Human Rights Alert

2231 South Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301

Fax; 213.261.9881; Email: jz12345@earthhnk.net
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Scnbd: http://v..v...w.scribd.com/Human Rights Alert
2 0 1 1 ~ 7 -08 Request for review of integrity of the electronic public access and case management systems
of the US courts by the US Attorney General
TImely response requested within 30 days!
Eric Holder,
US Attorney General
By email and by fax
US DOJ <12023073569@myfax.com>
Civil Rights Devision <12025140293@myfax.com>
Civil Rights Devision <12025140212@myfax.com>
US DOJ-IG <12026169898@myfax.com>
US DOJ <AskDOJ@usdoj.gov>
US DOJ <Barbara.B,Salazar@usdoj.gov>
US DOJ <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>
US DOJ <Roger.M.Williams@usdoj.gov>
US DOJ dojfitzgerald <ck,j.fitzgerald@doj.goY>
US DOJ EmilyLanglie <emily,langlie@usdoj.goY>
US OOJ-IG <inspector.general@usdoj.goY>
US OOJIG <oig,hotllne@usdoj.goY>
US Holder Eric <eric.holder@usdoj.goY>
<H,Jarrelt@usdoj.goY>
Dear Attorney General Holder:
I write to request that you perfonn your duties and review the integrity ofthe electronic public access, case
management and electronic filing systems of the US courts.
As detailed below, numerous deficiencies were identified in the electronic record systems of the US courts, to
the degree that such systems seriously undennine the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights ofthe people,
Banking Regulation, and the Rule of Law.
As detailed in the press releases, linked below, conditions that now prevail in the US courts are particularly
hannful to pro se filers, who seek remedy for alleged abuse oftheir rights in the US courts. [']
Attempts to seek corrective actions through the US courts themselves were unsuccessful. [lJ,lIl,I\']
Conditions, which now prevail in the US courts, stand in stark contrast with the laws enacted by the US
Congress, presidential directives, and regulations pertaining to the validation and authentication of records
systems in the Executive Branch.
It is apparent that thorough review ofthe records systems would be a lengthy process, and implementation of
the necessary corrective measures even longer. However, I request that your office respond within 30 days on
this important matter, at least regarding your intent, if any, to address the matter.
A. The writers, William Windsor and Joseph Zernik, PhD
William Windsor is founder ofLawlessAmerica.com. He has so far recruited over 4,000 people to the
cause ofsupporting the protection ofthe US Constitution, and aims to recruit 1,000,000. n
Digitally signed
by Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2011.07.08
22:15:27 +03'00'
Page216
July 8, 2011
Joseph Zemik has gained substantial experience in analysis of large record keeping systems: ["]
- His opinions in such matters were reviewed and adopted by the United Nations official Staff
Report, as part of2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) ofI-Iuman Rights in the United States.
- His opinions in such matters were supported by law enforcement and computer science experts.
- Papers he authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in an international computer
science journal with an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada.
His opinions in such matters were selected for presentation in international computer science and
criminology conferences.
B. The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented invalid public access (PACER) and
case management (CMlECF) systems in the US courts, which undermine the integrity of US court
records.
I. Implementation ofthe electronic records systems amounted to a sea change in court procedures. The US
courts failed to publish valid Rules ofCourts, to establish the new court procedures, deemed effective by
the US Courts following the implementation ofPACERand CM/ECF.
2. The systems enable the publication ofsimulated PACER dockets, and simulated court orders and
judgments, which the clerks of the US courts refuse to certify. ell]
3. In implementing the systems, the US courts failed to establish a legally valid and publicly recognized
fonus of digital signatures ofjudges and clerks.
4. In implementing the systems, the US courts established invalid, simulated authentication records (NEFs -
Notices of Electronic Filing in the District Courts, and NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity in the US
Courts ofAppeals), which replaced the valid Certificates of Service, which were used prior to
establishment of PACER and CMlECF. [VlII]
5. Elimination of the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs) from public access in the PACER dockets
makes it impossible for the public to distinguish between valid and void court records.
6. Routine failure ofthe US Courts to docket the summonses in the PACER docket, apparently violates the
Duties of the Clerks pursuant to the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, and enables the initiation and
conduct of entire cases as simulated litigation with no valid summonses ever issued or executed. ['x]
7. Routine failure of the Clerks to file valid Assignment Orders for judges and Referrals Orders for
Magistrates apparently violates Due Process rights.
8. Routine publication in PACER dockets ofsimulated minutes, orders, and judgments, which are unsigned
and/or unauthenticated, or without docket number and link to any record at all undennines Equal
Protection and Due Process rights.
