09-09-28-Request for guidance from the Federal Reserve Board.

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:15:44 -0700

To: donna.m.harrison@frb.gov
From: joseph zernik

.

Subject: Request for guidance from FRB in getting help from Federal Agencies in alleged financial institutions fraud, in view of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.

.

Bcc:

September 28, 2009


Donna M Harrison
Federal Reserve Board
By Email

Ms Harrison:

I hope that you could help. Please inform me: Which of the multiple federal agencies involved in banking regulation could assist me in this matter. I already filed a complaint with the regulating body in this case - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS - an exercise in futility. They informed me in advance that their procedure involved no actions on their part. It just provided an opportunity for the consumer and the financial institution to state their positions.

My position was that USC CREDIT UNION was key to the perpetration by Att DAVID PASTERNAK of real estate fraud against me- as opined by decorated FBI agent JAMES WEDICK. Damages to me exceed $2.0 millions. I believe that such crimes, as opined by Mr WEDICK, deserve attention of federal agencies, given that State of California and local agencies entirely refused to address the issue.

The alleged frauds here were by a small financial institution, but it engaged in such conduct repetitively, with impunity. I believe that the reason was that COUNTRYWIDE and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION were tied to the same fraud, and it was obvious that no action was taken against them. Since January 2007, I have submitted numerous complaints against COUNTRYWIDE, ANGELO MOZILO, and SANDOR SAMUELS, for what I believe would be deemed by court as willful criminal conduct, with a pattern that continued now for over 2 years.

I have detailed documentation how such complaints were deliberately ignored, or even undermined, by FBI, SEC, THRIFT SUPERVISION, and FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, as well as other agencies.

In January 2007, the issue was not of much interest. However, today, the question of non-functional banking regulation in the U.S. is the focus of interest world-wide, and the loss of confidence in U.S. regulation of its financial institutions causes real harm to the U.S. economy.
In recognition of the importance of the issue, the U.S. Congress even passed the:

. Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009
. An Act to improve enforcement of mortgage fraud, securities and commodities
. fraud, financial institution fraud, and other frauds related to Federal assistance
. and relief programs, for the recovery of funds lost to these frauds, and for other
. purposes.

In sum: PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHICH AGENCY I SHOULD APPROACH, AND WHICH PROCEDURE I SHOULD INVOKE TO INITIATE REVIEW OF MY CLAIMS, WHICH ARE CREDIBLY DOCUMENTED, INCLUDING FRAUD EXPERT OPINION LETTERS.

Expedient response would be appreciated.



_____/s/ Joseph H Zernik_________
Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD


cc:
U.S Congress
Basel Committee
Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Washington DC.



At 12:35 PM 9/28/2009, you wrote:

Return Receipt

Your . Integrity of records produced by USC Credit Union as the
document: . legal foundation for actions in Dr Zernik's accounts with
. . . no authorization and with no notice, which caused
. . . devastating harms, and Integrity of Operations at USC CU.

was . . donna.m.harrison@frb.gov
received
by:

at: . . . 09/28/2009 03:35:15 PM

09-06-27 Notice of disability – resulting from alleged severe deprivation of rights

September 27, 2009

.

DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1550

Sacramento CA 95815

T (916) 263-2300 F (916) 263-2140

.

In RE: Notice of Disability in license #40328

.

Sir/Madam:

I spoke earlier this week with your office. Your staff informed me that the Board

recognized only medical disability, certified by a physician.

.

I am disabled as a result of alleged severe deprivation of rights, stemming from alleged

corruption of the California justice system and the Los Angeles Superior Court, and

denial of the basic right for equal protection under the law.

.

A brief review is enclosed.

.

There is no doubt in my mind that the events that I am witnessing and recording are of

historic proportions – the looting of the American people by large banks, the courts, and

the legal profession. Furthermore, given the false reporting of events that is

commonplace, I believe that the meticulous documentation of what is taking place here

and now is of unique significance.

.

