Los Angeles, March 18 – following his claims of perpetration of fraud in PACER and CM/ECF in the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, California, resident, published in various online outlets letters [1] seeking volunteers throughout the US to help in producing a comprehensive review of the practices and procedures of the United States courts and courts of appeals relative to their computerized systems: PACER – the public access system, and CM/ECF – the case management/electronic filing system.
Specific help was requested in a two-fold manner:
First – comprehensive examination of the local rules, general orders, and CM/ECF manuals of the district and appellate courts, to identify mention, if any of the practice of NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) bearing RSA- encrypted digital signatures as the replacement for the stamps and hand-signatures of the clerks of the courts in the former paper-based certification/authentication;
Second – examples of alleged fraud by US District courts and US courts of appeals through the issuance of court orders and judgments with invalid NEFs – bearing no RSA-encrypted digital signatures, or no NEFs at all.
In his letters, Dr Zernik compared the practice to the signing of an instrument by an individual, and acknowledgment of such individual's signature on the instrument by a notary public, based on the notary's hand endorsement and stamp, which the notary was required to keep possession of at all times. Furthermore, Dr Zernik stated: “In other words, the public access system (PACER) permitted the inspection and the copying of the instruments alone (and even then - not always the signatures on the instruments), but the NEFs - the equivalent of notary public acknowledgements - were uniformly eliminated from the PACER records. Therefore, there was no way that the public could distinguish through PACER between court records that were honest, valid, and effectual, and the multitude of false and deliberately misleading records that populated PACER through misconduct of the courts.”
Such requests were issued as part of an effort to solicit experts’ opinions from outside the US regarding integrity of operations of the US courts relative to the practice and procedures of PACER and CM/ECF. Dr Zernik was confident that experts would confirm his claims that PACER and CM/ECF, as implemented by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, were a large-scale Shell Game fraud.
LINKS/NOTES:
[1] March 18, 2010 Letter by Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, soliciting volunteer reviews of Local Rules, General Orders, and local CM/ECF User’s manuals across the US. The links at the end of the letter provided examples of both valid, and invalid NEFs.
Hi [ ],
Thanks, since it appears that you know all the right people. Maybe you could help me in the most urgent task, relative to PACER in the US courts and US courts of appeals:
THE CLAIMS:
My basic claims relative to the recent implementation of the public access (PACER) and case management/ electronic filing (CM/ECF) systems at the United States courts is that it was the largest Shell Game fraud in the history of mankind, and that it was executed with no legal authority at all, since there was no way that the public could tell through PACER, which records were honest, valid, and effectual court records, and which were false and deliberately misleading court records.
Through many generations of paper-based administration of the courts, fundamental safeguards were established, which required that court orders and judgments be verified by the hand signature of the judge, and certified/authenticated by the stamp/seal of the court and hand endorsement by the clerk of the court. Moreover, the clerk of the court was the only one authorized to hold the seals/stamps of the court.
Such basic procedures could be compared to the signing of an instrument by an individual, and acknowledgment of such individual's signature on the instrument by a notary public, based on the notary's hand endorsement and stamp, which the notary was required to keep possession of at all times.
The claim is that with the introduction of computer-based administration of the US courts, the certification/authentication by the clerk was implemented as NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). The hand endorsement of the clerk was replaced by an RSA-encrypted digital signature, which appeared at the bottom of the NEFs as a 3-5 line nonsensical alphanumeric string.
However, in coordinated fashion, such newly practiced court procedures were NEVER lawfully established through local rules of courts in any US court or court of appeals that I examined.
Furthermore, in devising its dual computerized case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems, the US courts deliberately eliminated from public access, and were actively denying public access to the NEFs. The NEFs were simply excluded from PACER.
In other words, the public access system (PACER) permitted the inspection and the copying of the instruments alone (and even then - not always the signatures on the instruments), but the NEFs - the equivalent of notary public acknowledgements - were uniformly eliminated from the PACER records.
Therefore, there was no way that the public could distinguish through PACER between court records that were honest, valid, and effectual, and the multitude of false and deliberately misleading records that populated PACER through misconduct of the courts.
Moreover, the claim is that there was no reasonable explanation for the design of such dual systems that was consistent with the furtherance of justice and honest administration of the courts.
CURRENT EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION:
Ample documentation of the claims above was accumulated from the US District Court in LA and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (in re: case of Richard Fine), and from the US District Court in Brattleboro, Vermont, and the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (case of Scott Huminski).
The alleged fraud in such cases was in the issuance by the US District Court of court orders and judgments with NEFs with no digital signatures, and the service of court orders by the US courts of appeals with no signatures by the judges, and no NEFs at all.
