.

page counter []
"...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* "Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy". KNBC (October 16, 2008) * "Innocent people remain in prison" LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * Los Angeles County is "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud." FBI (2004) * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000) * "Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008) * "Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión" LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006) * Condado de Los Angeles es "el epicentro de la epidemia de bienes raíces y el fraude de la hipoteca." FBI (2004) * "... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron." Prof. David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * "Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes." Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)

Thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain locked up more than a decade after official, expert, and media report documented that they were falsely prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in the largest court corruption sandal in the history of the United States...

Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/

Nuestro derecho a acceso los expedientes publicos, nuestra libertad y nuestros derechos humanos fundamentales están todos conectados en las caderas!

10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations

In summer 2010, the staff report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States, noticed and referenced the Human Rights Alert April 2010 submission, pertaining to "corruption of the courts, the legal profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

10-05-26 Human Rights Alert Proposed Subjects for Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearing // Derechos Humanos Alerta Temas propuestos para la Confirmación Elena Kagan Audiencia // Human Rights Alert Vorgeschlagene Themen für Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearing



10-05-26 Press Release: Human Rights Alert Filed Proposed Issues for Confirmation Hearings of Elena Kagan.

Washington DC, May 26 – Human Rights Alert, Los Angeles based NGO filed with members of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary a series of subjects, which it proposed should be raised in the confirmation hearing of Elena Kagan. [1] The central theme of the issues listed by Human Rights Alert was the new practices of the US courts, founded in online public access and case management systems, and concerns about compromised integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the US, as a result.  The questions addressed subjects ranging from evidence of the holding of numerous inmates in Los Angeles County jails under false judicial records, to the evidence of false appearances of counsel, who were not authorized as counsel of record, in the US courts.  Many of the specific examples, demonstrating the various issues, were taken from cases involving the 70 year old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine, held since March 2009 in Los Angeles, under solitary confinement, with no valid judicial records to form the foundation for his arrest and jailing. [2]
Particular emphasis was given to issues related to the verification and authentication of court records in the new systems of the courts, and the failure of the courts to publish adequate Rules of Courts in this respect. Evidence was provided of the routine issuance by US district courts and courts of appeals of minutes, orders, and judgments, which were unsigned and/or unauthenticated.  Such papers could not possibly be deemed honest, valid, and effectual court records. Therefore, their service, particularly on pro se litigants, who were denied access to authentication records in the courts’ system (CM/ECF) could not possibly serve any purpose that was even remotely related to the furtherance of justice.
The final issue raised by Human Rights Alert was the apparent urgent need to subject the US courts online public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF) systems to publicly accountable validation.
Copies were forwarded to the US State Department and the United Nations, as part of the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States.  In April 2010 Human Rights Alert filed submission with the United Nations, as part of the 2010 UPR, centered on the role of PACER and CM/ECF in alleged large-scale violations of Human Rights by the United States courts.
LINKS:
[1]  May 26, 2010 –Human Rights filed with the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary proposed issues to be raised in the confirmation hearing of Elena Kagan.
[2] May 25, 2010 Richard-Fine: CNN Blog – Correction of Errors in CNN Reporting

10-05-26 Human Rights Alert – Questions Proposed to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearings.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair
U S Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Russell D. Feingold, Chair
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on The Constitution

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Member, Senator from California
U S Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Charles E. Schumer, Chair
US Senate Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts

“Dianne Feinstein” <1-202-228-3954@metrofax.com>
“Russ Feingold” <1-202-224-2725@metrofax.com>
“Orrin G Hatch”   <1-202-224-6331@metrofax.com>
“Chuck Grassley”  <1-202-224-6020@metrofax.com>
“Chuck Schumer” <1-202-228-3027@metrofax.com>
“Jon Kyl “  <1-202-224-2207@metrofax.com>
“Dick Durbin” <1-202-228-0400@metrofax.com>
“Lindsey Graham no fax”
“Benjamin L Cardin” <1-202-224-1651@metrofax.com>
“John Cornyn”  <1-202-228-2856@metrofax.com>
“Sheldon Whitehouse”  <1-202-228-6362@metrofax.com>
“Tom Coburn”   <1-202-224-6008@metrofax.com>
“Amy Klobuchar”  <1-202-228-2186@metrofax.com>
“Ted Kaufman” <1-202-228-3075@metrofax.com>
“Arlen Specter”  <1-202-228-1229@metrofax.com>
“Al Franken  no fax“

Dear Chairman Leahy and Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:
The following issues are proposed by Human Rights Alert, Los Angeles County, California, NGO, to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, as subjects to be raised in the confirmation hearing of nominee Elena Kagan to Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.
Nominee Elena Kagan has never served on the bench. Therefore, her nomination hearing provides a unique opportunity for the US Senate to address questions pertaining to common practices of the US courts and other law enforcement agencies.  The questions listed below focus on conditions of the justice system that stem from the introduction in the past quarter century of online public access and case management systems – such as PACER and CM/ECF. 

Such systems were also at the center of recent requests for Equal Protection in Los Angeles County, California, filed with US Attorney General Eric Holder, [1] and of submission to the United Nations, as part of the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the United States. [2]

Therefore, nominee Elena Kagan may be able to provide the US Senate unique perspectives on matters that are deemed critical for integrity of the justice system today:

1)      Holding of prisoners under false judicial records.
The most recent example is of 70 year old, former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, whose case -Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) -  was recently denied hearing by the US Supreme Court.  Therefore, nominee Kagan’s statements would not contradict any standing ruling by the Court in such matter.  The specific case is provided only as an example, to clarify the notion of “false judicial records”, not in anticipation of opinion by the nominee on the case itself: 
Media and eye witnesses reported that Richard Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of the Los Angeles Sheriff Department on March 4, 2009, at the court of Judge David Yaffe, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the City of Los Angeles.  Richard Fine has been held in solitary confinement ever since.  However, no warrant has ever been discovered to this date.  The Sheriff continues to deny access to the warrant and booking record – California public records  - and repeatedly produces fraudulent records instead -  stating that Richard Fine was arrested and booked on location and by the authority of the “San Pedro Municipal Court” – a court that ceased to exist almost a decade ago.  [3]
The case of Richard Fine is not unique at all.  Surveys of the database of Los Angeles County, California, jails showed that about half the inmates (equivalent to many thousands of persons) are likewise held under false and deliberately misleading records. [4]

2)      Appearances in the US courts of counsel, who were not authorized as Counsel of Record by their purported clients, but were nevertheless permitted to appear in the US courts.
Such practice was best documented and opined in the case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374) Dkt #248, [5] where the Hon Jeff Bohm, US Bankruptcy Court, Houston Texas,  detailed litigation practices of Countrywide (and today Bank of America) as appearances of false counsel, unauthorized as counsel of record, and engaged with “no communications with client clause.”  Such practice may appear to a layperson as racketeering at the US Courts. However, neither counsel nor client suffered any repercussions in the case referenced above, and the evidence documented that Countrywide, Bank of America, and others, continue the practice to this date, in what cannot possibly be unnoticed by the courts themselves.
Recent examples include:
a)      Appearance of Kevin McCormick as false counsel, not authorized as counsel of record, for Judge David Yaffe and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914);
b)      Appearance of Sarah Overton as false counsel, not authorized as counsel of record, for Judge Jacqueline Connor et al in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550). 
c)      Appearance of Jenna Moldawsky as false counsel, not authorized as counsel of record, for full 2.5 years in various courts for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc and later – Bank of America Corporation, under the latter caption (also under Samaan v Zernik SC087400 at the Los Angeles Superior Court).