Therefore, I finally had to realize that I was not able to perform in protecting my basic

Human Rights, and operating my office under the current duress. It ended up in two

options – leaving the U.S. immediately, or quitting my practice and committing myself full

time to fighting for my rights and the rights of others.

.

I chose the latter, and it came with major losses, and also with considerable risks – I

already received several death threats in the past two years.

______/s/ Joseph Zernik_______________

Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD

Attached:

1) Application to inactivate license

2) Alleged Racketeering by Countrywide, Bank

of America Corporation, and judges.

Copy of the complete communication with the attachments can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-27-inactivate-report+form-s.pdf

09-09-25 Request for help from pro se filers

REQUEST FOR HELP BY PRO SE FILERS

.

I assume that like all of us, you filed your complaint in pro se. Such is the

way it typically ends up, since no attorney would agree to represent

plaintiffs on such cases. I am writing to ask for your help.

.

Please do me a favor, and share a few of your records:

.

A. List the captions and numbers of all of your U.S court cases, and

the district court they were heard in.

.

B. For each case, please email to me the following 3 records.

.

1) One minute order of your choice (the shortest preferred).

.

2) One order on dispositive motion ( e,g, Order on Motion to Dismiss, or

Summary Judgment, or Entry of Judgment, etc). I am looking for a "written

order" in contrast with the Minute Orders that were typically generated

from the case management system directly. Again, the shortest is

preferred.

.

3) One paper from opposing counsel (the shortest).

I assume that you received them all by USPS First Class mail. I hope that

by chance you have the envelopes and everything that was included.

.

C. Please indicate in a cover email, addressed to me:

1) That I stated that I was a fellow Pro Se filer, and that I was interested in

your Pro SE experience, and that you were emailing the documents to me

at my request. The simplest is to reply to instant email, so that my writing

is incorporated in your email.

.

2) If true and correct: Please state that the source of all the records that

you are sending to me is service by USPS.

If served in any other way, please indicate for each specific record, which way it was served. In case a

record was served in more than one way, I am interested primarily in the USPS service, whenever

possible.

.

3) If true and correct: Please state that the records are the full and

complete true and correct copies of the specific records, as received by

you via USPS.

.

In case you know that you lost a cover page, or something that was included in the mailing, please

indicate so for each individual record.

If you kept the envelopes, that is super, but not essential.

.

4) Please list and identify the records that you are sending to me under

each given caption by:

.

a) Date filed, b) Dkt #, c) Originating Party/Court, and d) Title.

.

5) Please sign as shown below.

.

I am grateful for your help, and I should be able to email you back within

24 hours from the time I receive the records. I am likely to have

information about your case, that you were not aware of.

.

DISCLAIMER #1: I am not an attorney, not even by a long shot.

DISCLAIMER #2: The older I get the more I realize how clueless I am.

.

Dated: September 25, 2009 ____/s/ Joseph H Zernik____

Joseph H Zernik

CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA - FREE THE 10,000 RAMPART-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), FREE ATTORNEY

RICHARD I FINE http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a

References

1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely

convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin

Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf

2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by

civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-

2006-report.pdf

3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000

by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-firsttrial-

01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf

4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from jail http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD , Fax: (801) 998-0917

09-09-21 RE: SEC v BAC (09-CV-06829-JSR) - Request filed to disambiguate the nature of the proceedings, and alleging racketeering by CFC and BAC

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:27:10 -0700
To: jz12345@earthlink.net
From: joseph zernik
Subject: SEC v BAC (09-CV-06829-JSR) Request filed to disambiguate the nature of the proceedings, alleging racketeering by CFC and BAC
Cc: jz12345@earthlink.net
Bcc:

