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
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.31
15:17:21 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-07-31 Requesting US Congress Judiciary Committees to Establish by Law the Case

Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts.
Executive Summary
Human Rights Alert (NGO) forwarded a request to the US Congressional Committees on the Judiciary for urgent review and legislative
initiative regarding case management and online public access systems of the US courts. Such systems were introduced over the
past decade through a large-scale project by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, albeit with no public oversight. Moreover, the
courts failed to publish Rules of Courts to govern their operation. Evidence was provided that such systems have caused precipitous
deterioration in integrity of the courts, particularly in the areas of Banking Regulation and Human Rights. The evidence showed that
litigations, which were widely reported by media as court actions, were only pretense, with no valid judicial review at all.
The following key deficiencies were identified:
1) All courts that were examined, from the District Courts, through the Courts of Appeals, to the US Supreme Court, have failed
to publish Rules of Court to set the legal foundation for the operation of case management and online public access systems,
in apparent violation of Due Process rights.
2) The manner in which case management and online public access systems were operated today, the public at large, and
even attorneys could not distinguish between valid and effectual court records and records that were deemed void, not
voidable by the courts themselves. Both types of records were published in online public access systems in a manner that
had to be deemed as serious violation of various fundamental Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights.
3) Public access was routinely denied to critical judicial records, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights, and the range
of judicial records, which were publicly accessible varied among the courts with no foundation at the law at all.
4) The key role of Clerks in authentication of court records, which was established over the centuries as a critical safeguard for
integrity of the courts, was largely eliminated – a sea change in administration of the courts, which was never established by
law. Dockets were now constructed by unauthorized persons, and the Clerk refused to certify them. Unauthenticated
judgments were entered in the Index of Judgments with no authority at all.
5) Discrimination against pro se litigants, and unprecedented authority for counsel to enter court records with no prior review by
authority of the Clerk, which were established in the case management systems, undermined Due Process and Fair Hearing
rights.
6) Similar conditions were documented in the courts of the several states as well.
Key features were outlined of the desired legislation:
1) Any case management and online public access systems should be recognized as inherently affecting changes in court
procedures. Therefore, their installation must be established by law. Validation of such systems must be undertaken prior to
their installation, in a manner that is legally and publicly accountable – e.g. through agencies under control of the legislative
branch.
2) Data that must be entered only by authority of the Clerk of the Court should be defined, including, but not limited entries in the
online dockets, where the name, authority, and digital signature of the person entering the data should be publicly accessible.
3) All court records must be publicly accessible, pursuant to First Amendment, Due Process, and Public Trial rights, including,
but not limited to all authentication records, unless access is denied by law or through documented sealing orders.
4) Authentication records of the US District Courts (NEF – Notices of Electronic Filing) and the US Courts of Appeals (NDAs –
Notices of Docket Activity) must be re-drafted, to form valid certification of authentication records, clear and unambiguous
reference should be included in such records to the judicial records being authenticated, as well as visible names, authority,
and digital signatures of those issuing the authentication records – as signs of intention to take responsibility. Dockets must
be constructed only by authority of the Clerk. Judgments must be entered into the Judgment Index only by the authority of
the Clerk.
5) Counsel must not be permitted to enter court records in the dockets with no prior review by authority of the clerk; pro se
litigants and counsel should be given equal standing in access to such systems.
6) Key provisions of such legislation should apply to the courts of the several states as well.
Conditions now prevailing in the US justice system were deemed as undermining the framework of lawful and effective
government. Such conditions incurred risks that cannot be easily assessed to stability of US financial infrastructure, Human
Rights, and the Rule of Law.