9. Failure to establish valid access authorities for court personnel in CMIECF enables the publication of
minutes, orders, and judgments in the PACER dockets by unauthorized court personnel, who are not
Deputy Clerks.
10. Procedures that were effectively established by the US courts in CMlECF enable the appearance of
attorneys, who are not Attorneys of Record, with "no communication with clients" clause. The practice is
common in cases involving financial institutions and government officials and undenuines the integrity of
the courts. [X, Xl]
II. Procedures that were effectively established by the US courts in CMIECF enable the publication of papers
in the PACERdockets by attorneys with no prior review by authorized Deputy Clerks, in apparent
violation ofthe letter and the spirit of the Judiciary Act (1789).
12. PACER was implemented with various modifications in the various US courts and courts of appeals, and
enables the denial of public access to critical court records (Summonses, papers filed by parties, Judgment
Index, Calendars of the Courts, Docket Activity Report, Corporate Parent Reports, etc) in an arbitrary and
Page 3/6
July 8, 2011
capricious fashion in the various courts, in apparent violation of First Amendment and Due PrOcess rights.
ell]
13. The US courts failed to publish the procedures pertaining to encoding of actions in eM/ECF. However,
review of the system documents that false encoding is conunonplace, e.g.:
a) "Motion" encoded as "Mise" - so that no action is opened and no action needs to be terminated.
b) Entire cases are conducted as simulated litigation, where ' ~ o status pending is open, no status
pending was terminated in this case".
C. Implementation of PACER and CMlECF effectively established two separate and unequal classes
in access to the courts and to court records, thereby allegedly discriminating against pro se filers
and the public at large.
I. Pro se filers are routinely denied access to CM/EeF, and therefore denied access to electronic filing. and
also access to inspect and to copy critical court records. [XIII]
2. The cost and time required to file on paper by far exceed the cost and time required for electronic filing.
3. The denial of access to CM/ECF by pro se filers enables court personnel to arbitrarily eliminate from the
PACER dockets papers, which were duly filed by pro se filers. C:
h
]
4. The denial of public access to court records that are excluded from the PACER dockets, and are accessible
only through CM/ECF (e.g. NEFs, NDAs), effectively denies public access to critical court records in
apparent violation of First Amendment and Due Process rights.
5. Through all the features listed above, the US courts electronic systems (PACER and CM/EeF) enable the
conduct of cases as simulated litigation, particularly in civil rights matters, where the complainants are pro
se filers. [XV]
D. The electronic public access and case management systems (name unknown) ofthe US Supreme
Court undermine the foundation of the Rule of Law [XV)]
I. The systems enable the publication of dockets,journals, decisions, and judgments by US Supreme Court
personnel of unknown authority, which are vague and ambiguous - public access is denied to valid,
signed and authenticated court records.
2. The systems enable the issuance of US Supreme Court notices, decisions and judgments by unauthorized
personnel.
3. The systems enable the denial the right to file papers in the US Supreme Court by unauthorized personnel
E. Conditions, which were established through implementation oftbe electronic records system,
undermined the integrity of the US courts in both Human, Constitutional and Civil Rights and
Banking Regnlation matters.
Ifnot for the protection of rights of the People, addressing the issues outlined above is required for restoring
the lawful rights ofthe people and the integrity of US Banking Regulation. [XV", XVIII] It is claimed that
conduct of the courts is a key factor in the current financial crisis, which is often overlooked.
Unless the issues are addressed, it is unlikely that US Banking Regulation will be restored.
Therefore, it is claimed that addressing these issues is essential for restoring both civil society and socio-
economic development in the United States under the current financial crisis.
F. Proposed corrective measures
I. Restoring the integrity of the offices of the clerks of the US courts:
It is claimed that conditions that today prevail in the US courts are similar to those that prevailed in the
early 20
th
century, and that both then and now, such conditions are central cause of the socia-economic
crises. The Salary Act (1919), which placed the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US
Page416 July 8, 2011
Attorney General was credited with restoring the integrity ofthe offices of clerks ofthe US courts a
century ago. [X1XJ
2. Enactment of federal rules of electronic court records:
As part of the transition to electronic administration of government, the US Congress passed the E-
Government Act (2002) and the E-Sign Act (2000). The US Department of Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-J2 (2004) further established policies for validation and authentication of
electronic systems and electronic records of the Executive Branch agencies. Standards were accordingly
promulgated and applications were implemented.
In contrast, the records systems, implemented by the US courts, were not covered by such laws and
regulations.
In the process of implementing the records systems of the US courts, a sea change was introduced in
court procedures, which had been established for centuries as the core of Due Process. However, all US
courts that were examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to their new
electronic procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights.