Concomitantly served and mailed for filing at the Court on September 21, 2009.
A. Paper filed as Pro Se Filer:
(1) Ex Parte Request for Leave to File as Party in Interest [1]
Pro Se Filer Joseph H Zernik, resident of Los Angeles County, California, files instant Request
following his notice to parties of intent to intervene....to allow him, and also the public at large,
clear and unambiguous perspective of the nature of proceedings in SEC v BAC (09-CV-06829-
JSR).
Instant litigation should be of interest to the public at home and abroad, in the midst of the
ongoing financial crisis, as integral part of U.S. regulatory system of financial institutions,
where doubts cast shadows relative to intentions of regulators and efficacy of the system as
a whole. Such shadows, in and of themselves counter the mission of regulation. Likewise,
any ambiguity, unintended and unnecessary as it may be, in the nature of instant
proceedings as viewed by the public at large, is likely to be harmful. Conversely
allowing Joseph H Zernik to file the attached paper as Party in Interest, as requested,
should help the Court in its cause of furtherance of justice.
...
Instant litigation should be of interest to the public at home and abroad, in the midst of the
ongoing financial crisis, as integral part of U.S. regulatory system of financial institutions,
where doubts cast shadows relative to intentions of regulators and efficacy of the system as
a whole. Such shadows, in and of themselves counter the mission of regulation. Likewise,
any ambiguity, unintended and unnecessary as it may be, in the nature of instant
proceedings as viewed by the public at large, is likely to be harmful.

B. Papers filed as [Proposed] Party in Interest:
(1) Request for Disambiguation - as an essential of Due Process of the Law [2]
Party in Interest Joseph H Zernik, resident of Los Angeles County, California, files instant
Request for disambiguation individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated...
Pro Se Filer Joseph Zernik requests herein that the Court take actions as it deems fit to allow Party
in Interest, and the public at large, transparency into the nature of instant proceedings.
Summons was not docketed, and staff at the Clerks office informed Party in Interest that
such was the custom at the Court...
Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) deemed equivalent to Certificates of Service and/or
Attestations by Clerk, were inaccessible in PACER, as part of general configuration of PACER and
CM/ECF, that is herein alleged as questionable and requiring careful review by the courts...
The latest Memorandum Order (Dkt #22) by the Court, appeared in PACER with no stamp of the
Clerk on its face, no PACER blue security header imprint, and its NEF, if any, was inaccessible...
From public perspective, such docket and such online records leave the nature of proceedings in SEC
v BAC (09-CV-06829-JSR) vague and ambiguous.

(2) Request for Lenience as Pro Se Filer [3]
[Proposed] Party in Interest Joseph H Zernik, resident of Los Angeles County, California,
herein requests lenience - for his "inartful pleading" (Erickson v Pardus, 2007), such as
accorded by U.S. law to pro se filers. In particular, I am not qualified in assessing the
validity of legal theories. I ask the court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I
claim, and do take into consideration the facts themselves, as well as the claims, if they can
support some other valid theory (Haddoc 1985).
For such reasons routinely use was made of violations of the law without spelling
out the specific section. Similarly, Criminalities or Violations of the Penal Code, or
Predicated Acts were used - without spelling out the specific section of the code. Use of
Obstruction/Perversion/Corruption of Justice was in reference to any of the multiple ways
that judges, clerks, and large corporations can subvert the courts to generate the opposite of
furtherance of justice. Hardly any refer was made to specific violations of Civil Rights per
the Amendments, instead, such violations are considered as overlapping references made
to violations of Common Law rights to access court records to inspect and to copy, and
to violations of Human Rights per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified
International Law.