The proposal was copied to the US State Department and the United Nations, as part of the pending, first ever UPR (universal
periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010. The April UPR report
by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the
United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems by the legislative branch.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice
systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and
case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
The proposal was also copied to the Basel Accord Committee, since in such Accords, the US government made commitments for
honest and effective regulation of the US banking system, valid risk assessment, and effective risk reduction.
z Page 2/8 July 31, 2010

Dear Congressman Conyers, Senator Leahy, and Committees on the Judiciary:

Please accept this letter as an urgent request for review and legislative initiative by your Committees to
establish by law the operations of case management and online public access system of the US courts. Review
of such systems reveals critical defects in all systems, which were examined, from the District Courts, through
the Courts of Appeals, to the US Supreme Court. i The evidence is overwhelming that such systems have
caused precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts. Conditions that prevail as a result, undermine both
Banking Regulation and Human Rights in the United States, posing risks that are difficult to assess to stability
of the US financial infrastructure and the rule of law. The essential required corrective measures are outlined
below.
1) The Systems
Case management and online public access systems were introduced in the US courts over the past decade,
albeit – with no public oversight.
a. PACER and CM/ECF at the US District Courts and the US Courts of Appeals
The systems were implemented in the courts over the past decade through a large-scale project by the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Substantial differences were found between the
systems, as implemented at the US District Courts and the US Courts of Appeals, and even among the
various US District Courts. However, the systems in both US District Court and US Courts of Appeals
were based on the same platforms: PACER – the online public access systems, and CM/ECF – the case
management/electronic filing system.
b. Case Management and Online Public Access Systems at the US Supreme Court
The system implemented at the US Supreme Court for online public access appears independent of
PACER. No access at all was gained so far to the Supreme Court’s case management system. However, it
is also likely to be independent of CM/ECF.
Regardless of the differences, certain features were common to all systems, particularly PACER and CM/ECF
as implemented in the various courts.
2) Evidence of the Detrimental Effects of Case Management and Online Public Access Systems on
Integrity of the Courts.
A series of complaints, which alleged misconduct at the courts, was filed with the US Attorneys’ Office, ii and
detailed court proceedings, which were undermined through the publication of false court records in online
systems, while in fact, no valid judicial review was ever conducted. Two examples are provided below:
a. Banking Regulation
Litigation of SEC v Bank of America (1-09-cv-06829) – in 2009-2010 at the US District Court,
Southern District of New York, under cause of action of Securities Fraud was widely covered by
mainstream media in the US and abroad, and was publicly perceived as the highlight of enforcement
by SEC in the wake of the financial crisis and mounting international pressure for honest and
effective US Banking Regulation.
However, it should be noted that the US District Court, as well as the parties to the case, denied
access to critical litigation records, which were public records by law - the summons, and the
authentication records (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing) of court minutes, orders, and the
dispositive settlement. Such records at the Court were accessible only through CM/ECF, where no
public access is permitted, and written requests to the Clerk of the Court – requesting access to court
records, to inspect and to copy, were denied.
Under such conditions, the public was at best left unable to discern whether the court minutes, orders and
the settlement were indeed valid and effectual court records. Therefore, enforcement was at best vague
and ambiguous. However, additional evidence indicated that none of the minutes, orders, and the
settlement in the case was ever authenticated as a valid and effectual court records.
z Page 3/8 July 31, 2010

Therefore, it is claimed that upon investigation and competent review, it would most likely be concluded
that the litigation in SEC v Bank of America (1-09-cv-06829), in its entirety, was only pretense litigation.
As part of such pretense, no individual was ever charged in committing the alleged fraud, and likewise, no
individual was ever held accountable in the purported settlement.
The case of Bank of America Corporation is of particular significance, since the evidence showed that the
Bank’s most senior management, in collusion with most senior US officers, were involved in deceit of the
Board of Directors relative to the merger with Merrill Lynch. iii Moreover, US Banking regulators refuse
to address additional detailed credible evidence of racketeering at the courts by Bank of America and its
President, Brian Moynihan. iv US government provided Bank of America a waiver on deposits limit, and
SEC has permitted Bank of America to file quarterly reports based on dubious accounting methods
(“taxonomies”). v Therefore, liquidity and stability of the largest consumer bank in the United States
remains questioned by experts. Bank of America is also recipient of some $200 billions in bailout funds
in recent years.
It is further alleged that no honest, effective Banking Regulation could possibly be established in the
United States, unless integrity of the US Courts is restored.