WHERE IT STANDS TODAY:
I am in the process of seeking prominent expert opinions on the matter from outside the US (no US expert that is prominent, whom I have approached, was willing to issue a written opinion on the matter). I do have non-formal opinion from a prominent US expert, and preliminary formal opinion from a prominent expert from outside he US.
REQUEST FOR HELP:THE CLAIMS:
My basic claims relative to the recent implementation of the public access (PACER) and case management/ electronic filing (CM/ECF) systems at the United States courts is that it was the largest Shell Game fraud in the history of mankind, and that it was executed with no legal authority at all, since there was no way that the public could tell through PACER, which records were honest, valid, and effectual court records, and which were false and deliberately misleading court records.
Through many generations of paper-based administration of the courts, fundamental safeguards were established, which required that court orders and judgments be verified by the hand signature of the judge, and certified/authenticated by the stamp/seal of the court and hand endorsement by the clerk of the court. Moreover, the clerk of the court was the only one authorized to hold the seals/stamps of the court.
Such basic procedures could be compared to the signing of an instrument by an individual, and acknowledgment of such individual's signature on the instrument by a notary public, based on the notary's hand endorsement and stamp, which the notary was required to keep possession of at all times.
The claim is that with the introduction of computer-based administration of the US courts, the certification/authentication by the clerk was implemented as NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). The hand endorsement of the clerk was replaced by an RSA-encrypted digital signature, which appeared at the bottom of the NEFs as a 3-5 line nonsensical alphanumeric string.
However, in coordinated fashion, such newly practiced court procedures were NEVER lawfully established through local rules of courts in any US court or court of appeals that I examined.
Furthermore, in devising its dual computerized case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems, the US courts deliberately eliminated from public access, and were actively denying public access to the NEFs. The NEFs were simply excluded from PACER.
In other words, the public access system (PACER) permitted the inspection and the copying of the instruments alone (and even then - not always the signatures on the instruments), but the NEFs - the equivalent of notary public acknowledgements - were uniformly eliminated from the PACER records.
Therefore, there was no way that the public could distinguish through PACER between court records that were honest, valid, and effectual, and the multitude of false and deliberately misleading records that populated PACER through misconduct of the courts.
Moreover, the claim is that there was no reasonable explanation for the design of such dual systems that was consistent with the furtherance of justice and honest administration of the courts.
CURRENT EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION:
Ample documentation of the claims above was accumulated from the US District Court in LA and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (in re: case of Richard Fine), and from the US District Court in Brattleboro, Vermont, and the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (case of Scott Huminski).
The alleged fraud in such cases was in the issuance by the US District Court of court orders and judgments with NEFs with no digital signatures, and the service of court orders by the US courts of appeals with no signatures by the judges, and no NEFs at all.
WHERE IT STANDS TODAY:
I am in the process of seeking prominent expert opinions on the matter from outside the US (no US expert that is prominent, whom I have approached, was willing to issue a written opinion on the matter). I do have non-formal opinion from a prominent US expert, and preliminary formal opinion from a prominent expert from outside he US.
I am seeking:
A) COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCAL RULES OF COURTS/ GENERAL ORDERS/ USER MANUALS ACROSS THE US:
Review of as many US District Courts and Courts of Appeals, to establish whether they documented in their Local Rules of Courts the basis for operation of PACER and CM/ECF, the nature of certification/authentication of records through RSA-encrypted digital signatures in NEFs. The only good reference that I found was often in informal "CM/ECF USER MANUALS", which were not adequate court records at all.
What I would expect from those who were willing to help was a short declaration under penalty of perjury such as:
1) On this and that date I inspected the Local Rules of Court of this and that US District Court - as posted by the court at this and that URL, the Standing Orders - as posted by the court at this and that URL, and the local "CM/ECF User's Manual" -as posted by the court at this and that URL. (I would appreciate also a time-date stamped PDF copies of the complete Local Rules of Court, General Orders, and CM/ECF Manuals of each court that was examined)
2) The only mention of PACER and CM/ECF was such and such.
3) The practice and procedure of NEFs and RSA-encrypted digital signatures in the NEFs, as the valid certification/ authentication of court records was/was not mentioned in such Local Rules of Court - Rule #xx; Was/was not mentioned in the local General Orders - General Order #xx-xx; Was/was not mentioned in informal "CM/ECF User's Manual" of the court, pp xx-xx.
2) ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF FRAUD ON INDIVIDUALS AT THE US DISTRICT COURTS AND US COURTS OF APPEALS, PARTICULARLY IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO HABEAS CORPUS, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
I am seeking:
a) US District Court orders and judgments that were served with NEFs bearing no RSA-encrypted digital signatures, and/or
b) US Courts of Appeals orders that were served with no signatures of the judges and no NEFs at all.
Such fraud is typically perpetrated on litigants who are:
a) Prisoners filing habeas corpus petitions.
b) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to civil rights abuses.
c) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to complaints against members of the judiciary.
d) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to financial institutions - truth in lending, disability insurance, ERISA, benefits plans, etc.
My email for direct communications is:
jz12345@earthlink.net.
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
LINKS:
[1] NEFs - a review with examples of honest and fraudulent NEFs:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24732941/10-01-03-Notice-of-Electronic-Filing-NEF-First-Amendment-CMSs-Review
[2] Large Scale Fraud Alleged in PACER
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2010/03/10-03-17-large-scale-fraud-alleged-in.html
Ayuda específica se pidió en una doble forma:En primer lugar - el examen global de las normas, órdenes generales, y CM / manuales ECF del distrito y tribunales de apelación, para identificar a mencionar, en su caso de la práctica de los fondos nacionales (Informaciones de Registros Electrónicos) teniendo RSA firmas digitales codificadas como la sustitución para los sellos y firmas de la mano de los empleados de los tribunales en el documento de ex-certificación Formación de autenticación;
Segundo firmas - ejemplos de presunto fraude por tribunales de los EE.UU. del Distrito y tribunales de los EE.UU. de los recursos mediante la emisión de las resoluciones judiciales con fondos nacionales no válida - que no guardan digital de cifrado RSA, o si no en todos los fondos nacionales.
En sus cartas, el Dr. Zernik comparó la práctica de la firma de un instrumento mediante el reconocimiento de un individuo, y la firma de dicho individuo en el acto por un notario público, sobre la base de apoyo la mano del notario y el sello, que el notario está obligado a mantener la posesión de todo el tiempo. Por otra parte, el Dr. Zernik declaró: "En otras palabras, el sistema de acceso público (PACER) permite la inspección y la copia de los instrumentos de solo (y aun así - no siempre las firmas de los instrumentos), pero los fondos nacionales - el equivalente de notario reconocimientos públicos - fueron eliminados de manera uniforme de los registros PACER. Por lo tanto, no había forma de que el público pueda distinguir a través de PACER entre registros de la corte que eran honestos, válida y eficaz, y la multitud de registros falsos y deliberadamente engañosa de que PACER pobladas por falta de los tribunales ".
Dichas solicitudes se publicaron como parte de un esfuerzo para solicitar opiniones de expertos de fuera de los EE.UU. en relación con la integridad de las operaciones de los tribunales de los EE.UU. en relación con las prácticas y procedimientos de PACER y CM / LEC. Dr. Zernik confía en que los expertos se confirman sus afirmaciones de que PACER y CM / ECF, aplicado por la Oficina Administrativa de los tribunales de los EE.UU., fueron un gran escala de Shell Game fraude.
LINKS / NOTAS:[1] 18 de marzo 2010 Carta del Dr. Joseph Zernik, residente de Los Ángeles, solicitando comentarios voluntario de las normas locales, las Órdenes Generales, y CM local / LEC manuales del usuario a través de los EE.UU.. Los enlaces al final de la carta dio ejemplos de ambos válidos, y fondos nacionales no válidos.
Hola [],
Gracias, ya que parece que usted sabe toda la gente adecuada. Tal vez usted me podría ayudar en la tarea más urgente, en relación con PACER en los tribunales de EE.UU. y tribunales de los EE.UU. de recursos:
LAS RECLAMACIONES:Mis reclamos básicos relativos a la reciente aplicación del acceso público (PACER) y gestión de casos / presentación electrónica de solicitudes (CM / ECF) en los sistemas de los tribunales de los Estados Unidos es que fue el fraude más grande Juego de conchas en la historia de la humanidad, y que fue ejecutado sin autoridad legal en todos, ya que no había forma de que el público podía decir a través de PACER, que registra eran honestos y válidos, y registros de la corte eficaz, y que eran falsas y documentos de la corte deliberadamente engañosa.
A través de muchas generaciones de administración basada en el papel de los tribunales, se establecieron las garantías fundamentales, que exige que las resoluciones judiciales será verificado por la firma de la mano del juez, y certificado / autenticado por el Sello de la Corte y la aprobación por parte el secretario de la corte. Por otra parte, el secretario de la corte era el único autorizado a celebrar las juntas / sellos de la corte.