(3) Request for Incorporation by Reference [4]
...Such papers provide much of the evidence of alleged criminalities by
Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), and/or Bank of America Corporation (BAC), which
upon review should be deemed racketeering. Such papers describe the emergence of CFC as an
alleged corrupt organization on the background on lawlessness in LA County, California,
patronized by FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice for at least two decades...
The lawlessness tolerated by U.S. government in LA Country, was and is also associated with
Human Rights abuses of historic proportions the ongoing false holding of the Rampart-FIPs...
The two main cases that detailed the alleged criminal conduct of CFC and BAC against Party
in Interest Joseph H Zernik were (a) Zernik v Connor et al and (b) Zernik v Melson et al, albeit,
considerable part of the evidence filed also under (c) Borrower Parsley for reasons explained
below. Additional cases, demonstrated that Dr Zerniks allegations were nothing new. Conduct
that should be deemed racketeering by CFC in Courts across the U.S. was well documented in
cases such as (a) Borrower Hill. (b) Borrower Parsley, and (c) in a U.S. Trustee report, embedded
in case of Borrower Parsley, based on a full-year study of the conduct of CFC in courts across the
U.S.
Such papers stand in contrast with FBIs investigation of the sub-prime crisis, which led to no
indictments of senior management at CFC so far, and likewise to SECs refusal to enforce the
law at CFC and BAC, regardless of numerous complaints based on credible evidence of alleged
criminal conduct.
Furthermore, such papers demonstrated the approach of U.S. Courts so far,
regarding attempts to address wrongdoing by CFC and/or BAC. The dockets of cases such as
(a) Zernik v Connor et al, at the U.S. District Court, LA, as well as (b) Zernik v Melson et al, at
the U.S. District Court, Washington DC, were alleged as prime examples of fraud in operation
of PACER vs CM/ECF. To this date the Clerks of the respective courts deny access to inspect
and to copy the NEFs of the records it was assumed that no valid NEFs existed for any such
records, since no NEFs were ever served with papers by parties or by court.
The cases of (a) Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County, and (b) Fine v Bar Association
document the extreme extent to which alleged fraud in operation of PACER and CM/ECF was
advanced in LA County: Deprivation of property in the case of Party in Interest, Dr Zernik, and
deprivation of liberty in the case of Att Richard Fine, 70 yo, former U.S. Prosecutor, in solitary
confinement since March 4, 2009, based on purported judgment of LA Superior Court judge,
which is alleged as fraud on the face of the record.

(4) Notice of Affidavit of Joseph H Zernik [5]
[Proposed] Party in Interest Joseph H Zernik, resident of Los Angeles County, California,
herein files notice of Affidavit of Joseph H Zernik in re: Then Proposed Settlement, previously
submitted to the Court (Exhibit 1).
The Affidavit detailed much of the essential justification for the Request of Leave to
File, and the Request for Disambiguation, concomitantly filed with instant Notice.

Dated: September 21, 2009 Joseph H Zernik

By: ____/s/ Joseph H Zernik__________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Pro Se Filer
PO Box 286
Fax: 801 998 0917
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

The complete papers can be viewed at:
[1] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-09-21-as-mailed-for-filing-a-1-req%20leave%20to%20file-s.pdf
[2] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-09-21-as-mailed-for-filing-b-1-req-disambiguation-s.pdf
[3] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-09-21-as-mailed-for-filing-b-2-req-lenience-s.pdf
[4] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-09-21-as-mailed-for-filing-b-3-req-incorporation-s.pdf
[5] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-09-21-as-mailed-for-filing-b-4-notice-of-affidavit-s.pdf


CC:
BAC - Audit Committee
BAC - Executive Committee
BAC - Holders of Reporting Duties
BAC - Independent Auditor
BAC - Analysts
Basel Committee - Switzerland
Chinese Embassy, Washington DC
Harvard Law Faculty
Stanford Law Faculty
U.S. Congress

CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA - FREE THE 10,000 RAMPART-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), FREE ATTORNEY RICHARD I FINE http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
References
1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from jail http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD , Fax: (801) 998-0917;

Posting at The Am Law Litigation Daily.

eptember 17, 2009 7:17 PM

LITIGATION DAILY: Could Rakoff's Ruling Cost BofA's Shareholders More Than $33 Million?

Posted by Susan Beck

This story was originally published by The Am Law Litigation Daily.

