Human Rights Alert

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

11-06-xx Request for review of integrity of the electronic public access and case management systems of
the US courts by the US Attorney General
Timely response requested within 30 days. Time is of the essence!

Eric Holder,
US Attorney General
By email and by fax

Dear Attorney General Holder:

I write to request, pursuant to your Oath of Office, that you perform your duties and review and investigate the
integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic public access, case management and electronic filing systems of the
US courts.
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 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.
As detailed in the press release, linked below, related to conduct of Judge Richard J Leon of the US District
Court, 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. [i ]
Attempts to seek remedy such conditions through the US courts themselves were unsuccessful. [ii ,iii ]
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.
Unless integrity of the US courts is addressed, civil society and socio-economic development conditions are unlikely
to improve.
It is apparent that thorough review of the records systems of the US courts would be a lengthy process, and
implementation of the necessary corrective measures even longer. However, I request that your office
respond 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, [iv ] the writer has gained substantial experience in
analysis 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 computer
science journal with an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada.
z Page 2/2 June 2, 2011

• His opinions in such matters were selected for presentation in international computer science and
criminology conferences.

B. 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.
1. 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 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 recognized
forms 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 US
Courts of Appeals), which replaced the valid Certificates of Service, which were used prior to
establishment of PACER and CM/ECF. [vi ]
5. Elimination of the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs) from public access in the PACER dockets
makes 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 the
Duties of the Clerks pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and enables the initiation and
conduct of entire cases as simulated litigation with no valid summonses ever issued or executed. [vii ]
7. Routine failure of the Clerks to file valid Assignment Orders for judges and Referrals Orders for
Magistrates apparently violates Due Process rights.
8. Routine publication in PACER dockets of simulated minutes, orders, and judgments, which are unsigned
and/or unauthenticated, or without docket number and link to any record at all undermines Equal
Protection 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 not
Deputy 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 is
common in cases involving financial institutions and government officials and undermines the integrity of
the courts. [viii ,ix ]
11. Procedures that were effectively established by the US courts in CM/ECF enable the publication of papers
in the PACER dockets by attorneys with no prior review by authorized Deputy Clerks, in apparent
violation 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, and
enables the denial of public access to critical court records (Summonses, papers filed by parties, Judgment
Index, Calendars of the Courts, Docket Activity Report, Corporate Parent Reports, etc) in an arbitrary and
capricious 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.

DRAFT
z Page 3/3 June 2, 2011

b) Entire cases are conducted as simulated litigation, where “No status pending is open, no status
pending was terminated in this case”.

C. 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.
1. Pro se filers are routinely denied access to CM/ECF, and therefore denied access to electronic filing, and
also access to inspect and to copy critical court records. [xi ]
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 the
PACER dockets papers, which were duly filed by pro se filers. [xii ]
4. The denial of public access to court records that are excluded from the PACER dockets, and are accessible
only through CM/ECF (e.g. NEFs, NDAs), effectively denies public access to critical court records in
apparent 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 the
conduct of cases as simulated litigation, particularly in civil rights matters, where the complainants are pro
se filers. [xiii ]

D. The electronic public access and case management systems (name unknown) of the US Supreme
Court undermine the foundation of the Rule of Law [xiv ]
1. The systems enable the publication of dockets, journals, decisions, and judgments by US Supreme Court
personnel 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 unauthorized
personnel.
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 and
Banking 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. [xv , xvi ] It is claimed 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.

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 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

DRAFT
z Page 4/4 June 2, 2011

authority of the US Attorney General was credited with restoring the integrity of the offices of clerks
of the US courts a century ago. [ xvii ]
2. 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.
In the process of implementing the records systems of the US courts, a sea change was introduced in
court procedures, which had been established for centuries as the core of Due Process. However, all
US courts that were examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to
their new electronic procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights.
Therefore, the US Attorney General should initiate efforts to enact applicable laws and establishment
of applicable regulations.
3. 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.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

CC:
1. Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
2. Senator Dianne Feinstein

LINKS:

i
May 30, 2011 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC - “master of the“ Leave toe to file denied”
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56612919/
ii
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
th
al in the US Court of Appeals, 9 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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
DRAFT
z Page 5/5 June 2, 2011

iii
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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/H
ii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/H
iii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/H
iv) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/H
v) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/H
vi) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendices
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34050423/H
iv
11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/
v
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.
vi
May 20, 2011 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55862403/
vii
Regarding conduct of litigation with no valid summonses ever issued or executed, see for example:
a) SEC v Bank of America Corporation in the US District Court, Southern District of New York:
Regarding the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF and banking regulation, see for example the fraud in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-
06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York:
i. 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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44908376/
ii. 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)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/
iii. 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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45644678/H
b) Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, Washington DC:
i. 11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in a
Simulated Litigation
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56106686/H
viii
Regarding appearances of attorneys who are not Attorneys of Record, see:
08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's
litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme - appearances by counsel who are not Counsel of Record, with "no
communications with clients" clause:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/H
ix
Regarding appearances of attorneys who are not Attorneys of Record, see also [ii,iii], above.
x
Zernik, J: The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/42686043/H
xi
Regarding universal denial of pro se filers’ access to CM/ECF, see for example the General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of
California
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/
V. Exclusions From Electronic Filing.
...
B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to
DRAFT
z Page 6/6 June 2, 2011

be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s
Office into the CM/ECF system.
xii
Regarding elimination of pro se papers from the PACER dockets, see [i], above.
xiii
Regarding simulated litigation in civil rights matters, see for example [ii], above.
xiv
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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56106686/
b) 11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56145482/
c) 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47539382/
d) 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell for Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
xv
Regarding the effects of the electronic records systems of the US courts on Banking Regulation, see [I,iii,vii], above.
xvi
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)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48244479/H
xvii
Messinger, I Scott: Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts, Federal Judicial Center (2002)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34819774/H

DRAFT