Last New Visitor South Africa  Visited May 22, 2011 |  |
Saturday, May 21, 2011
11-05-22 Welcome South Africa! // Bienvenido Sudáfrica! //欢迎南非！
11-05-21 Welcome China! // La bienvenida a China! // 欢迎来到中国！
| Last New Visitor China Visited May 21, 2011 |  |
11-05-21 FBI Director Robert Mueller Must Go! // Director del FBI debe continuar! // 联邦调查局局长必须去！
Public corruption has reached a level never seen for a century. Corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County and beyond is at the core of the current financial crisis. Unless corruption of the justice system is addressed, economic development and civil society conditions are unlikely to improve.
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sREBsvL0eEmkThxvQJC8VqMtTgbe_8Yuea1uNWlJU_Nb6o-4aqr7vcm57wznSc58xAb5EsnA0S3elWLKI4eLxyNLpoZ01JVBicJJ1xk3J6DaPjWNUqNqQCuH4GtXUvZHdxSy0Z5LCcEIEH0gTzgN2JXK55dudAE2k5DbeHhLI=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vW7pDI18JEJZSZa7S630YquVaD88usVkWrdf9Sjhm5DNp2NvHXBS3H-GPn0OZapZuP5yPq494W7py-wytX6D-OMaGj1oEtvaw-2KBQZ7eWdyu52gC2BdCwys6l_D34dOynXzPD-Td74rehqkU-EEIj167wuwJI09VjnbebGw=s0-d)
Los Angeles, May 21 – news reports indicate that President Obama is seeking extension of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s tenure by two years. [[i]]
“Public corruption has reached a level never seen for a century,” says Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), “Mueller must go.”
Under the tenure of FBI Director Robert Mueller and Assistant FBI Director for Criminal Investigations Kenneth Kaiser:
· Retroactive immunities (“pardons”) were signed for all judges and commissioners of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, California, who had taken “not permitted” payments (“bribes”). [[ii]]
· United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) issued an official Staff Report referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California”. [[iii]] The report was based on evidence submitted to the HRC of large-scale false imprisonments and financial/real estate fraud by judges of the Court.
· The International Criminal Bar posted a complaint for racketeering against the Los Angeles Superior Court. [[iv]]
· Lecture on corruption of the Court was accepted for presentation in the 16th World Criminology Congress. [[v]]
· Large-scale fraud was opined in Sustain, the case management system of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which enables the conduct of simulated litigation of cases in violation of the law. The opinion was supported by opinion of international computer science scholar. [[vi]]
· Fraud was opined in the case management system of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, which enables large-scale false imprisonments, with no legal foundation. The opinion was reviewed and published in an international computer science journal with an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada. [[vii]]
Regardless of the overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, the most populous in the United States, and even after inquiries by US Congress, FBI has refused to take action. [[viii], [ix]]
Through such conduct, FBI and US Department of Justice permitted Los Angeles County to become “Fraud Capital, USA”, and the “epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud”. [[x]]
“The next FBI Director should be the best qualified person from outside the FBI, who is not a member of the judiciary,” says Dr Zernik.
Corruption of the justice system, in Los Angeles County and beyond, is at the core of the current financial crisis. Unless corruption of the justice system is addressed, economic development and civil society conditions are unlikely to improve. [[xi]]
"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement. (December 2008)
"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement. (December 2008)
LINKS:
[i] 11-05-12 Obama taps FBI Director Mueller for two more years
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/obama-gives-fbi-director-mueller-two-more-years/1
[ii] 09-02-14 California Senate bill providing retroactive immunities ("pardons") for all judges who took "not permitted" payments ("bribes").SBX2-11
[iii] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession".
[iv] 11-05-15 Racketeering complaint against David Pasternak and the Los Angeles Superior Court posted by the International Criminal Bar (ICB); international criminal indictment more likely against Rampart Judge Jacqueline A Connor.
[v] Zernik, J: Corruption of the Courts and the Legal Profession in California Noted in a 2010 United Nations UPR Report, 16th World Criminology Congress, 2011
[vi] 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
[vii] 10-08-18 Zernik, J: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010)
[viii] 11-01-07 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California: Widespread Public Corruption and Refusal of US Department of Justice to Take Action
[x] 11-04-28 PRESS RELEASE: Los Angeles – “Fraud Capital, USA” – Correction to Los Angeles Times Report
[xi] 11-04-21 PRESS RELEASE: "In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures" - Because of widespread corruption of the justice system, they are effectively immune…
The widespread corruption of the US justice system is a key factor in the financial crisis, which is often overlooked.
11-05-21 Welcome Thailand! // Bienvenido Tailandia! // 欢迎来到泰国！
| Last New Visitor Thailand Visited May 21, 2011 |  |
11-05-21 Welcome Bangladesh ! // Bienvenido Bangladesh! // 孟加拉国欢迎！
| Last New Visitor Bangladesh Visited May 21, 2011 |  |
11-05-21 Welcome Canada! // Bienvenido Canada! // 欢迎来到加拿大！
| Last New Visitor Canada Visited May 21, 2011 |  |
11-05-21 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) Key Element in Fraud in PACER and CM/ECF // Fraude en las computadoras de los Tribunales de EE.UU. // 欺诈在美国法院的计算机
Notice of Electronic Filing
The Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) is part of the system established by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts through the dual docketing and access systems of PACER &CM/ECF.[1] The NEF purportedly provides the authentication of the service of an electronically-filed pleading or other filing by parties, or of service of the electronically-filed orders and judgments of the courts, upon attorneys in the case who have been permitted by the court to participate in electronic filing in CM/ECF. Therefore, for such parties, the NEF replaced the traditional certificate of service or proof of service. Likewise, the graphic hand-signatures in traditional certificates of service were replaced in NEFs by digitally encrypted,alphanumeric "checksum" strings. Effectively, the NEF today is the evidence of entry of court minutes, orders, and judgments, and therefore, it is of critical significance.