This writer is a shareholder who was probably the ONLY one who filed an affidavit with Judge Rakoff, requesting to reject the Proposed Settlement. My Affidavit's central claim was that the parties never came to court in good faith/clean hands... SEC never intended to enforce the law, and BAC never intended to comply with the law. Judge Rakoff apparently accepted at least the first half of the last statement - that SEC never intended to enforce the law.
Additionally, I sought to undermine the Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest, former SEC Commissioner, on the grounds that I had first hand knowledge that he had pertinent information, which he failed to address in his opinion, which was unreasonably narrow in its construction.
.
Looking at impact of Judge Rakoff's decision on short term share value is typical U.S. market attitude that got to grow up one day...
.
The failure of the U.S. government to enforce the law and institute regulation of U.S. financial institutions, combined with the reckless decision to waive the 10% deposit limit on BAC, while grafting into it some of the allegedly most corrupt elements from CFC, was the harbinger of a much greater disaster than some share price fluctuation...
.
It appears that our only hope these days for some reason to find its way to U.S. policy makers... is through pressure from BASEL - seat of the Basel Committee of International Banking Accords, or from BEIJING - holder of >$2trillion in reserves denominated in U.S. dollars, The U.S. itself is back to the Era of the Robber Barons, in a big swing, as if we learned nothing from the Great Depression...

Posted by: Joseph Zernik | September 19, 2009 at 04:05 PM

One must note, that in disregard of repeated requests, Counsel for SEC has so far refused to publicly display a copy of the Summons in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829).
.
Therefore, beyond all other arguments, the public display at the U.S. District Court in NYC remained so far indefinite as a legal action, and SEC insisted on keeping it that way...
.
For all we know SEC could have
in error, or otherwise, issued defective Summons, and the display in its entirety could then be null and void.
.
Insistence of a U.S. regulatory agency to conduct its business in such manner, in the midst of the current financial crisis, and the fact that it can get away with it, and there is no protest or public uproar, is just one more indication how deluded either is this writer, or are some regulators at SEC.

Posted by: Joseph Zernik | September 19, 2009 at 04:16 PM

God bless the U.S. librarians....

Guardians of the U.S. Contitution...

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION OF LAW SCHOOL LIBRARIANS - "TO IMPROVE PACER"

Joseph Zernik has just read and signed the petition: Improve PACER

You can view this petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/5550076

Again they took a stand, when nobody else did!

1. Pacer and CM/ECF should be considered prime examples of U.S. “Digital Pollution”

.

Instant Petition should help in generating awareness of a critical widespread problem - "Digital Pollution" - large computer systems in both government and public corporations, which were either never validated (logic-verified), and/or were fraudulent by design, and/or were corrupted over time.

.

2. PACER and CM/ECF were never appropriately instituted with public notice and an opportunity for comment – albeit – they reflected a sea change in the U.S. Rules of Courts

The duality of PACER vs CM/ECF as docketing systems of the U.S. Courts, must be subjected to careful review. The construction and implementation of such dual systems required major resources, and in fact represented an entire revolution in the Rules of Courts. As such, such major changes in the Rules of Courts should have been generated in compliance with the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC § 2071-2077.

28 USC § 2071 says: .

§ 2071. Rule-making power generally

(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.

However, such dual systems were established by the U.S. judiciary with no appropriate public notice and opportunity for public review and comment. Therefore, upon review, it may be ruled that such systems were established with no authority at all.

.

3. Digital signatures by AO, as sought by the Petition’s authors, were the incorrect authority for authentication of records. Authentication requiredCertification by a Judge or a Party, for respective papers, and in both cases - Attestation by the Clerk.

.

The Petition was in error in the statement calling for AO’s digital signatures to be added:

.

“For verification and reliability, the AO [Administrative Office of the Courts – jhz] should digitally sign every document put into PACER using readily available technology.”

.

The digital signature of the AO would have no validity, and wouldn’t have contributed to the authentication of the records.

.

The U.S. Constitution, Art. IV §I declares:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

By the U.S. Congress Act of May 26, 1790, it is provided:

That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken.

Relative to filing papers by parties, the hand signature of party or counsel of record on the paper was required as Certification, combined with the Certificate of Service, and the Attestation by Clerk was executed by the stamping “FILED” and endorsement by the hand of the Clerk.

.

Relative to entering orders – the hand-signature of the Judge was required as Certification, and Certificate of Service was either by Party of by Clerk, and Attestation was again – by “FILED” stamp and endorsement by clerk.

.

