.

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, April 18, 2012

12-04-19 Administration of Courts of the State of Israel disregards the Freedom of Information Act, when it comes to the electronic record systems of the courts

Requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, have been filed in the process of preparation of report regarding integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel.  Out of nine (9) such requests, so far zero (0) records have been obtained.  The responses ranged from "No records exist" (instruction manuals for the systems), through "records of internal deliberations" (appointment record of the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court), "not a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act" (certification authorities and electronic signatures in the Supreme Court), to no response at all (ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the Supreme Court; unpublished changes to the Regulations of the Courts).  Implementation of invalid electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel over the past decade, involving IBM and EDS, appears as a mirror image of their US counterparts.  In the US, where such systems have been implemented a couple of decades earlier, they have been conducive to widespread corruption of the US courts, failing banking regulations, large-scale violations of Human Rights, and civil unrest.[]  Emacs! [] []
Judge Moshe Gal, Judge (Ret) Boaz Okon, departing and former Directors of the Administration of the Courts, State of Israel 
As is the case in the United States, the electronic record systems are the "flag project" of the Administration of Courts.

View as PDF
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90090302/
Jerusalem, April 19 -  "No court should be permitted to implement its electronic record systems," says Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), " it is a sure prescription for corruption of the courts."

The US courts, which were some of the first to do so, are a good example. Implementation of the electronic systems by the US courts undermined court procedures and laws, which have been established over centuries to safeguard the integrity of the courts, including, but not limited to:
  • Valid signatures, authentication and certification of court records;
  • The duties and responsibilities of the clerks of the courts, relative to the integrity of court records;
  • Public access to court records, and
  • Duly enacted, published regulations of the Courts.
Effectively, implementing such systems amounts to establishing of new regulations of the courts by the courts themselves. 

Such conduct undermines the fundamental principles of:
  • Separation of the three branches of government - since the regulations, inherent in such systems, are independently established by the courts with no public oversight, and
  • Publicity of the law - since the regulations, inherent in such systems, remain unpublished.
As part of the 2012 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in Israel by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, Human Rights Alert (NGO) is submitting a report, narrowly focused on "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel".  The latest generation of electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel has been implemented over the past decade, with direct involvement of US-based data processing corporations IBM and EDS.  The systems were developed and implemented, according to the State Ombudsman Report 60b, out of compliance with the law of the State of Israel, relative to government electronic data systems. The outcome is systems, which are a mirror image of corrupt systems, implemented in the US courts a couple of decades earlier.


The 2012 Human Rights Alert's report on the State of Israel is based on:
  • Data-mining of the online electronic records of the courts;
  • Filing papers with the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, and documenting the integrity, or lack thereof, in their registration and disposition, and
  • Freedom of Information requests, filed on the Administration of the Courts and the Ministry of Justice.
Data mining of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel shows that all electronic decision records were certified by the late Chief Clerk SHMARYAHU COHEN up to 2002.  In contrast, all such records are published today unsigned, uncertified, and "subject to editing and phrasing changes".  Additionally, data mining uncovered numerous records that were clearly adulterated.  For example, certifications by the late Chief Clerk SHMARYAHU COHEN appear on decisions, which were purportedly issued years after his untimely death in March 2002.


Filing papers with the Supreme Court documented the practice of simulated review and the publication of simulated decisions of the Supreme Court.
Freedom of Information responses by the Administration of Courts documented that out of nine (9) requests, filed over the past five months, zero (0) records were provided.