Moreover, it is claimed that the current financial crisis in its essence is an integrity crisis, and therefore, it
is unlikely that the United States will emerge from the current crisis, unless deficiencies in integrity of
government frameworks are addressed.
b. Human Rights
A series of civil court actions in 2009-2010, all related to the 70 year old former US prosecutor Richard
Fine, started with Marina Strand Colony v County of Los Angeles (BS109420) – ancillary proceedings for
contempt at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, continued through Richard Fine v
Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) – petition for a writ of habeas corpus at the US District
Court, Central District of California, Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-56073) and (09-
71692) – petition and appeal, respectively, at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and ended with
Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of
ongoing solitary confinement at the US Supreme Court.
The cases of Richard Fine provided a uniquely documentation of a pattern of publication of false records
in online public access systems, and denial of access to true judicial records:
i. The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to
the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the
case.
ii. The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its
"Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record
of Inmate Richard Fine. vi
iii. The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access
to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and to the paper
record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court. vii
iv. The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published false online "PACER dockets", but denied
access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical
records filed by respondents in the appeal. viii
v. The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 and April
23/26, 2010 denials of the application, which were not supported by the Court file records in the
case. Access to true dockets in the case management system of the Supreme Court was yet to be
permitted. ix
z Page 4/8 July 31, 2010

Therefore, it is claimed that upon investigation and competent review, it would most likely be concluded
that all litigations related to Richard Fine, listed above, were only pretense litigations, and Richard Fine
was and is held to this date in solitary confinement in violation of the law, with no judicial review at all.
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los
Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing on February 20,
2009 of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges. Since March 4, 2009, he has been
imprisoned in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. Albeit, no warrant was ever issued, and no
judgment/ conviction/ sentencing was ever entered in his case.
The case of Richard Fine must be deemed of particular significance, given the underlying circumstances
that led to his arrest and imprisonment, and since the case as a whole documented alleged deception that
permitted the effectual stripping of habeas corpus rights in the United States.
3) The problem – vague and ambiguous court records and court actions
a. All courts that were examined, from the District Courts, through the Courts of Appeals, to the US
Supreme Court, have failed to publish Rules of Court to set the foundation for the operation of case
management and online public access systems, in apparent violation of Due Process rights. x
Key court procedures, which remained vague and ambiguous as a result, include, but are not limited
to:
i. Procedures related to valid and effectual authentication by clerk of minutes, orders, and judgments
of the courts. Numerous minutes, orders, and judgments were discovered, which were never
authenticated in a valid and effectual manner, but were published, regardless, in PACER dockets.
ii. Procedures related to construction of valid and effectual dockets of the courts, pursuant to US law
and by authority of the Clerk of the Court. Nowhere in the PACER dockets, or in dockets of the
US Supreme Court, is authority of the Clerk of the Court invoked. Moreover, in litigation of
Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) it was shown that numerous
records were entered in the docket by persons(s) who were never authorized as Deputy Clerks.
Consequently, the Clerk of the US District Court, Central District of California has refused to
respond on numerous requests to certify the docket in Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles
County (2:09-cv-01914) and other cases, as dockets that were constructed pursuant to US law and
by authority of the clerk. Request for certification of the US Supreme Court docket in Richard
Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles (09-A827) is still pending, but the docket is evidently
has no basis in the records in the US Supreme Court file. xi
iii. Procedures related to construction of the Docket Activity Report and the Related Transactions
Report. Review of records of the US District Courts indicated that such reports are critical in
ensuring that judges dispose on matters before them in an expedient and orderly fashion.
