Judge Andrew Guilford, US Court, Central District of California, refuses to opine on fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts
"Any 'well-qualified' judge, who works with the systems on a daily basis, must be aware of the fraud perpetrated on the People through PACER and CM/ECF." Regardless, there is no evidence that any US judge has initiated corrective actions.
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tO13ubTvDpNSYRHnpoduxXiIUL-IsIeo4ZlJ9eILaUySnDCpklE60o9PAxGqsSreu2hrD1w4jnUsRLETC_O_3kZFCGi8rIVIrbeGBMcwGnFjbgldrkhFs_UvlaKBFjqZ8RSbiVFuvjCcgF5jryxtPcj48Yfr_caUG4Z3gbfw=s0-d)
Judge Andrew Guilford
Los Angeles, June 22 - Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), released correspondence with US Judge Andrew Guilford, pertaining to fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF. Dr Zernik provided Judge Guilford with ample evidence of fraud in the systems and repeatedly requested Judge Guilford's opinion on the matter. Judge Guilford refused to opine on the matter.
Dr Zernik also requested that Judge Guilford (and likewise, all other judges who received the notice) consider the communications as a notice of "unprofessional conduct" in the US courts, and initiate corrective actions. The Code of Conduct of US Judges says that judges should initiate corrective actions upon being credibly informed of such conduct.
PACER and CM/ECF were installed about a decade ago. Large-scale fraud in the systems was opined, peer-reviewed, and published in a scholarly computer science journals. However, there is no evidence that any US judge has ever initiated any actions to correct the situation.
"Any 'well-qualified' judge, who works with the systems on a daily basis, must be aware of the fraud perpetrated on the People through PACER and CM/ECF," says Dr Zernik.
Andrew J. Guilford
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAndrew J. Guilford (born 1950) is a United States federal judge.
Born in Santa Monica, California, Guilford received an A.B. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1972 and a J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law in 1975. He was in private practice in Costa Mesa, California from 1975 to 2006.
On January 25, 2006, Guilford was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California vacated by Dickran M. Tevrizian. Guilford was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 22, 2006, and received his commission on June 26, 2006.
Correspondence in re: large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts:
__________________
1) On Wed, Jun 22, 2011, Joseph Zernik wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 Joseph Zernik <1stamendmentla@gmail.com> wrote:
Needless to say, my communications were intended as a notice to reliably inform you of "unprofessional conduct" in the US courts, hoping that you would initiate corrective actions and report to the authorities, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges.
2) On Wed, Jun 22, 2011, Joseph Zernik wrote:
From: Joseph Zernik <1stamendmentla@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 22, 2011
Subject: Re: Additional evidence of large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts
To: Judge Andrew J. Guilford
Date: Wed, Jun 22, 2011
Subject: Re: Additional evidence of large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts
To: Judge Andrew J. Guilford
"Ex parte communications"?
With all due respect, I believe that you are misconstruing the law. I have no case before any court, [and the communications below do not pertain to a specific case now before your court that I know of- jz] therefore I am not a "party" and cannot take part in "ex parte communications".
Of note, a number of the links below are of cases from the US District Court, Central District of California, opined as fraud on the court, enabled through the electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF.
Still looking forward to reading your opinion on the facts below, detailing large-scale fraud in PACER and CM/ECF.
3) On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 Andrew J. Guilford wrote:
From: Judge Andrew J. Guilford
Date: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM
To: 1st Amendment 1stAmendmentLA@gmail.com
3) On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 Andrew J. Guilford wrote:
From: Judge Andrew J. Guilford
Date: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM
To: 1st Amendment 1stAmendmentLA@gmail.com
the court. Please cease and desist with ex parte communications.
4) On Wed, Jun 22, 2011, Joseph Zernik wrote:
From: Joseph Zernik <1stamendmentla@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Additional evidence of large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts
To: Judge Andrew J. Guilford
I believe that the below is your opinion on the emailing in itself.
I would be grateful for your opinion on the facts detailed in the email message below as well.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
5) On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 Andrew J. Guilford wrote:
- From: 1st Amendment <1stAmendmentLA@gmail.com>
- To: jz12345@earthlink.com
- Date: 06/21/2011 06:17 PM
- Subject: Additional evidence of large-scale fraud in the electronic
- record systems of the US courts
Additional evidence of fraud in PACER and CM/ECF: The Document Verification Utility, as described in the US District Court, Northern District of IllinoisImplementation of electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic court filing), has been opined fraud on the People by the US judiciary, as a class. The systems undermine the integrity of the US courts. The new evidence pertains to the “Electronic Document Stamp”, which replaced the hand-signature of the clerks of the US court on all authentication records, and the “Document Verification Utility”. Combined, the two enable authorized court personnel to examine the integrity of court records. In contrast, the People are denied access both to the Stamp and the Utility, making the falsification of records in the US courts commonplace conduct. Conditions that now prevail in the US courts are nothing less than a shell game fraud.
Los Angeles, June 21 - Implementation of electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER (for public access to electronic court records) and CM/ECF (for case management and electronic court filing), has been opined fraud on the People by the US judiciary, as a class. The systems undermine the integrity of the US courts. [[i],[ii],[iii]] Numerous examples have been documented of fraud in US court records, related to the denial of access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) - the electronic authentication records in CM/ECF - and false employment of the NEFs in both obscure and high-profile cases: [[iv],[v],[vi],[vii],[viii],[ix]]- Prior to implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the courts employed the Certificate of Service by the Clerk of the Court as the paper authentication record. The Certificate was a public record.
- Following implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the courts employ the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) as the electronic authentication record. Public access to the NEFs is denied. [[x]]
- The Certificate of Service included a certification statement, “I, the undersigned, hereby certify…”, and the hand signature of a Deputy Clerk, identified by name and authority.
- The NEF includes no certification statement, and neither a hand nor digital signature. Instead, an Electronic Documents Stamp (a checksum string) appears in the NEF. Additionally, the name and authority of the person, who issued the NEF are not publicly accessible. Instead, the NEF is described as “automatically issued”.
The Electronic Document Stamp, as used in CM/ECF, is not valid even as a checksum string. The People are denied access to the checksum algorithm, which would have enabled them to test the integrity of court documents bearing the Stamp.New evidence pertaining to the implementation of the Electronic Document Stamp has been discovered in the CM/ECF Ver4.0 User Guide in the US District Court, Northern district of Illinois. [[xi],[xii] ] The records describe the access permitted to CM/ECF users in the Court to a “Document Verification Utility”.Access to the Utility has not been discovered in user manuals and user guides from other US courts, which have been surveyed. However, it is evident that such access must be provided to authorized court personnel involved in administration of the systems.
Figure 1: Document Verification Utility as described in the CM/ECF User Guide of the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois. The Utility enables authorized person to determine, if a court record was adulterated. The People are denied access to the Utility, and also denied access to the Electronic Document Stamp, which is used in the Utitlity.Significance of the NEF in filing and entry of records is evident in the General Order 09-014 of the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois: [[xiii],[xiv]]II. Definitions…(C) "Notice of Electronic Filing" is the notice generated by ECF upon the completion of anelectronic filing.…V. Consequences of Electronic Filing(A) Electronic transmission of a document to ECF consistent with these rules, togetherwith the transmission of a Notice of Electronic Filing from the court, constitutesfiling of the document for all purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, theFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the local rules of this court, and constitutesentry of the document on the docket kept by the Clerk of the Court under Fed. R.Civ. P. 58 and 79 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49 and 55.Combined, the attached records document that CM/ECF users in the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, are provided with a utility to verify the integrity of electronically filed court records, based on integrity of the “Electronic Document Stamp”. However, the People, who are permitted only PACER access, are denied access to the same utility.