The responses of the Administration of Courts on Freedom of Information requests included:
  • "No records exist" - relative to instruction manuals for the electronic record systems;
  • "Records of internal deliberations"  - relative to the appointment record of the current Chief Clerk SARAH LIFSCHITZ;
  • "Not a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act"  -  relative to Certification Authorities in the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), and
  • No response at all - relative to the ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the Supreme Court and relative to unpublished changes to the Regulations of the Courts, inherent to the electronic record systems.
"The Administration of the Courts disregards the Freedom of Information Act," says Dr Zernik, "most likely, as part of efforts to conceal the lack of integrity of the electronic record systems of the courts."
In the US, where such systems were first implemented a few decades ago, they have been conducive to widespread corruption of the US courts, failing banking regulation, large-scale violations of Human Rights, and civil unrest.________
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS AND RESPONSES BY THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
A.     Instruction Materials for the Electronic Record Systems of the Supreme Court (P-84-2011) 
-  "No records exist"
11-11-14 Freedom of Information request on the Administration of Courts, in re: Instruction materials for the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72951950/11-11-30 Freedom of Information response (P-84-2011) by the Administration of Courts, in re: Instruction materials for the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75482773/11-12-13 Press Release: Israeli Administration of Courts: no written procedures for the operation of the Supreme Court’s electronic record systems
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75603309/
B.     Signed, certified copies of the Ethics Rules for JudgesGuidelines of the Supreme Court (P-92-2011) 
- Denied
11-12-18 Repeat Freedom of Information requests on the Administration of Courts, in re:  Signed Copies of a) Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010), And b) Ethics Rules for Judges (2007)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76139096/11-12-29 Second reminder on Freedom of Information request on the Administration of Courts in re: Signed copy of the Guidelines of the Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76821684/12-01-10 Freedom of Information response (P-92-2011) by the Administration of Courts, in re: Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78204369/
C.     Changes in Certification 2001-2 (P-2012-43) 
– "Not a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act"
12-01-19 Freedom of Information request on the Administration of Courts, in re: Changes, around 2001-2 in certification by the Clerk of judicial records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78711932/12-01-19 PRESS RELEASE: The Israeli Courts Administration is asked to produce records pertaining to change in the Clerk’s electronic certification around the untimely death of Clerk of the Supreme Court Shmaryahu Cohen
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78745913/12-04-04 Administration of Courts response, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) January 19, March 13, April 2, 2012 in re Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89955087/12-04-18 Reply to Administration of Courts on response dated April 4, 2012, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) re: Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89954194/
D.    Apostille certification procedure (P 28-2012) 
– "Not a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act"
12-02-18 Freedom of Information request on the Administration of Courts, in re: Origins and authorization of the 'Public Information Page – Authentication of Public Records (“Apostille”)'
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82036041/12-03-06 Freedom of Information response (request for clarifications) by the Administration of Courts (P 28-2012), in re: Apostille certification procedures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/85258815/12-03-13 Repeat Freedom of Information request (P 28-2012) on the Administration of Courts, in re: Apostille certification procedure
http://www.scribd.com/doc/85198003/12-04-04 Administration of Courts response, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) January 19, March 13, April 2, 2012 in re Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89955087/12-04-18 Reply to Administration of Courts on response dated April 4, 2012, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) re: Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89954194/ 
E.     Ultimate administrative authority for the servers of Supreme Court – no response12-01-31 Freedom of Information request on the Administration of Court, in re: Ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80007283/12-02-17 Repeat Freedom of Information requests on the Administration of Courts, in re: a) Changes in certification by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, b) Ultimate administrative authority for servers of the Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81959539/12-04-19 Repeat Freedom of Information requests on the Administration of Courts re: 1) Ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the Supreme Court, 2) Changes to Regulation of the Courts - Office of the Clerk (2004), 3) Appointment Records of Chief Clerks/Certification Procedures of the District Courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90011719/
F.      Changes to Regulation of Office of the Clerk 2004 by the Director of Administration of the Courts – no response
12-02-22 Freedom of Information Request on the Administration of Courts: - Changes to Regulation of the Courts - Office of the Clerk (2004) by the Director of Administration of the Courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82455438/
12-04-19 Repeat Freedom of Information requests on the Administration of Courts re: 1) Ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the Supreme Court, 2) Changes to Regulation of the Courts - Office of the Clerk (2004), 3) Appointment Records of Chief Clerks/Certification Procedures of the District Courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90011719/
G.    Appointment Records of Chief Clerks/Certification Procedures of the Supreme Court (P-29-2012) 
– "Records of internal deliberations"
12-03-02 Freedom of Information request  (P-29-2012) on the Administration of Courts, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief Clerks of the Supreme Court, b) Certification/apostille certification procedures of the Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83584055/
12-03-06 Freedom of Information response (P-29-2012) by the Administration of Courts, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief Clerks of the Supreme Court, b) Certification/apostille certification procedures of the Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86345296/
12-03-28 Revised Freedom of Information request (P-29-2012) on the Administration of Courts,, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, and b) Certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87055920/
H.    Appointment Records of Chief Clerks/Certification Procedures of the District Courts – no response
12-03-03 Freedom of Information request on the Administration of Courts, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief Clerks of the District Courts, b) Certification/Apostille certification procedures of the District Courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83585096/12-04-19 Repeat Freedom of Information requests on the Administration of Courts re: 1) Ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the Supreme Court, 2) Changes to Regulation of the Courts - Office of the Clerk (2004), 3) Appointment Records of Chief Clerks/Certification Procedures of the District Courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90011719/ 
I.       Implementation of certified electronic signatures in the Supreme Court (P-2012-44) 
– "Not a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act"
12-04-02 Freedom of Information request on the Administration of Courts, in re: Certified electronic signatures and certifying authority of the Supreme Court, if any, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87759531/
12-04-02 PRESS RELEASE: Ministry of Justice, Administration of Courts, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court Are Asked to Clarify the Validity of Electronic Signatures of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87807238/12-04-04 Administration of Courts response, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) January 19, March 13, April 2, 2012 in re Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89955087/
12-04-18 Reply to Administration of Courts on response dated April 4, 2012, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) re: Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89954194/

_______
Joseph Zernik, PhDHuman Rights Alert (NGO)[]  
The 2010 submission of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was reviewed by the HRC professional staff and incorporated in the official HRC Professional Staff Report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”  The 2010 UN UPR report called upon the United States to stop executions, restore habeas corpus and close GITMO, abolish slavery, criminalize torture...
Human Rights Alert online[]  Flag Counter: 136http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ 
http://inproperinla.wordpress.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 
Total Reads: 780,060+116,012 Followers: 1,448http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alerthttp://www.scribd.com/SeyagLizhuyotHaadam Total Reads: 30,547http://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 
Total Item Views: 664,803
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner_____________________________
Take away justice, then, and what are governments but great bandit bands?Saint Augustine, Civitas Dei (City of God,4.4)
_____________________________

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