Therefore, the US Attorney General should initiate efforts to enact applicable laws and establishment of
applicable regulations.
3. The People, and computing professionals in particular, should exercise their civic duties in ongoing
monitoring of the integrity of electronic court records:
The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaflirmed by the US Supreme Court
in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the
US Supreme Court stated that the right was necessary for the People "to keep a watchful eye on
government".
Once public access to electronic court records is restored, the People must keep a watchful eye on
electronic court records. No other measure could substitute for scrutiny of court records by the People in
safeguarding the integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
Truly,

William Windsor
LawiessAmerica.com ["Xl

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO) [X''']
LINKS:
I Condud of simulated laigation in cases pertaining to Human, Constitutional and Civil Rights has been documented in the US courts from coast 10 coast
a) 10-04-07 Sieverding et al v Uniled Stales Govemment (109-cv-00562) in the US Distlict Court. Washington DC _ in re Arrest and
lmplisonment by Federal Agencies - Alleged Impead1able Misconduct by US Judge John 0 Bates
Hhtlp:f/www.scribd.com/docl45272251/H
b) 10-12-30 Lewis et al v Gleason et al (1 :1o--cv-01850) in the US Disbiet Court, Colorado - Opinion Regardirlg PACER Docket arld Court
Records in a Civil Rights Matter
Hhlto/lwww.scriM.com/docl46087140/H
c) 10-12-30 Press Release: Fraud on the Court Opined in Litigation in Civil Rights Matter. Presided by US Judge Christine Arguello, US Distlict
Court. Colorado (Sieverding v)
Hhltp:llwww.5cribd.com/docl46088211/H
d) 11-05-12 PRESS RELEASE Maid ofthe Mist Corporation EtAI v Alcatraz Media, LLC, Et AI (1-09-Cv-01543) Simulated Litigation Fraud in
the US Court, Northern Distlid of Georgia Hhttp://www.scribd.com/docl55272776!
Page 516 July 8, 2011
e) 11-06-25 PRESS RELEASE Windsor et Thrash, "Assigned" to Judge Trash - Additional Evidence of Racketeering in the US
District Court Northern District of Georgia
Hhtlpllwww.scribd.com/docl58712629/H
f) 11-05-26 PRESS RELEASE: Zemik v Melson et al (109-cv-Q0805) in the US District Court, DC - willful misconduct by US Judge Richard
Leon to cover up colTUption 01 the Los Angeles courts by Counlr)wide and Bank of America
Hhttp://www.scribd comidocl563199981H
g} 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE Judge Richard leon, US District Court, DC - master ofthe "leave to file denied"
Hhttp://www.scribd.comldocl56612919IH
h) 11-0620 Impeadlments Investigation of Judge John Walter, Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Clert:: Terry Nafisi, and others in the uS District Court,
Central District of Califomia, in re: Fine v State Bar (2:10-ev--Q004-8) s
Hhttpllwww.scribdcom/docl58273437/H
i) 11-07-02 Request for Impeadlments US Judge OTool, Clert:: Thornton, Both olthe US District Court, Massadlusetts s
Hhtlp:llwww.scribd.comldod59188048/
i The core daims regarding critical defidendes in PACER and CMlECF were detailed in the Motion to Intervene under Log Cabin Republicans v USA at
al in the US Court of Appeals, 9
t1
Circuit, and the Court was asked to initiale corrective actions, regardless of the Intervention in tile indMdual case as
well, The Motion to Intervene was denied, and there is no evidence of the initiation of any corrective actions:
January 7, 2011 Log Cabin Republicans v USA al al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to
intervene and Concomitantiy Filed Papers as pubrlshed in tile onrlne PACER dockets
Hhtto:llwww.scrilxl.com/dod46516034/
;;; The core daims regarding defidencies in PACER andCMiECF, and also regarding records management in the US Supreme Court were detailed In
the Motion to Intervene under Fine v Sheriffin the US Supreme Court The papers, duly filed in the US Supreme Court were "returned" by unauthorized
Supreme Court employee, Court Counsel Danny Bickell'
April 20, 2010 Molion to Intervene and related papers in Fine II Sheriff {09-A827) at the US Supreme Court
i) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme
Court
Hhttpllwww.scribd.com/docl30304657/H
ii) 10-04-20 Fine II Sheriff (09A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/docl30161573IH
iii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer
Hhttp://www.$cribd.com/docl30161636/H
iv) 1004-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request lor Corrections in US Supreme Court Records
Hhtlp:liwww.scribd.c;om/doc!30162109/H
v) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference
Hhttp://www.scribd.comldocl30162144/H
vi) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendices
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/docl34050423IH
'v 11-06-23 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit, Accepts then Rejects Notice 01 "Unprofessional Conduct" Regarding Large"scale Fraud in
Electronic RecordS 01 the Courts-s
Hhttp:ltwww.scribd.comldod58543472/H
v IMlliam IMndsor, LawlessAmerica.com
Hhttp://wwwJawlessamelica.comi
Hhttp./lwww.causes.comicauses/59370a-support-tIle-constitution-bill-of-rightshonestv-in-govemment?recruiter Id-71512429
~ 11-05-08 Joseph Zemik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
Hhttp.llwwwscribd,comfdod464211131
"" Simulated Litigation, Simulated Minutes, Orders, Judgments, Dockets are used here in the sense established in the Texas Penal Code:
Texas Penal Code
32.48, SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a
summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person, or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit 10 the putative authority of the documenl: or
(6) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with t.he document, or on
the basis of the document.