Figure 2: Apparent adulteration of a key record in a GITMO habeas corpus case in the US District Court, Washington DC, was reported by ProPublica. Had the People been permitted access to the Electronic Document Stamp and the Document Verification Utility, definitive evidence of the adulteration would have been readily provided.For example, had the People been permitted access to the NEFs and the Document Verification Utility in the US District Court, Washington, DC, the two, combined, would have provided definitive evidence for the adulteration of the Order in the GITMO habeas corpus case, recently reported by the National Law Journal. [[xv]] Conditions that now prevail in the US courts are nothing less than a shell game fraud.LINKS[i] 10-08-18 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)http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/[ii] 11-06-01 Fraud in the US Courts (PACER and CM/ECF)http://www.scribd.com/doc/56811767/[iii] 11-06-05 Wanted! One courageous US law professor to opine on evidence of racketeering in the US courts!http://www.scribd.com/doc/57122887/[iv] 10-10-11 Linzer, D. 2010. “In GITMO Opinion, Two Versions of Reality,” The National Law Journal, October 11.http://www.scribd.com/doc/53954229/[v] For review of fraud in the issuance of false, invalid NEFs in the US District Court, Central District of California, see:11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER docketshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/[vi] [1] 11-01-10 Request No 1 for investigation/impeachment proceedings, in re: US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, Conduct of Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)http://www.scribd.com/doc/46616530/[2] 10-12-08 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation(1:09-cv-06829) – Request No 1 for Investigation, Impeachment of RUBY KRAJICK, Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern District of New Yorkhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44908376/[3] Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States (filed in support of Request No 1 for impeachment of US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York)http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/[4] 10-12-19 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) - Addendum to Request No 1 for Investigation-impeachment of Judge Rakoff and Clerk Krajickhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45644678/[5] 11-02-05 Request No 2 for Impeachment of Judge JED RAKOFF Clerk RUBY KRAJICK, US District Court, Southern District of New York, in Re Conduct of Lindner v Amex (1:10-cv-02228) shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48244479/[vii] [1] 11-05-27 In re: William Windsor (1:06-cv-0714, 1:09-cv-01543, and 1:09-MI-0220) US Court, Northern District of Georgia - denial of pro se Defendant’s access to court records shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56988290/[2] 11-06-03 The case of William Windsor: Alleged racketeering in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia, is enabled by the large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US Courts (PACER and CM/ECF)http://www.scribd.com/doc/56995708/[3] 11-06-03 In re: William Windsor’s further attempts to access judicial and clerical in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia -shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/57090392/[viii] [1] 11-05-26 Windsor v Evans et al (1:10-cv-00197) in the US Court, District of Columbia - Willful Misconduct by US Judge Richard Leon to cover up corruption of the US Court, Northern District of Georgiahttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56304109/[2] 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC – master of the “Leave to file denied”http://www.scribd.com/doc/56612919/[ix] [1] 11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in a Simulated Litigationhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56106686/[2] 11-05-24 RE Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56145482/[3] 11-05-24 PRESS RELEASE: Federal Election Commission (FEC) is asked to disregard Citizens United v Federal Election Commission as Simulated Litigationhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/56148018/[x] 11-05-20 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)http://www.scribd.com/doc/55862403/[xi] US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, CM/ECF User Guide, Version 4.0, as downloaded on June 20, 2011:http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/cmecf/CMECFUserGuide.aspx[xii] 11-06-20 Additional evidence of fraud in PACER and CM/ECF: Document Verification Utility, as described in the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/58416505/[xiii] See copy of the General Order 09-014 under [xii], above.[xiv] It should be noted that the matters handled in the General Order 09-014, should have been part of the Rules of Court, and the General Order 09-014, as published on the Court’s web site is unsigned and undated.[xv] RE: Adulterated Court record in a GITMO habeas corpus case in the US District Court, Washington, DC, see [iv], above._____Joseph Zernik, PhDHuman Rights Alert (NGO)Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (NGO) _____ Human Rights Alert 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 County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States. _______Flag Counter: 119 http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://inproperinla.wordpress.com/ http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Total Reads: 464,060 Followers: 750 http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert http ://twitter.com/inproperinla http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 Total Item Views: 383,338 http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner _____________________________ WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS? * Foreclosure fraud: The homeowner nightmares continue CNN (April 7, 2011) * About 3 million homes have been repossessed since the housing boom ended in 2006� That number could balloon to about 6 million by 2013 Bloomberg (January 2011) * "...a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences." http://www.scribd.com/doc/50753639/ Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011) _____________________________ WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA? * "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001) http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/ * "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted." Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001) http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/ * "Innocent people remain in prison" * "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..." LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306 / _____________________________ WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA? * "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California." United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/ _____________________________ WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES? * "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations." Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010) http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert _____________________________ WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES? * "More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning "mandatory and enforceable" ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by "recent media reports," the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others." More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011) http://www.scribd.com/doc/49586436/ _____________________________ WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM? * "The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition..." Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003) http://www.scribd.com/doc/50137887/ _____________________________ WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM? * In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" on the US Department of Justice. Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/ _____
