The docket of the case reveals records that are inconsistent with litigation conducted in compliance with the US law. The clerk of the court and US Department of Justice Freedom of Information Office were requested to provide copies of the electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the clerk of the records in the case.
US Judge Henry Hudson
Los Angeles, January 13 � Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, have filed requests for records in the litigation of Commonwealth of Virginia v Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188) in the US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia under � the constitutional challenge to the Obama Health Care Law.
Requests were filed with:
� The Clerk of the US District Court, Fernando Galino, [[i]] and
� The US Department of Justice Freedom of Information Office.[[ii]]
The requests have been filed, since the litigation records [[iii]] revealed serious defects, which raised serious concerns that the case was conducted as deliberately invalid litigation: [[iv]]
� No valid summons was found in the case docket, only summons, which was missing the seal of the court. The US law requires that the summons be issued with a signature of the clerk of the court and under the seal of the court. Absent valid summons, the litigation is invalid from its start.=
� No valid record of execution or waiver of execution of the service of summons was found in the docket. Absent valid execution within the time prescribed by law, the case should have been dismissed by the court.
� US Judge Henry Hudson was listed as Presiding Judge in the case. However, no valid Assignment Order for Judge Henry Hudson was found in the case docket. Without a valid Assignment Order, a judge has no authority to preside in a specific case.
� The Minutes, which were found in the case docket, listed no name of a Deputy Clerk, and should therefore be deemed invalid.
� The case was reported as terminated, and was listed as terminated in the case docket, but no valid Judgment was found in the docket, and no Judgment was listed in the Judgment Index of the Court.
In addition, request was filed with Clerk of the US Court Fernando Galino to certify the docket of the case. [[v]]
The litigation docket, as it appears in the online public access system of the court (PACER) makes it impossible for the public to distinguish between court records and litigation that are valid and effectual and ones that are null and void. The reason for the ambiguity is that all electronic certificates of authentication/ attestation by the clerks are excluded from the system. Therefore, the requests, which were filed with the Clerk and the US Department of Justice Freedom of Information Office, are primarily for the electronic certificates (NEFs � Notices of Electronic Filing) in the case.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) has recently provided evidence of conduct of invalid litigation in two other high visibility cases:
� Log Cabin Republicans v USA � pertaining to the �Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell� Policy. The case is now pending before the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The Clerk of the US District Court, Central District of California, refused to certify the PACER docket in the case, and also refused to provide copies of the certificates of authentication/attestation of the purported judgment in the case.
Human Rights Alert filed a Motion to Intervene in the appeals, claiming that the appeal should be dismissed. [[vi]]
� SEC v Bank of America Corporation - pertaining to the taking by bank executives of ~$5 billions in bonuses as part of the Merrill Lynch- Bank of America merger, while providing stockholders false reports in the matter. Human Rights Alert claimed that the invalid litigation in the case was conducted in the case to cover-up alleged criminality by senior Bank of America and US officers, including BofA President Brian Moynihan and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.
Human Rights Alert filed a request for impeachment of Judge Jed Rakoff, who appeared as presiding judge in the case. [[vii]]
In both Log Cabin Republicans v USA and SEC v Bank of America Corporation the PACER dockets were inexplicable as dockets of litigation conducted in compliance with the law of the United States.
Human Rights Alert has also proposed a three-fold approach for correcting the conditions that are today found in the US courts:
� Restoring key provisions of the Salary Act of 1919, which placed the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General.
At the time, conditions in the US courts were described in the US Congress as "a burlesque", and the Salary Act was later credited as a key measure in restoring the integrity of the US Courts. It restored the role of the clerks as checks and balances vis a vis judicial corruption, which was the reason for existence of the clerks since the late middle ages. However, by the mid 20th century the clerks were again placed under the authority of the judiciary.
� Enactment of federal rules for electronic court records.
The evidence shows that the clerks of the courts today do not deem themselves accountable for the integrity of electronic court records. The online public access and case management systems of the courts (PACER and CM/ECF) were implemented over the past couple of decades in both state and federal courts. In the process, a sea change was introduced in court procedures, which had been established for centuries, and were the core of Due Process. However, all courts that were examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to the new procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights. Moreover, all courts that were examined deny public access to various records in the electronic case management systems in alleged violation of First Amendment rights. Therefore, the US Congress should perform its duties and establish the systems by law. Implicit in such laws should be the requirement for publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems prior to their implementation.
� Keeping a �watchful eye� on the US court.
The public at large and computing professionals, in particular, must assume their civic duties in ongoing monitoring 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 said that the right was necessary for the public "to keep a watchful eye on government". Today, the public must keep a watchful eye particularly on electronic court records. No other measures could substitute for public scrutiny of court records in safeguarding the integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
Notice was also provided to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
[i] 11-01-13 Re: Commonwealth of Virginia v Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188) in the US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia � Constitutional challenge to the Obama Health Care Law � Request for Litigation Records from the Clerk of the Court
[ii] 11-01-14 FOIA Request in re: Commonwealth of Virginia v Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188) in the US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia � Constitutional challenge to the Obama Health Care Law � Litigation Records
[iii] 11-01-13 Commonwealth of Virginia v Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188) in the US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia � Constitutional challenge to the Obama Health Care Law � Litigation Records
[iv] 11-01-13 Notes in re: Commonwealth of Virginia v Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188) in the US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia � Constitutional challenge to the Obama Health Care Law � Litigation Records
[v] 11-01-13 Re: Commonwealth of Virginia v Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188) in the US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia � Constitutional challenge to the Obama Health Care Law � Request for Certification of the PACER Docket
[vi] 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
[vii] 11-01-10 Request 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)
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.