Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.06.28
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 23:30:14 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-06-28 PACER & CM/ECF – at 8th Grader Level

The following was written in response to request:

Computers and the Courts

In the past couple of decades the United State and state courts have moved from traditional paper files to electronic/
computerized files of various types. The systems used for computerized management of the courts are called case
management systems.

The procedures used in the courts for the management of paper files and paper dockets (the list of all papers and
hearings in a given case) developed over several centuries, and were very clearly written. They were the basis of "Due
Process" - fair management of the courts. They involved checks and balances, based on the signatures by a judge on
any paper that he/she issued – rulings, orders, and judgments, and countersignature by a clerk of the court. Combined a
paper including both the judges signature and the clerks countersignature was a valid order or judgment of the court,
which required obedience.

The clerks signature was often as part of a paper called authentication record (Certificate of Service/Notice of Entry),
which was attached to the judges paper. Only when the two parts were combined, was the order or judgment valid, and
was considered as requiring obedience.

The main claim is that changing of the courts into case management systems was carried out over a relatively short
time. In the US courts, the change was only recently completed. It was carried out by the judges alone, the public failed
to keep a watchful eye on the judges in the process. The judges exploited the opportunities, and while the public was
not watching, they created deceptive case management systems.

In the case management systems that are now used in the US courts, the judges changed many of the very basic
procedures of the courts - the essence of Due Process. However, they failed to publish the nature of the new
procedures, and therefore, the public, and even trained attorneys, are in the dark. The failure to publish the new
procedures is claimed to be in violation of the law in and of itself. The rules of the courts must be clearly and have to be
published. Failing to do so is an essential violation of Due Process.

Moreover, the judges made substantial changes in the authentication records of the US courts. The most substantial
change is that now the computerized authentication records (NEFs Notices of Electronic Filing) are hidden by the US
courts from public view. Therefore, the public cannot know, which of the papers found in court dockets are valid papers,
that require obedience, and which ones are invalid (void, not voidable), and require no obedience at all. Hiding the
authentication records from public view is contrary to First Amendment rights, since the First Amendment requires that
all court records be available to the public to inspect and to copy.

Moreover, once the authentication records (NEFs) were hidden from the public, the judges started posting online many
orders and judgments that the judges themselves do not consider valid, but the public cannot know the difference. This
type of behavior is claimed to be a large-scale fraud by the US judges on the American people.

Imagine a situation that somebody would publish checks online, and tell you to do accounting based on these checks.
However the signature parts of the checks, and the stamps of the bank after the check was processed, would be hidden,
and you would not be able to see, which of the checks were signed and processed, and which ones were not. That is the
current situation in the US courts and many of the state courts.

Such conditions led to major increase in corruption of the US courts. It just became too easy for the judges to deceive
the public: They issue rulings, orders, and judgments, which are contrary to the law, but the judges themselves know that
such papers are invalid since they were never authenticated. Therefore, they believe that they did nothing wrong in

Page 2/2 June 28, 2010

issuing these rulings, orders, and judgments. However, the public is made to believe that these were valid court rulings,
orders, and judgments, which require obedience.

The proposed solution is to have all computer systems of the courts - the case management systems - subjected to
public review with the help of experts in the computer field.