3)      Failure of US Judges to initiate corrective action, even after being reliably informed of conduct that violates the Code of Conduct of US Judges.
Recent examples included notice provided to the Chief Judge of the US Court, Central District of California, Audrey Collins, of false appearances by counsel who were not counsel of record, and also alleged adulteration of court filings at the office of the clerk in the following two court captions, both at the court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle:
a)      Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
b)      Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
No evidence was found of true corrective actions.  In contrast, a letter sent as response by Court Counsel Lydia Yurtchuk was likely to be deemed upon review as false and deliberately misleading. [6]

4)      Validity of unsigned orders, judgments, mandates, which are routinely issued by US Courts of Appeals
The practice is a routine in US Courts of Appeals.  It is alleged as deprivation of access to the courts and of fair hearings in national tribunals for protection of rights – all fundamental Human Rights.

5)      Validity of minutes, orders, judgments, which are issued by US District Courts, but served on pro se litigants with defective authentications  - NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings), which fail to include the digital Court Stamp, or with no authentication at all.
The practice, which is deemed the equivalent of the practice of the US Courts of Appeals, listed in 4) above, is a routine in US District Courts.  Such practices could be seen in the two captions listed above in both the US District Court, Central District of California, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. [7]

6)      The almost universal denial of access by pro se litigant to CM/ECF
It is alleged that the practice created to separate and unequal access avenues to the courts, where the US courts segregate litigants at will, with no legal foundation at all.

7)      Denial of public access - including access by pro se litigants in their own cases - to NEFs – the authentication records of the US District Courts.
The NEFs, held by the US District Courts as their current authentication instruments, are universally omitted from PACER – the online public access system.  Attempts to access the NEFs by filing requests with the clerks of the District Courts – to access court records to inspect and to copy - are routinely denied.  Such practice denies the public the right to discern which records of the courts are such that require “full faith and credit.”

8)      Posting in PACER dockets of minutes, orders, judgments of the US District Courts, marked as “entered,” while such records were never authenticated by the court.
Since the public is denied access to the authentication records, the practice routinely misleads the public, which cannot discern records that were authenticated from those which were not. Furthermore, there simply is no explanation for such conduct by the courts, which would be even remotely related to the furtherance of justice.

9)      Posting of online PACER dockets, which were constructed by court staff, albeit – not staff who were authorized as Deputy-Clerks of the courts.
Current practices of the US District Courts in PACER and CM/ECF do not allow the public to discern, which of those who conducted transactions in the dockets were authorized as Deputy Clerks, as required by law, and which ones were not.  In the two captions listed above, from the Central District of California, for example, Ms Donna Thomas routinely conducted transactions in the PACER dockets, while NOT being authorized at all. [7]

10)  Employment by the US Supreme Court of staff, who are not authorized as Deputy Clerks, but nevertheless engage in transactions in the dockets of the US Supreme Court.
The practice of the US Supreme Court, which is comparable to the practice of the US District Court, listed in 9), above.  A recent example involved conduct of US Supreme Court Counsel – Danny Bickell, in the Application of Richard Fine -  Fine v Sheriff  (09-A827):
a)      Mr Bickell consented that he was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the US Supreme Court.
b)      Mr Bickell nevertheless sent unsigned letters, noticing the purported March 12, 2010 denial by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of Richard Fine’s Application.  No valid record of such denial was ever found in the US Supreme Court file itself, and no such order was ever listed among orders and decisions of the Court around that date, either.
c)      It is believed that Mr Bickell likewise entered notation in the US Supreme Court docket of the same Application purporting the March 12, 2010 denial of the Application by Associate Justice Kennedy. Albeit, the US Supreme Court online dockets are not verified or authenticated in any way at all.
d)      Mr Bickell likewise made decision to eliminate records from the docket of the same Application, with no discrepancy notice or any other notation at all. [8]

11)  Refusal of US District Court Clerks to certify PACER dockets as honest, valid, and effectual records of the courts.
Given the practices listed above, there is no way for the public to discern dockets, which were valid, honest, and effectual, from those which were not.  Furthermore, the Clerks of the US District Courts routinely refuse to certify validity of the dockets. For example – Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the US District Court, Central District of California, has denied repeat requests to certify the dockets in the two cases referenced above.

