Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
Los Angeles, September 8 - following the publication in a computer science journal of papers, [1] which focused on analyzing invalidity of the case management and online public access systems of the courts in the US, particularly – PACER & CM/ECF, another paper, [2] was submitted by Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) for review by top-tier US law journals, showing the harmful effects of the operation of such systems in the US. Harvard and Yale based law journals, to which the paper was submitted, refused so far to acknowledge receipt of the paper for peer-review. The paper included a series of individual case studies, and analyzed from the legal perspective. It documented what was opined as serious Human Rights violations by the courts, through the issuance of abusive, yet invalid and void orders and judgments. A reasonable person would conclude that such orders and judgments were in violation of the law. However, the judges probably falsely felt they were not engaged in corruption - since such orders and judgments were invalid and void on their faces – unsigned by a judge or unauthenticated by a clerk. Albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties in particular could not discern these facts. The paper also proposed key legislative measures that were required for correction of such conditions at the US courts, first and foremost - subjecting all such systems to legally and publicly accountable validation (logic verification) through legislative action. The paper also suggested that once full access to the electronic records of the courts was restored, and such systems were examined in detail, there would be a need to establish in the US a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, since the number of judges involved in such conduct was so large, that it would not be possible to prosecute them all.
The paper was submitted to six top-tier legal papers in the areas of Human Rights and Law and Technology - the most relevant fields, based at Harvard and Yale Universities:
The paper was submitted to six top-tier legal papers in the areas of Human Rights and Law and Technology - the most relevant fields, based at Harvard and Yale Universities:
Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Harvard International Law Journal, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, and Yale Law and Technology Journal. In each case submission was conducted both through the online submission systems [3] and through direct email. In five of the cases, the journal editors refused to acknowledge receipt of the papers. In the sixth case, an email was received informing the author that the journal was "currently closed for submissions". When asked when the journal would be "open for submissions" - no response was provided. None of the journals claimed that the paper was irrelevant relative to their respective stated areas of coverage, or that the paper was subjected to any kind of review and was rejected.
Conduct of the Harvard, Yale law journals should raise concerns regarding the state of Free Speech and Academic Freedom in the US.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) [4] 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, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
LINKS/ATTACHMENTS
[1] Papers recently published:
a) Joseph Zernik, Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010)
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-1-prisons-pending-publication-s.pdf b) Joseph Zernik, Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
[2] Paper submitted for review by Harvard, Yale law journals:
Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts – An Urgent Call of Legislative Action
Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Abstract
Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance. Papers, recently published in computer science journal, likewise, outlined the invalidity of digital case management and online public access systems that govern the courts, jails, and prisons in the United States, and documented large-scale abuse of such systems. Invalid case management and online public access systems were claimed as key to deterioration of integrity of the justice system, which was previously opined in official, expert, and media reports. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of pretense court records, as part of pretense of judicial review. A series of case studies documented that the respective orders or judgments were either unsigned or unauthenticated in the digital case management systems, albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties in particular, could not discern such facts in the online public access systems as designed and operated by the courts. Moreover, a “chain reaction” effect was documented, where the US courts, up to the Supreme Court of the United States engaged in pretense review of cases originating from lower courts. Corrective legislative actions were outlined, which were urgently needed - first and foremost - comprehensive review and the establishment of publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons and with it – restoration of the clerks’ accountability for integrity of dockets and counsel appearances. Full enforcement of the law was called for regarding counsel, when engaged in conduct that was opined as fraud intended to pervert justice. Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also likely to be required. Such actions were likely to restore access to the courts and the rule of law, and to safeguard Human Rights in the digital era.
Key Words
Liberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, California, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Court Dockets, Prisoners’ Registration
[3] ExpressO online submission system:
Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Abstract
Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance. Papers, recently published in computer science journal, likewise, outlined the invalidity of digital case management and online public access systems that govern the courts, jails, and prisons in the United States, and documented large-scale abuse of such systems. Invalid case management and online public access systems were claimed as key to deterioration of integrity of the justice system, which was previously opined in official, expert, and media reports. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of pretense court records, as part of pretense of judicial review. A series of case studies documented that the respective orders or judgments were either unsigned or unauthenticated in the digital case management systems, albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties in particular, could not discern such facts in the online public access systems as designed and operated by the courts. Moreover, a “chain reaction” effect was documented, where the US courts, up to the Supreme Court of the United States engaged in pretense review of cases originating from lower courts. Corrective legislative actions were outlined, which were urgently needed - first and foremost - comprehensive review and the establishment of publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons and with it – restoration of the clerks’ accountability for integrity of dockets and counsel appearances. Full enforcement of the law was called for regarding counsel, when engaged in conduct that was opined as fraud intended to pervert justice. Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also likely to be required. Such actions were likely to restore access to the courts and the rule of law, and to safeguard Human Rights in the digital era.
Key Words
Liberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, California, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Court Dockets, Prisoners’ Registration
[3] ExpressO online submission system:
[4] Human Rights Alert (NGO) web sites:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/calling-upon-the-un-human-rights-council-to-issue-an-honest-and-effectual-2010-report-on-the-us/
No comments:
Post a Comment