Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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,
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