the Document Verification Utility in the US District Court, Washington, DC, the two, combined, would have provided definitive evidence for the adulteration of the Order in the GITMO habeas corpus case, recently reported by the National Law Journal. [[xv]] Conditions that now prevail in the US courts are nothing less than a shell game fraud.

LINKS

[i] 10-08-18 Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)

[ii] 11-06-01 Fraud in the US Courts (PACER and CM/ECF)

[iii] 11-06-05 Wanted! One courageous US law professor to opine on evidence of racketeering in the US courts!

[iv] 10-10-11 Linzer, D. 2010. “In GITMO Opinion, Two Versions of Reality,” The National Law Journal, October 11.

[v] For review of fraud in the issuance of false, invalid NEFs in the US District Court, Central District of California, see:

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

[vi] [1] 11-01-10 Request No 1 for investigation/impeachment proceedings, in re: US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, Conduct of Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)

[2] 10-12-08 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation(1:09-cv-06829) – Request No 1 for Investigation, Impeachment of RUBY KRAJICK, Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern District of New York

[3] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation – Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States (filed in support of Request No 1 for impeachment of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York)

[4] 10-12-19 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) – Addendum to Request No 1 for Investigation-impeachment of Judge Rakoff and Clerk Krajick

[5] 11-02-05 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) s

[vii] [1] 11-05-27 In re: William Windsor (1:06-cv-0714, 1:09-cv-01543, and 1:09-MI-0220) US Court, Northern District of Georgia – denial of pro se Defendant’s access to court records s

[2] 11-06-03 The case of William Windsor: Alleged racketeering in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia, is enabled by the large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US Courts (PACER and CM/ECF)

[3] 11-06-03 In re: William Windsor’s further attempts to access judicial and clerical in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia -s

[viii] [1] 11-05-26 Windsor v Evans et al (1:10-cv-00197) in the US Court, District of Columbia – Willful Misconduct by US Judge Richard Leon to cover up corruption of the US Court, Northern District of Georgia

[2] 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC – master of the “Leave to file denied”

[ix] [1] 11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in a Simulated Litigation

[2] 11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) – Request for Policy Statement by FEC s

[3] 11-05-24 PRESS RELEASE: Federal Election Commission (FEC) is asked to disregard Citizens United v Federal Election Commission as Simulated Litigation

[x] 11-05-20 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)

[xi] US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, CM/ECF User Guide, Version 4.0, as downloaded on June 20, 2011:

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/cmecf/CMECFUserGuide.aspx

[xii] 11-06-20 Additional evidence of fraud in PACER and CM/ECF: Document Verification Utility, as described in the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois s

[xiii] See copy of the General Order 09-014 under [xii], above.

[xiv] It should be noted that the matters handled in the General Order 09-014, should have been part of the Rules of Court, and the General Order 09-014, as published on the Court’s web site is unsigned and undated.

[xv] RE: Adulterated Court record in a GITMO habeas corpus case in the US District Court, Washington, DC, see [iv], above.

_____

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s