(b) Proof thai the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufliaent showing that
the document was delivered
~ l May 20. 2011 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Eledronic Filing System (CM/ECF)
Hhttp.llwwwscribdcomldoc/55862403/
" Regarding conduct of litigation with no valid summonses ever issued or executed, see for example:
a) SEC v Ballk of America Corporation in the US District Court, Southern District of New Yort:::
Regarding the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF and banking regulation, see for example the fraud in SEC v Banko! Amenca Corporalion (109-cv-
06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York:
Page6/6 july 8, 2011
10-12-08 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation(1 :09-<;v-06829) Request No 1 for InvestgatOll,
Impeachment of RUBY KRAJICK, Clerk oflhe Court, US District Court, Southern District of New York
HhttpJlwwwsClibd.com/docl44908376/
ii, Zemik, Joseph: SeaJrities and Exchange Commission v Bank 01 America Corporation - Pretense Liligal'lon and Pretense Banking
Regulaton in the Stales (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)
Hhtlp:lfwww.scribd.comldoc/44663232/
III 10-12-19 RE: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank 01 America Corporation (109-cv-Q6829) - Addendum to Request No 1 for
Investlgatlon-impeachment of Judge Rakoff and Clerk Krajlck
Hhttp://wwwsClibd.comldod45644578!H
b) v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, Washington DC
i. 11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the US District Court, DC - invalid court records in a
Simulated Litigation
Hhtlp:llwww.scribd.com/doc/561 06686/H
'Regarding appearances of attorneys who are not Atlomeys of Record, see:
08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05_90374), Dkt #248. Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's
litigation practces, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme - appearances by counsel who are not Counsel of Record with "no
communications with clients" clause:
Hhtlp:l/www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/H
"Regarding appearances of atlomeys who are not Attorneys of Record, see also pi,iii], above
,i Zemik, J: The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts
Hhtlp:flwww.scribd.com/doc/42686043/H
'io Regarding universal denial of pro se filers' access to CMlECF, see for example the General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District 01
Califomia
Hhtlp:/Iwww.scribd.com/dQc/276324711
V Exclusions From Electronic Filing
B Pro Se Litigants Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to
be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk's
OIIice into the CMlECF system,
'N Regarding elimination ofpro se papers from the PACER dockets, see [i), above
'v Regarding simulated litigation in civil rights matters, see for example pi], above,
the public access and case management systems of tile US Supreme Court, see:
a) 11-05-23 PRESS RELEASE: Citizens United v Federal Election C()mmission in the US District Court, DC invalid court records in a Simulated
Utigation
Hhtlp:/twwwsClibd.com/docl561 066861
b) 11-05--24 RE Citizens United v Federal Eledion Commission (FEe) - Request for Policy Statement by FEC s
HhttplNfflwscribd.comldod561454821
c) 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk VV1LLlAM SUTER s
HhttpIlwwwscribd.comldod47539382/
d) 10--07-01 Complaint against US Supreme C<Jurt Counsel Danny Bickell for Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation 01 Rights
Hhtlpifwwwscribd.com/dod33772313/
"" Regarding the effects of the eleclronic records systems olthe US courts on Banking Regulation, see [1,Iii,vii], above.
"iI Regarding the effects of the eleclronlcsystems of the US courts on Banking Regulation, see also
1-02-05 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 (110-cv-02228)
Hh\\p./lwww,scribd comldocl48244479/H
Messinger, I Scott: Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts, Federal Judicial Center (2002)
Hhttp://wwwscribdcom/doc/34819774/H
Hhttp' liwwwJawle5S{lmerica,comi
Hhttp://wwwscribd.com/Human Rights AlertH