Estos procedimientos básicos se puede comparar con la firma de un instrumento mediante el reconocimiento de un individuo, y la firma de dicho individuo en el acto por un notario público, sobre la base de apoyo la mano del notario y el sello, que el notario está obligado a mantener la posesión de nada veces.
El argumento es que con la introducción de equipo basado en la administración de los tribunales de EE.UU., la certificación o la autenticación por el secretario fue implementado como fondos nacionales (Informaciones de Registros Electrónicos). La anotación de la mano del secretario fue sustituida por una firma digital RSA encriptados, que apareció en la parte inferior de la cadena de fondos nacionales como de 3-5 líneas alfanuméricas sentido.
Sin embargo, de manera coordinada, como los procedimientos judiciales de nueva practicado nunca fueron legalmente establecido a través de normas locales de los tribunales en cualquier tribunal de EE.UU. o tribunal de apelaciones que he examinado.
Además, en el diseño de su dual de gestión de casos informatizado (CM / ECF) y de acceso público (PACER) los sistemas, los tribunales de los EE.UU. eliminados deliberadamente el acceso del público, y se activa la denegación del acceso del público a los fondos nacionales.Los fondos nacionales fueron simplemente excluidos de PACER.
En otras palabras, el sistema de acceso público (PACER) permite la inspección y la copia de los instrumentos de solo (y aun así - no siempre las firmas de los instrumentos), pero los fondos nacionales - el equivalente de reconocimientos notario público - fueron eliminados de manera uniforme los registros de PACER.
Por lo tanto, no había forma de que el público pueda distinguir a través de PACER entre registros de la corte que eran honestos, válida y eficaz, y la multitud de registros falsos y deliberadamente engañosa de que PACER pobladas por falta de los tribunales.
Por otra parte, la afirmación es que no hay ninguna explicación razonable para el diseño de tales sistemas duales que era coherente con la consecución de la justicia y la administración honesta de los tribunales.
La evidencia actual / DOCUMENTACIÓN:Amplia documentación de las reivindicaciones anteriores fue acumulada a la Corte de Distrito de EE.UU. en Los Angeles y el Tribunal de Apelaciones de EE.UU., 9 º Circuito (in re: caso de Richard Fine), y de la Corte de Distrito de EE.UU. en Brattleboro, Vermont, y el Tribunal de Justicia de EE.UU. de Apelaciones, 2 º Circuito (caso de Scott Huminski).
El presunto fraude en estos casos es en la emisión por el Tribunal de Distrito de EE.UU. de las resoluciones judiciales con fondos nacionales, sin las firmas digitales, y el servicio de las órdenes judiciales por los tribunales de los EE.UU. de recursos sin las firmas de los jueces, y no en fondos nacionales todo.
Donde se halla actualmente:Estoy en el proceso de búsqueda de opiniones de expertos destacados en la materia de fuera de los EE.UU. de expertos (EE.UU. que no es prominente, a la que se han acercado, estaba dispuesto a emitir un dictamen escrito sobre la materia). Tengo opinión no formal de un experto destacado EE.UU., y la opinión formal preliminar de un eminente experto de fuera de EE.UU. que él.
SOLICITUD DE AYUDA:Estoy buscando:
A) EXAMEN EXHAUSTIVO DE LAS NORMAS DE LOS TRIBUNALES LOCALES / PEDIDOS GENERAL / MANUALES DE USUARIO través de los EE.UU.:Examen de Distrito de los EE.UU. ya que muchos Juzgados y Tribunales de Apelaciones, para determinar si se documenta en sus reglas locales de los tribunales de la base para el funcionamiento de PACER y CM / ECF, la naturaleza de la certificación o la autenticación de los documentos a través de firmas digitales RSA-codificado en fondos nacionales . La única referencia que bueno que he encontrado es con frecuencia en la "CM / ECF MANUALES DE USUARIO", que no eran documentos de la corte adecuada en todos.
Lo que cabe esperar de los que estaban dispuestos a ayudar fue una breve declaración, bajo pena de perjurio, tales como:
1) En esta fecha y que me puse a inspeccionar las Reglas Locales de este Tribunal de Distrito de los EE.UU. y que la Corte - tal como fue anunciado por el tribunal y que en esta URL, el Reglamento - tal como fue anunciado por el tribunal y que en esta dirección, y el locales "Manual CM / ECF del usuario"-tal como fue anunciado por el tribunal y que en esta URL. (Le agradecería también un tiempo de la fecha estampada PDF copias de las Normas de la local de la Corte, las Órdenes Generales, y CM / ECF Manuales de cada tribunal que se examinó)
2) La única mención de PACER y CM / ECF era tal y tal.