However, review of the records in numerous cases showed listing of motions under “Misc”
category, which does not require any adjudication at all, and consequent failure to encode
adjudications related to such motions. However, there no indication was found that such entries in
the system were executed by authority of the Clerk of the Court.
iv. Procedures related to the entry of judgments and dispositive orders in the Judgment Index. At
times, judgments and dispositive orders, which were never authenticated as valid and effectual
court records, were entered in the Judgment Index – albeit – with no evidence that such entry was
executed by authority of the Clerk of the Court.
b. The manner in which case management and online public access systems are operated today, the
public at large, and even attorneys cannot distinguish between valid and effectual court records and
records that are deemed void, not voidable by the courts themselves. Both types of records are
published in online public access systems in a manner that must be deemed serious violation of
various fundamental Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights.
z Page 5/8 July 31, 2010

c. Public access is routinely denied to critical judicial records, in apparent violation of First Amendment
rights. The District Courts and Courts of Appeals today deny public access, both online and on
location - to the NEFs and NDAs, respectively – authentication records of the courts, which were
excluded from PACER. Some of the District Courts also deny access to the summons. Furthermore,
both the District Courts and the Courts of Appeals engage in routine, arbitrary denial of online access
to various other litigation records.
d. The key role of Clerks in authentication of court records, which was established over the centuries as a
critical safeguard for integrity of the courts, was largely eliminated – a sea change in administration of
the courts, which was never established by law. Dockets were now constructed by unauthorized
persons, and the Clerk refused to certify them. Unauthenticated were entered in the Index of
Judgments with no authority at all.
Comparison of standard authentication counterparts, e.g. – Certification of Acknowledgement by
notary public, xii and an older, paper-based Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk, xiii to
the NEF and NDA, revealed additional inherent defects in respect to four basic features: a) title, b)
certification statement, c) relationship to the certified record, and d) signature/authority.
The two former forms included in their titles the word “Certificate” or “Certification”, while the two
NEF and NDA failed to include such words in their titles. The former forms included the key
statement “I certify…” the NEF and NDA included no such statement. The former forms, upon
execution, were directly, physically attached to the record being authenticated (in some jurisdictions to
this date – through ribbons and sealed wax or embossed foil), the NEF and NDA were entirely
detached from the authenticated records, and were instead hyperlinked – a practice which was
explicitly prohibited by the US District Court, Central District of California, General Order 08-02. At
least in one case, Shelley v Quality Loan Services (09-56133) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, a
false hyperlink was allegedly employed to generate an invalid, void NDA. xiv The Court refused to
correct the defect even upon requests by Appellant. The former forms, when executed, included “wet”
graphical signatures in traditional signature boxes, where name of the individual executing the
authentication was typed below the signature line, and his/her authority to certify the authentication
record was spelled out. In addition - a stamp or an imprint of a personal seal or a court stamp were
affixed. The NEF and NDA fail to name the individual, who purportedly executed any authentication,
the authority of the clerk of the court is never invoked, and no stamp or seal or any personal signature
of any kind appear in the NEF and NDA that could possibly be deemed as indicating an intention to
take responsibility. A checksum string, in and of itself, carried no such significance at all. In short –
the NEF and NDA, as implemented in CM/ECF failed to make any claim of certification of
authentication of a specific court record, and failed to convey any intention to take responsibility by an
individual invoking the authority of the Clerk of the Court.
e. Discrimination against pro se litigants was almost universally established at the US District Courts
and US Courts of Appeals, where such litigants are required to continue filing on paper, and are
denied email notices, in contrast with counsel who are authorized in CM/ECF. Moreover,
unprecedented authority was delegated to counsel - to enter court records with no prior review by
authority of the clerk of such papers. It is alleged that the authority delegated to counsel, and the
substantial discrepancy in access between authorized counsel and pro se litigants undermined Due
Process and Fair Hearing rights.
f. Such conditions were documented in the courts of the several states as well. Of particular note are the
systems installed at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, as far back as 1985.
Such systems enabled conduct as listed above in Marina Strand Colony v County of Los Angeles
(BS109420). It is claimed that such systems were key to development of conditions that now prevail
at the that Court, which led the official LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report to recommend
already in 2006 “external investigation” of that Court, yet to be instituted.
z Page 6/8 July 31, 2010

Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School and a
renowned constitutional scholar, stated already in 2001 regarding the Los Angeles County criminal
justice system:
This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must
share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.