12)  Failure of the US Supreme Court to include any verification at all in its dockets displayed in the online public access system.
There is no way to ascertain who constructed such dockets, whether such dockets were constructed by authorized Deputy Clerks, and whether such dockets were deemed honest, valid, and effectual records of the US Supreme Court.

13)  Security of the PACER dockets of the US Courts, (possibly also dockets of the US Supreme Court), where unauthorized personnel is able to conduct transactions in the dockets, and issue invalid authentication records.
It is alleged that such conditions reflect inherent lack of validity of PACER and CM/ECF, and undermine integrity of the courts. Examples included the PACER dockets of the US District Court, Central District of California, referenced above.

14)  Failure of the US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals to establish in Local Rules of Court their court procedures that are inherent to the use of PACER and CM/ECF.
Transition of the US Courts from paper-based administration to digital administration of the courts amounted to a sea change in court procedures. None of the US District Courts and US Court of Appeals, whose Local Rules of Courts were examined, had established its practices in PACER and CM/ECF in Local Rules of Courts.  Such failure is of particular concern relative to the publication of local rules pertaining to verification and authentication procedures that are held as honest, valid, and effectual by the US courts.

15)  Ambiguity that was introduced in the records of the US courts and correctional institutions through unverified online public access systems.
In submission to the United Nations, it was alleged that such ambiguity, in and of itself, constituted serious violation of Human Rights, including, but not limited to Due Process and Fair Hearings.

16)  The claim that publicly-accountable validation of PACER and CM/ECF – the US Courts online public access and case management is urgently needed.
Given the list of questions above, it was proposed that there is an urgent need to subject PACER and CM/ECF to publicly-accountable validation.

Respectfully,
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert, Los Angeles

CC:
1) United States Department of State – UPR Office
2) United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights.

LINKS:
[1]  10-05-25-Human-Rights-Alert-requests-Holder-Clinton-equal-protection-of-Richard-Fine-and-numerous-others-in-Los-Angeles-County-California
[2]  April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
·        Press Release:
·        Submission:
·        Appendix:
[3] January 8, 2010 Sheriff Lee Baca response to Supervisor Michael Antonovich in re: Arrest and booking records of Richard Fine.
[4] Alleged False Imprisonment of Numerous Other Inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails, Revealed
in Data Surveys of Los Angeles County Jails
10-01-04-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-apos-s-Department-Online-Inmate-Information-Center-Data-Survey-Jose-Martinez-s
10-01-05-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-apos-s-Department-Online-Inmate-Information-Center-Data-Survey-John-Smith-s
10-01-16-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-apos-s-Department-VINE-vs-Online-Inmate-Information-Center-Data-Survey-Jose-Martinez-amp-Jose-Rodriguez-s 
10-01-11-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-apos-s-Department-Online-Inmate-Information-Center-Data-Survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s
10-03-14-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-apos-s-Department-Online-Inmate-Information-Center-Survey-of-Consecutive-Booking-Numbers-s
10-01-11-Los-Angeles-Law-Library-Catalog-Data-Survey-California-Code-s
[5] March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by the Hon Jeff Bohm in Case of Borrower Parsley  describing Countrywide litigation practices, including, but not limited to appearances by counsel who was not authorized as counsel of record, and was engaged with “no communications with client clause”.
[6] February 19, 2010 letter by US District Court, Central District of California, Lydia Yurtchuk, purported as a response for a request for initiation of corrective actions by Chief Judge Audrey Collins, and May 1, 2010 response by Dr Zernik.
[7] April 20, 2010 Supreme Court Filing of Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)
[8] Declaration and related papers in re: Mr Danny Bickell and integrity, or lack thereof, in docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine