09-12-30 Alleged widespread fraud in the United States Court- through case management system CM/ECF

 

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:57 -0800
To: scott huminski
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Alleged large scale fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the United States courts.

December 30, 2009

Dear Scott:

Concern is with the fundamental issue of validity, or lack thereof, in papers of the United States courts across the United States in the past decade.  I allege that in the past decade, the United States courts have engaged in a large scale fraud on the people. Such fraud was directly related to the introduction of the case management system CM/ECF by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.  Such system was introduced with no authority at all, and with no publicly accountable validation of the system.  I further allege, that the current crisis involving rampant corruption of the courts, and also failure of major financial institutions, as well as United States Banking Regulators,  are all directly tied to such fraud by the United States Courts and other United States agencies - related to the operation of unvalidated large computer systems. In fact - it is a systemic failure of integrity.

In the courts, the concern is regarding Attestations by Clerks of the Court pursuant to Article IV 1 to the US Constitution and the Act of May 26, 1790.  Otherwise stated: 

• Were any of the papers that you and other parties filed, truly entered by the court?
• Were any of the court orders in your matter truly ones that required "full faith and credit"?

There was no way that I or you could tell.  In other words, in reviewing numerous cases, including both civil and criminal cases, including high visibility cases of purported "enforcement" by United States Government on major financial institutions such as Bank of America Corporation and the Swiss UBS, AG, I concluded the following:
Since the introduction of CM/ECF, the US courts' case management system, almost any US Court adopted the practice, which I deem fraudulent, of issuing orders that were deemed by the court invalid and ineffectual - they lacked digital signatures.  Such orders may appear signed to you, but the were not deemed signed by the court! These were the category of fraud cases that I designated "Kozinski Fraud" (Type - "Fundamental Fraud"; Sub-type -CM/ECF).

In short, the NEFs are the ONLY way that you can tell today if anything, which you received from the court was valid and effectual. If you dumped the NEF papers, since they appeared insignificant to you,  I humbly request that you please ask the court for copies.  I would have done it for you, but as stated, the court denied my access. (Such denial of access in and of itself was suspect...)
_________________________________________________
Figure 1: Huminski v Bennington - US District Court, Vermont - partial docket. [1]

 

________________________________________________________
The docket itself, which you forwarded to me, and which you derived from PACER, was evidence of the fraudulent nature of the systems as well.

For example: Dkt #186, your paper, presumably entered by "kak". (Figure 1)
Since you were a PACER user (like all pro se filers) you only saw the text "kak", and if you examine the java script of the page, any tags that were specialized and were associated with this text were stripped.  However, "kak" in CM/ECF was associated (or not) with the digital signature of kak in the NEF.  Therefore, those authorized of access to  CM/ECF were allowed to see the record with its validating signatures, while you were relying on PACER docket, and were left in the dark: Did kak really sign it or not?

Let me share an unrelated record, as a graphic illustration (not an exact legal analogy, just a graphic illustration).
_______________________________________
Figure 2: USC Credit Union, a California Financial Institution.
Purported Minutes of the Board, December 15, 2008  [2]

_______________
Page 1

_______________
Page 2

_______________
Page 3

 _______________
Page 4

_______________

In 2008, I caught a small California financial institution - USC Credit Union - in alleged fraud.   I demanded the relevant papers.  They sent me all kinds of papers, that were evidence of additional fraud.  I demanded that they provide me papers only with declaration of Custodian of Records of the bank per California law. Then they told me that they did not have a custodian of records. I told them in return - Please tell your Board that it was about time that they appointed one in compliance with the law.
Half a year later, I got the same records again, and more, from the president of the bank, claiming that he had been appointed custodian of records, or worse yet - delegated the authority to appoint ad hoc custodians of records as the need arose.  I claimed that such decision by the Board was likely to be neither valid, nor in compliance with the law. I demanded to see the Minutes of the Board of such decision.
By and by - USC Credit Union provided me the Minutes of the Board - albeit - with signatures "redacted".

Is this a valid and effectual record of the USC Credit Union December 15, 2008 Minutes of the Board?  No way that I could tell.... the graphic signatures were "REDACTED".
This is exactly your PACER docket is as presented to all users who were not CM/ECF authorized.
The digital signatures of all court records in PACER were "REDACTED"!

Please let me know if what I said made sense to you at all.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!


Linked Records:
[1] Huminsky v Bennington - recent docket from US Court, Vermont.
http://inproperinla.com/09-12-30-huminski-v-bennington-partial-docket.pdf

[2] USC Credit Union, Minutes of the Board, December 15, 2008, P1-4
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-usc-credit-union_08-12-15-usc-cu-board-meeting-minutes-appoint-custodian-of-records.pdf


At 08:44 30/12/2009, Scott Hunimski wrote:

Joe,  Here's  the current docket in one of my cases.  What of concern to you......
CLOSED, ENE

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.