3) La práctica y el procedimiento de fondos nacionales y firmas digitales RSA-cifrada en el Estos fondos nacionales, como la certificación válida / autenticación de los documentos de la corte fue / no fue mencionada en dicha normativa local de la Corte - Artículo # xx, ha sido / no se mencionaba en el locales de las Órdenes Generales - Orden General # xx-xx, ha sido / no se menciona en el informal "CM / ECF User's Manual" de la corte, pp xx-xx.
2) otros ejemplos de fraude a los particulares a los tribunales de EE.UU. EE.UU. tribunales de distrito y las apelaciones, particularmente en las cuestiones relativas al hábeas corpus, los derechos civiles, e instituciones financieras.Estoy buscando:a) las firmas Distrito de los EE.UU. las resoluciones judiciales que se sirve con fondos nacionales que no guardan digital de cifrado RSA, y / o deb) tribunales de los EE.UU. de las órdenes de Apelaciones que se sirve sin la firma de los jueces y no a todos los fondos nacionales.
Este tipo de fraude lo general es llevada a los litigantes que son:a) el hábeas corpus de los prisioneros de presentación de peticiones.b) Las personas que presenten quejas relativas a violaciones de los derechos civiles.c) Las personas que presenten quejas relativas a las denuncias contra miembros del poder judicial.d) Las personas que presenten quejas relativas a las instituciones financieras - la verdad de los préstamos, los seguros de invalidez, ERISA, los planes de beneficios, etc
Mi correo electrónico para la comunicación directa es la siguiente:jz12345@earthlink.net.
En verdad,[]José Zernik, PhDhttp://inproperinla.blogspot.com/http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPshttp://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-ExaminerPor favor firme nuestra petición - Libre Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fineFotos Patriótica de Beyonce Knowles, Sharon Stone, y Charlize Theron,Pronto la música deep house!
ENLACES:[1] Estos fondos nacionales - un examen con ejemplos de fondos nacionales honestos y fraudulentos:http://www.scribd.com/doc/24732941/10-01-03-Notice-of-Electronic-Filing-NEF-First-Amendment-CMSs-Review
[2] a gran escala el presunto fraude en PACERhttp://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2010/03/10-03-17-large-scale-fraud-alleged-in.html
3 comments:
The writer has an unfortunate misapprehension as to what an NEF is, how it serves the CM/ECF system and what constitutes a signature for purposes of Rule 11 (FRCP) and Rule 49 (FRCrP). Like many pro se litigants, the spectre of "something" out there that would ease their painful and heart-felt grievances. It is unfortunate that this particular crusade has reached such a level of incoherence that no resolution may be possible.
For instance -- the electronic document stamp in and NEF is not an RSA encryption of anything. It is a checksum on the original document so that it can be authenticated (any change to the document would cause a change in the checksum). It does not serve as authentication that the document itself is a true copy, only that it has not changed since it was filed. The process for obtaining a "true" copy has not changed in the slightest with CM/ECF -- the applicant still needs to visit the court, pay for a copy and have it stamped by the clerk as a true copy.
While it is unlikely to satisfy the writer (nothing real is likely to satisfy the writer), it would behoove him to read what is written in the local rules of the District Court where he has active litigation.
SAMPLE LETTER TO THE CLERK TO OBTAIN COPIES OF NEFs
[Please present the clerk with two copies, and ask one to be stamped "Received" for your records]
I, the undersigned, [name], request to access the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) of all court minutes, orders, and judgments in case [caption] [number], pursuant to First Amendment rights to access court records, to inspect and to copy, as re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
Respectfully,
Dated:
Signed in xx...
______
PRINTED NAME
Dear Mr McGill:
Thank your for your informative comments. You hit the nail on the head!
In my letter to the Chief Judge, US Court, Central District of California, I listed as one of the central deficiencies in current operations of the Court, the failure of the Court to comply with the law and publish adequate Local Rules of Court. As you may read in the March 25, 2010 letter, the Court claimed that the operations of PACER and CM/ECF were established in the General Order 08-02. The description of the Electronic Stamps as encrypted, and as "certification" and "authentication" of court records, was copied verbatim from the General Order 08-02, paragraph IV(o). Moreover, I challenge Mr McGill to find even one US District Court across the country, which adequately established the operations of PACER and CM/ECF in its Local Rules of Court.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-pacer-cm-ecf-us-dist-ct-cacd-general-orders-08-02-authorizing-cm-ecf-digital-verification-of-attestation-in-nef.pdf
Post a Comment