Contents[hide] |
Sources of information
For example, the most explicit definition of the power and effect of NEF in the Central District of California, one of the most populous in the U.S., including Los Angeles County, remained in the "Unofficial Manual" of CM/ECF as follows (Rev 07, 2008, page 13):[2]
L. The Notice of Electronic Filing
The system will present you with a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) screen and will also e-mail you a copy of the NEF. The Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) is your proof that the document has been E-Filed. You should print the screen to a piece of paper or a PDF (or both) before proceeding, because you will need to attach the NEF as the last page of the courtesy copy that you submit to the Court. The NEF includes a “document number” and a link. Be sure to note that document number, as you will need it if you need to e-mail a proposed order to the Court. The NEF also includes an “Electronic Document Stamp” which is a string of letters and numbers which Court staff can use to verify the authenticity of the NEF. The NEF also contains the path and file name of the document you uploaded and any attachments.
A more specific definition is found in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing. [6]
Section 2: Definitions and Related Requirements: (page 5)
h. Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) is an electronic notice automatically generated by the Electronic Filing System at the time a document is docketed. The NEF includes the time of filing and docketing, the name of the party and Filing User filing the document, the type of document, the text of the docket entry, the name of the party and Filing User receiving the notice. If a document is attached to the docket entry, the NEF will contain a Hyperlink to the filed document allowing recipients to retrieve the document.
Section 7: Consequences of Electronic Filing (page 11)
a. Electronic transmission of a document through the Electronic Filing System constitutes the filing of the document pursuant to Rule 5(e), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rule 49, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
b. The transmission of a NEF constitutes entry on the docket pursuant to Rules 58 and 79, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rules 49 and 55, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
Section 16: Notice of Court Orders and Judgments
a. Immediately upon entry of an order or judgment, the Clerk will transmit a NEF to Filing Users. Transmission of the NEF constitutes the notice required by Rule 77(d), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rule 49(c), FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. The Clerk will send paper copies of orders and judgments to non-Filing Users.
The General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California provided additional information, pertaining to the significance of the "electronic document stamp" in the process of entry: [7]
IV. Electronic Filing. (page 17)
...
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court. The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CMIECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.
Although such information is derived from disparate US courts, it can be assumed to be universally applicable, since the basic platforms of PACER and CM/ECF were universally implemented in all US courts.
Figure 1: Invalid, unsigned, traditional, paper Certificate of Service, by Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Northern District of California, 2010
Figure 2: NEF including an "electronic document stamp" - an encrypted alphanumeric "checksum" string (in red rectangle), Eastern District of California, 2004
Figure 3:Invalid NEF, missing the "electronic document stamp", US District Court, Central District of California, 2010
Figure 4:Invalid PACER docket notation, pertaining to Certificate of Mailing by the Clerk of the Court. The PACER docket notation was assigned no docket number, and no link to a record was provided. Therefore, in fact, there is no such document on record, and the document could not have been issued an NEF, and therefore was not deemed entered. US District Court, Northern District of Georgia, 2009
Significance
As documented, above, in the texts from the US District Courts in California and Texas, the NEF today is the definitive record indicating the entry of minutes, orders, and judgments of the US courts. The listing of such minutes, orders, and judgments in the PACER dockets, in itself, is not necessarily indicative of entry of such judicial records as valid and effectual records of the court.
Examples have been recorded in various US courts of minutes, orders, and judgments, which were published in the PACER dockets, but were not authenticated as entered through the issuance of a valid NEF. Obviously, such minutes, orders, and judgments are not deemed valid and effectual by the US courts. [8]
Criticism
Review (2010),[9] published in and international, peer-reviewed computer science journal with Editorial Board listing scholars from six (6) European nations and Canada, opined large-scale computer fraud in the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF. The main points noted in the review were:
- All attestation/authentication records (NEFs - Notice of Electronic Filing) of judicial records (minutes, orders, judgments), which are required in order to render them such that command "full faith and credit", are concealed from public access. Therefore, the public is unable to distinguish valid and effectual records from void, not voidable records, both being published by the courts in PACER.
- The NEF was opined as invalid as to form: It lacks a certification statement "I, the undersigned, hereby certify...", it fails to state the name and authority of an individual, issuing the NEF as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
- The NEF bears no valid signature, either graphic or digital. Instead - it carries a machine generated encrypted "checksum" string.
As shown in Figures 1, 3, and 4, the system is amenable to manipulations, where invalid PACER docket notations correspond to records that were never deemed entered, valid and effectual US court records. However, to a naive reader, such notations would appear as valid court records.
Therefore, the system as a whole was opined as undermining the accountability of the Court clerk for integrity of court records.
See also
References
- ^ PACER is a public-access system, to which access is permitted to any person, albeit for pay and after registration. CM/ECF is the Case Management/Electronic Court Filing system, available only to those permitted by a particular U.S. District or U.S. Court of Appeals.
- ^ a b Anderson's Unofficial Manual for e-filing at the Central district of California. No Official Manual existed.
- ^ Official Manual of the Eastern District of California
- ^ Official Manual of the Southern District of California
- ^ Compilations of Local Rules of U.S. District Courts
- ^ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, April 1, 2010
- ^ [US District Court Central District of California: General Order 08-02, February 7.2008]
- ^ Zernik,J Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al(10-56634)in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, January 7, 2011
- ^ [1] Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)