4. The authentication of Court Records was already implemented - in CM/ECF, where public access was denied. However, the legal foundation of the method of implementation of the NEFs may be questioned. Moreover, the omission of the NEFs from PACER would likely be found upon review as abuse of rights, or even widespread fraud on the people.

.

Authentication of the records was already fully implemented by the Administrative Office of the Courts – in the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) that were automatically sent to CM/ECF users upon any filing in a case. The NEFs were also attached to each and every record on the docket in CM/ECF, similar to the manner that Certificates of Service used to be enclosed to paper records. In CM/ECF, the NEFs appear under the “silver bullet” positioned in CM/ECF docket sheet on the left of the record ordinal number.

Therefore, the NEFs replaced the Certificates of Service by Party, or Notices of Entry and Certificates of Mailing by Clerk, which were required in the paper dockets for each and every record to be deemed authenticated. There are two major inherent problems with the implementation as seen today:

a. It eliminated the critical duty of a particular Clerk or Deputy as accountable for the authenticity of a given record. In other words, tradition of hundreds of years, established the integrity of the courts, at least in part, based on the checks and balances of the authorities of the Judicial and Ministerial arms of the Courts. It is not clear whether the Administrative Office of the Courts had the authority to affect such a major change in the structure of the court system, with no review or legislation. The problem can be to some degree related to the voting machines problem. The code of PACER was never open for public review. The personal accountability of the Clerks was discarded in favor of some confidential code. It is not an acceptable reasonable substitute, and it must be deemed suspect. Especially so, since upon review, it is likely to be deemed that the dual systems of Pacer and CM/ECF were not constructed by the judiciary in good faith.

b. The implementation must be doubly deemed suspect, for the reason that all NEFs were eliminated from PACER. There is no reason, which would be even remotely related to the furtherance of justice, which could justify such system design. In plain layperson’s language it is likely to be called “Shell Game Fraud”.

.

The courts are unambiguous about the fact that the NEFs and the digital signatures encrypted in them per RSA, are the Attestations that determine the authenticity of the records. For example, in the Central District of California, the General Order 06-07 of the U.S. Courts, for the Central District of California states:

J. A “Notice of Electronic Filing” is generated automatically by the ECF

system upon completion of an electronic filing. The Notice of Electronic Filing, when e-mailed to the e-mail address of record in the case, shall constitute the proof of service as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.5(d). A copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing shall be attached to any document served in the traditional manner upon any party appearing pro se.

5. Dual systems, separate and unequal – where the courts assumed the authority to arbitrarily segregate parties.

.

Therefore, one can reasonably state, that PACER and CM/ECF were constructed as separate but unequal systems, and the U.S. Courts usurped the authority to arbitrarily segregate parties into one or the other. Pro Se filers, and practically all prisoners, were and are limited to PACER access, and as seen here – librarians and law students as well.

PACER users were deliberately handicapped – disabled from distinguishing authenticated, valid, and effectual court records, from such that were unauthenticated, invalid, and ineffectual. Concomitantly, the dockets were populated with abundance of unauthenticated, invalid, ineffectual records.

6. PACER and CM/ECF may be deemed upon review as radical change in the Law of the Land and the U.S. Constitution – abolishing of the Common Law ACRIC (Access Court Records to Inspect and to Copy) Right

Furthermore, to ensure that PACER users remain ignorant and unable to discern the authenticated court records among those docketed online, the U.S. Court, with no recorded court ruling or Constitutional Amendment, effectively abolished the public’s ACRIC right, which the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc 435 U.S. 589 (1978), [the Nixon Tapes decision], as ”the common law right of access to judicial records”, also embedded in “First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press”, “Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial,” and the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment as part of the “fundamental demands of due process of law”.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in discussing such Right stated: “This privilege of the public to inspect and obtain copies of all court records… in the custody of the Clerk, is of long standing in this jurisdiction, and reaches far back into our common law and traditions. …the public has a right to inspect and obtain copies of ,,, judicial records.”… "[A]ny attempt to maintain secrecy as to the records of the court would seem to be inconsistent with the common understanding of what belongs to a public court of record, to which all persons have the right of access and to its records, according to long-established usage and practice."…

Nevertheless, recent attempts to exercise such right at the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angles, at the California Court of Appeals, 2^nd District, at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, U.S. District Court, Manhattan, NYC, and U.S. District Court. Washington DC, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, demonstrated universal denial of such right, relative to inspection and copying of NEFs, with no explanation at all.