4) Features of the desired legislation:
a. Any case management and online public access systems should be recognized as inherently affecting
changes in court procedures. Therefore, their installation must be established by law. Validation of
such systems must be undertaken prior to their installation, in a manner that is legally and publicly
accountable – e.g. through agencies under control of the legislative branch.
b. Data that must be entered only by authority of the Clerk of the Court should be defined, including, but
not limited entries in the online dockets, where the name, authority, and digital signature of the person
entering the data should be publicly accessible. Calendars, Docket Activity Report, Related
Transactions Reports, Judgment Index
c. All court records must be publicly accessible online, pursuant to First Amendment, Due Process, and
Public Trial rights, including, but not limited to all authentication records, unless access is denied by
law or through documented sealing orders.
d. Authentication records of the US District Courts (NEF – Notices of Electronic Filing) and the US
Courts of Appeals (NDAs – Notices of Docket Activity) must be re-drafted, to form valid certification
of authentication records; clear and unambiguous reference should be included in such records to the
judicial records being authenticated, as well as visible names, authority, and digital signatures of those
issuing the authentication records – as signs of intention to take responsibility. Dockets must be
constructed only by authority of the Clerk. Judgments must be entered into the Judgment Index only
by the authority of the Clerk.
e. Counsel must not be permitted to enter court records in the dockets with no prior review by authority
of the clerk; pro se litigants and counsel should be given equal standing in access to such systems.
f. Key provisions of such legislation should apply to the courts of the several states as well.
The matters, outlined above, were further detailed in papers, which were peer-reviewed by computer science
professionals. Methods are readily available to address the defects and deficiencies in the courts online public
access and case management systems. However, absent legislative initiative in this regard, it was unlikely that
any such issued would be addressed by the Courts themselves. If not out of concern for Human Rights of the
people of the United States, the matter should be urgently addressed in an effort to reduce risks, which remain
difficult to assess, to stability of the US financial infrastructure.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (HRA), 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. Special
emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of
integrity of the justice system in the United States.
CC:
1) US Cong banking committees
2) Human Rights Commissioner, United Nations
3) Basel Accords Committee
z Page 7/8 July 31, 2010

LINKS
i
A paper titled: “Data mining of online records of the networked us courts” was peer reviewed, and is now pending
publication.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33520631/H
ii
Complaints filed with US Attorneys Office alleging public corruption at the courts. The US Attorneys’ Office so far failed
to even acknowledge receipt of the complaints.
1) 10-07-01-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleged-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-
Rights-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/H
2) 10-06-21-Dr-Zernik-s-Complaint-Filed-with-Us-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-against-Mr-David-Pasternak-for-Public-
Corruption-Deprivation-of-Civil-Rights
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/H
3) 10-06-28-Human-Rights-Alert-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-Re-Large-Scale-False-
Imprisonments-in-Los-Angeles-County-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33647477/H
4) 10-06-28-Human-Rights-Alert-Request-for-Acknowledgment-of-Complaints-by-US-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33647160/H
5) 10-07-04-Human-Rights-Alert-Complaint-against-the-California-Judicial-Council-Chaired-by-California-Chief-Justice-
Ronald-George-for-Public-Corrupti
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/H
6) 10-07-06-Complaint-Filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-Against-Moynihan-Bank-of-America-NYSE-BAC-
Bryan-Cave-LLP-Alleging-Racketeering-and-L
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33971099/H
7) 10-07-08-Complaint-Filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-against-Judge-David-Yaffe-and-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-for-
Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/H
8) 10-07-12-Complaint-for-public-corruption-against-US-Magistrate-Carla-Woehrle-and-others-at-the-US-District-Court-
Central-District-of-California-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34194403/H
9) 10-07-15-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Central-District-of-California-against-Justice-James-A-Richman-
Presiding-Judge-Charles-McCoy-Clerk
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34408770/H
10) 10-07-19-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-Judge-John-Segal-Clerk-John-Clarke-Attorney-David-
Pasternak-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-i
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/H
11) 10-07-22-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-the-California-Court-of-Appeal-2nd-District-in-Re-Public-
Corruption-racketeering-in-Galdj
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/H
iii
Letter of the NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to the US Senate, regarding his investigation of the Bank of America –
Merrill Lynch merger.
