13-07-04 More on criminality in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sustain - its fraudulent case management system

From a discussion board

3)  me (Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Examples of fraudulent features in Sustain - the CMS, developed by the Los Angeles Superior Court

1) From a Register of Actions (California civil docket) in a case of simulated litigation from start to finish, the disposal (purported entry of judgment in this case) is listed as 00/00/00.

 

2) From the Register of Actions (California civil docket) In litigation in the LA Superior Court, Countrywide appeared with no party designation at all. Countrywide's first appearance was fraudulently listed prior to the date of filing of the complaint in this case [see filing date in 1), above], under a fraudulent party designation.

3)  Numerous examples were found of simulated minutes in Sustain, with fraudulent, invalid date of entry.

Above, I provide some examples of simple fraudulent practices in Sustain, the CMS developed by LA Superior Court, now used in 11 states and 3 nations, according to Sustain Corporation (control of which is still a mystery).

In Sustain, judges can enter simulated, void minutes, which appear to the public valid and effectual.

The trick is that in the last page (but not in other pages), the date of entry is registered as 00/00/00, 33/33/33, or other similar invalid dates of entry.

And if you leave it to the judges to develop, implement, and maintain the CMSs of the courts, you can bet they would create such back doors every day of the week...

More on invalid, fraudulent features of Sustain in the links below, and link [1] is an opinion letter by a world-class computer science expert.

LINKS:

[1] 09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir's Opinion Letter re: Sustain - the Case Management System of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles s

http://es.scribd.com/doc/46069337/

[2] 11-02-06 Sustain Technologies - Corruption of the State Courts Has Deep Roots in Los Angeles County, California

http://es.scribd.com/doc/48294934/

[3] 08-06-10 Beyond voting machines - case management systems of the courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court Part I

http://es.scribd.com/doc/110477747/

[4] 12-10-19 Beyond electronic voting machines - fraud in case management systems of the courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court - Part II

http://es.scribd.com/doc/110475097/

[5] 12-10-19 Beyond Electronic Voting Machines - Fraud in Case Management Systems of the Courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court - PART II

http://es.scribd.com/doc/110484212/

[6] 08-10-19 Computers & the Courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Registers of Action

http://es.scribd.com/doc/30162461/

[7]  08-06-10 Beyond voting machines - case management systems of the courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Abstract and Figures s

http://es.scribd.com/doc/30162880/

__________

2)  me (Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Bob:

You make here an enormous error. There are numerous ways to create a Case Management System (CMS) that would address the issues at hand. United Nations reports, pertaining to Crime Prevention and "Strengthening Judicial Integrity" routinely recommend the implementation of CMSs to increase court transparency and integrity.

But it all depends on how it is done. If fraudulent systems are implemented, the effect is the opposite of that intended.

The development, implementation, and maintenance of CMSs (Case Management Systems) for the courts, must never be left under the authority of the courts themselves, likewise, CMSs for the jail/prisons must not be developed, implemented and maintained by the Sheriff, and the development of CMSs also must never be "privatized".

The wrongful implementation of Sustain in Los Angeles County in 1984 (probably under Ronald George and the main culprit) was a landmark event in making the County as lawless and as corrupt as we see it today.

In fact, wrongful conduct relative to development and implementation, was the primary finding of the Israeli State Ombudsman Report 2010, regarding the unlawful CMSs, which were implemented in the Israeli courts by IBM, EDS in the 2000s. In case services of non-government entities were to be used for such a project, the State Ombudsman Report listed a whole set of safeguards that should have been triggered, pursuant to the law of the State of Israel, in order to safeguard the integrity of such systems, but were deliberately ignored by the office of Administration of the Courts.

The fundamental issue is "validation", or "logic verification" - to be distinguished from "verification" as used in the legal context.

Simply put, in computer science, "validation", or "logic verification" refers to the process, by which one ensures that a computerized system actually performs what it is supposed to perform.

For example: If your state of law says that a person must be imprisoned only pursuant to a valid court order (as is the case in California), the CMS of the prison must not permit the imprisonment of persons, based on booking records that list non-existent courts.

It is exceedingly easy to secretly program the CMSs so that they would permit numerous prohibited practices, both in the courts and in the prisons.

Therefore, such systems should be subjected to extremely rigorous "logic verification", under accountability to the legislature. The development, implementation, and maintenance of such systems must not be left under the authority of the courts, the same way that the courts are not permitted to promulgate Court Procedures.

JZ__________

1) On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 7:40:04 PM UTC+3, Bob Hurt wrote:

When you want to keep the kid's hand out of the cookie jar, you put a lid on it that the kid can't open.  Look at the CourtSmart system as a starting point:http://www.courtsmart.com/

And set up a separate grand jury, prosecutor, and court for dealing with public corruption.