.

In some instances the excuse was offered that the NEFs were “administrative court records” and not “public court records”. That distinction must upon review be found to be a de novo invention. It was reasonably clear that the FRCPs considered the Certificate of Service as integral part of the filing, which was self evident:

FRCP, Rule 5(d)(1) states:

(d) Filing

(1) Required Filings; Certificate of Service.

Any paper after the complaint that is required to be served — together with a certificate of service — must be filed within a reasonable time after service.

In sum:

.

It is entirely inconceivable how law students can review case law, or cases in general, for that purpose, with no access to the NEFs. The conduct of the courts must remain a total mystery to them. Likewise, it is entirely inconceivable how no lawyers, no legal organization, no law school faculty, protested this aberration or possibly even alleged perversion. It was left for the librarians to take the stand and guard our Constitution.

Submitted to the National Law Blog- Pacer: What Public Access?

The opinion, What public access?, by Erika V. Wayne, September 14, 2009, should help in generating awareness of a critical widespread problem - "Digital Pollution" - large computer systems in both government and public corporations, which were either never validated (logic-verified), and/or were fraudulent by design, and/or were corrupted over time.

The duality of PACER vs CM/ECF as docketing systems of the U.S. Court system, must be the subject of careful review. It was established by the U.S. judiciary with no reasonable opportunity for public review and challenge, and therefore - with no authority at all. Pacer and CM/ECF were constructed as separate but unequal systems, and the courts segregate parties at will into one or the other. Pro se filers, and practically all prisoners, are limited to Pacer access.

The main point that was missed in the opinion, was that Pacer eliminated all NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings - comparable to Proofs of Service, or Notice of Entry and Certificate of Mailing by Clerk) from the system. Therefore, the Pacer user is blind - he or she cannot tell which records are valid, and which are not. The NEFs today are the attestations by Clerks, pursuant to the Act of May 26, 1790. Absent the attestations, no determination can be made relative to authenticity of records.

Such key systems, of which Pacer and CM/ECF are but one example, signal severe deficiencies in the infrastructure of U.S. government agencies and financial institutions, which call for immediate attention. The solution must involve a long-term effort, guided by the U.S. government, with reasonable timed goals set for enforcement, incentive for public corporations for early compliance, and intensive education efforts at various levels – from the public at large, to specific professional groups. Outside observers may also assist in such process, because one of its stated goals must be the re-establishment of credible U.S. regulation in the financial sector:

1) The required technology is readily available. Moreover, the field represents an enormous business opportunities in an initiative to rebuild major systems in public agencies and public corporations, including critical reevaluation of all steps of the process: design, implementation, validation/logic verification, and long-terms safeguard of integrity. Separately, attempts would have to be made to clean up or salvage parts of existing machines and databases.

2) The legal framework is likewise largely in place, albeit promulgation of effective regulations is required.

3) Public education must be integral to the process: The public must be re-educated to demand its Common Law ACRIP right ("Access to Court [or public] Records to Inspect and to Copy") and the right for Competent Tribunals with published laws and rules of court, subject to public review. Gains of generations were lost in the transition from paper to digital media. Nothing short of public educations would re-establish and secure integrity of the courts and of public corporations.

4) Professional education must be integral to the process: Standards of care, development and recognition of new professional titles, and related education is required in order to have the computing community assume a more responsible role in this area.

5) Periodic visits by international friends, who would be willing to provide observations, would benefit the interests of all involved.

The U.S. government is not ready, able, willing to address conditions in Los Angeles County and elsewhere. Conditions at the courts veered far off the course and should amount upon review to major violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Conditions at financial institutions are likewise - far from compliance with the Basel Accords.