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdfH
iv
Evidence of racketeering at the courts by Bank of America and Brian Moynihan:
1) 10-05-05-Countrywide-Bank-of-America-NYSE-BAC-and-its-President-Brian-Moynihan-Compilation-of-Records-
Evidence-of-Racketeering-s

Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30975368/
2) 10-05-05-Chairs-of-US-Congress-Committees-of-the-Judiciary-and-Banking-Are-Requested-to-Join-Senator-
Feinstein%E2%80%99s-Inquiries-on-Comptroller-of-the-Curre
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30979882/H
3) 10-07-06-Complaint-Filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-Against-Moynihan-Bank-of-America-NYSE-BAC-
Bryan-Cave-LLP-Alleging-Racketeering-and-L
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33971099/
v
Bank of America quarterly reports based on accounting by “taxonomies”.
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-00_09-08-07-bac-10-q-filing-taxonomy-records-unaudited.pdfH
vi
Evidence of fraud in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Arrest and Booking Records of Inmate Richard Fine:
10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeat-mailing-of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-
in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-including-the-fraudulent-attachments-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/
z Page 8/8 July 31, 2010

vii
Evidence of fraud in records of the US District Court, Central District of California in the Habeas Corpus petition of
Richard Fine.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34194403/H
10-07-12-Complaint-for-public-corruption-against-US-Magistrate-Carla-Woehrle-and-others-at-the-US-District-Court-Central-
District-of-California-s
viii
Evidence of fraud in record of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in re: Richard Fine
1) 09-06-30-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-71692-Alleged-Fraud-in-Unsigned-unentered-order-Dkt-4-issued-in-the-names-of-Kozinski-
Paez-and-Tallman-denying-petition-of-Richard-Fine-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27626788/
2) 10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-
Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine-v-Sheriff-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/
ix
Evidence of fraud in records of the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine
10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-Dockets-by-William-Suter-
Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/
10-07-28-RE-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Additional-Evidence-for-Fraud-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-pertaining-to-purported-
denial-of-the-Application-in-Confe
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
10-07-26-Human-Rights-Alert-s-Request-for-Representation-by-Dean-Minow-at-US-Supreme-Court-Relative-to-Alleged-
Fraud-in-US-Supreme-Court-Records-s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34940014/
x
Most courts, which were examined, provided partial information regarding rules embedded in PACER and CM/ECF, in
Users Manuals. The US District Court provided partial, vague and ambiguous information through a third party “unofficial
manual” and General Order 09-02, which was published unsigned, with no name of its author, and with no authentication by
a clerk. Such records could not possibly be deemed as complying with the Rulemaking Enabling Act.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/
xi
Request for certification of US Supreme Court docket in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827):
10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-Dockets-by-William-Suter-
Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/
xii
Sample Certificates of Acknowledgement by public notary:
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/10-06-16-notary-public-certification-of-acknowledgement.pdfH
xiii
Text of Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk:
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/10-06-18-text-of-certificate-of-mailing-and-notice-of-entry-s.pdf
xiv
In the case of Shelley v Quality Loan Services (09-56133) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, the Order denying petition for a
stay, was unsigned, and the NDA was invalid – hyperlinked to a false order. Moreover, the court refused to correct the error upon
request by Appellant:
Order:
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-shelley_09-10-22-a-order-denying-petition-for-stay-unsigned.pdfH
Email correspondence with Mr Shelly regarding order, where NDA was hyperlinked to a false record, and the US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit refused to correct a false NDA:
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-shelley_09-10-22-dubious-nda-10-03-26-shelley-email-notice-re-dubious-oct-22-
2009-order-and-nda.pdfH
False NDA, where the NDA was linked to an unrelated order from a prisoner’s habeas corpus petition, still listed as the respective
record in the NDA:
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-shelley_09-10-22-dubious-nda-9th-circuit.pdfH