10-10-31 More on elements of computer fraud opined in the online access and case management systems of the US courts - from OAK discussion boa

_______
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 14 hours ago
Computer Fraud Opined in the Online Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts in Paper Submitted for International, Peer-reviewed Law Journal
...
[for full text of this comment, see:
10-10-30 Computer Fraud Opined in Online Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts in Paper Submitted for International Peer-reviewed Law Journal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40511204/]
_______
 
Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 12 hours ago
In El Lago County ((nom de plume)) IN, some time back there was a problem with incompatible computer systems wreaking havoc between different offices and sometimes in the same office. Electronic records didn't square with paper or other electronic records until computer systems were replaced and unified. Whether that and California being broke has anything to do with it, I'm in no position to know but only posed the question.

I am also aware of some judges making wrong rulings when they didn't seem to understand the law. An inbecile can make errors on the law and no doubt will, but the errors will be random as the goof will screw up things for both sides in about equal proportion. But when "misunderstanding" of the law tends to beneft politically connected lawfirms and vested interests, that clearly is not random error. As far as intentional violations of civil rights, we have addressed that in correspondence to appropriate government officials who often choose to do nothing, which topic we have also addressed.

The prospect of bias and conflict of interest in the Fine case has received considerable comment and no doubt arose in his pleadings. One would hope that Fine had been released much sooner. The hour is late, and I drone on too long.

Andrew 
_______

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 8 hours ago

Dear Dr Jackson:
Very interesting stories indeed... A person like me, with no legal training, is a bit surprised by your story spinning discussion style. Let's try to be more structured in our discussion of the matter at hand. How about agreeing first on the definition of fraud and the respective elements of Fraud.
Here are some definitions:
a) Fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation which causes another person to suffer damages.
b) Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
Therefore, for conduct to be found as fraud, it should include the following elements:
a) False
b) Deliberately misleading
c) Intended for gain or to inflict harm on others.
Do we agree so far?
jz
P.S. I used the Richard Fine case only because people were familiar with it. I had by now a whole archive of alleged Fraud on the Court at the US courts, derived from US courts from coast to coast... After I submitted the first manuscript I was asked to cut it down in size 5-fold. Let's see what the reviewers will say about the short version. 
_______

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 10 minutes ago
ELEMENTS OF COMPUTER FRAUD, AS EVIDENCED IN THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS:
1) FALSE:
It appears that Dr Jackson tacitly admitted that today the online records published by the US courts are false.
2) DELIBERATELY MISLEADING
a) This element requires also the demonstration of "Reliance".
Today counsel, parties, and the public at large effectively rely on PACER dockets and PACER records as their primary, if not exclusive route for access to the US court records. When one goes to the offices of the clerks, and requests to inspect and to copy records, pursuant to First Amendment rights, the clerks routinely refer the public to PACER on computer terminals, which are installed and available in the offices of the clerks. Records, upon request, are then printed off these terminals.
b) The deliberately misleading nature of the system is further demonstrated by the denial of access in PACER to the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs), which are available only in CM/ECF. Therefore, parties, counsel, and the public-at-large, are referred to a system, where they would not be able to distinguish between valid and effectual judicial records, such that command "full faith and credit", and void, not voidable records.
c) Furthermore, as documented in the paper, which was submitted for peer-review, the PACER dockets today hold both types of records. The courts, and counsel who are authorized in a given case, can distinguish between the two types of records. Parties, unauthorized counsel, and the public-at-large cannot.
d) The deliberately misleading nature of the systems is further documented by denial of access, upon explicit written requests to the various US courts and courts of appeals, for First Amendment right to inspect and to copy the NEFs or NDAs in various cases.
e) The deliberately misleading nature of the systems is further documented by the refusal of the clerks to certify the PACER dockets, albeit, without ever admitting or informing the requester that such dockets, in certain cases, are false court records.
f) The clerks of the courts, and also the Chief Judge of the US District Court, Central District of California, refused to correct false and deliberately misleading records, which had been published online in PACER, even after they were reliably informed of the fraudulent nature of such records, in disregard of the Code of Conduct of US Judges.
3) INTENDED FOR GAIN, OR TO INFLICT HARM ON OTHERS
As documented in the paper, which was submitted for peer review, such systems are routinely employed by the US courts from the US district courts, through the courts of appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States to deprive persons of Liberty and the Right for Possession. 
_______

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 1 second ago