I MERELY REPORT THE FOLLOWING AS A POSSIBLE “HEADS UP”. I HAVE NOT HEARD OF THIS PROBLEM WITH PACER. IF ANY OF YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT, PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS.
Editor’s Note: Like MERS, garbage in, garbage out. Without a referee the players do whatever suits them. Here PACER enables litigants to submit questionable documents — i.e., where authentication is bypassed and foundation is absent.
In MERS, the participant members have constant access to change anything in those “data” records and then submit MIN reports (milestone) as though they were business records, even though they were probably changed to reflect the oral argument from the previous hearing.
The myth in MERS is that someone is submitting documents where they are reviewed for authenticity, proper execution and accuracy just like in the property appraiser’s office or the county recording office in which the property is located. The truth is the only employees at MERS (numbering under 20) are administrative and IT people to keep the technology platform running. MERS was never intended to be a system equal to the recording office. it was always intended to get around the recording requirements.
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: [law-discuss] Richard Fine: Comprehensive Review of PACER & CM/ECF Practices Sought By Volunteers Across the US
To: “US agencies, law school faculty, NGOs, media, and others” <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 5:44 PM
Richard Fine: Comprehensive Review of PACER & CM/ECF Practices Sought By Volunteers Across the US
Los Angeles, March 18 – following his claims fraud in PACER and CM/ECF in the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles and at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, California, resident, published in various online outlets letters [1] seeking volunteers throughout the US to help in producing a comprehensive review of the practices and procedures of the United States courts and courts of appeals relative to their computerized systems: PACER – the public access system, and CM/ECF – the case management/electron ic filing system.
Specific help was requested in a two-fold manner:
First – comprehensive examination of the local rules, general orders, and CM/ECF manuals of the district and appellate courts, to identify mention, if any of the practice of NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) bearing RSA- encrypted digital signatures as the replacement for the stamps and hand-signatures of the clerks of the courts in the former paper-based certification/ authentication;
Second – examples of alleged fraud by US District courts and US courts of appeals through the issuance of court orders and judgments with invalid NEFs – bearing no RSA-encrypted digital signatures, or no NEFs at all.
In his letters, Dr Zernik compared the practice to the signing of an instrument by an individual, and acknowledgment of such individual’s signature on the instrument by a notary public, based on the notary’s hand endorsement and stamp, which the notary was required to keep possession of at all times. Furthermore, Dr Zernik stated: “In other words, the public access system (PACER) permitted the inspection and the copying of the instruments alone (and even then – not always the signatures on the instruments) , but the NEFs – the equivalent of notary public acknowledgements – were uniformly eliminated from the PACER records. Therefore, there was no way that the public could distinguish through PACER between court records that were honest, valid, and effectual, and the multitude of false and deliberately misleading records that populated PACER through misconduct of the courts.”
Such requests were issued as part of an effort to solicit experts’ opinions from outside the US regarding integrity of operations of the US courts relative to the practice and procedures of PACER and CM/ECF. Dr Zernik was confident that experts would confirm his claims that PACER and CM/ECF, as implemented by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, were a large-scale Shell Game fraud.
LINKS/NOTES:
[1] March 18, 2010 Letter by Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, soliciting volunteer reviews of Local Rules, General Orders, and local CM/ECF User’s manuals across the US. The links at the end of the letter provided examples of both valid, and invalid NEFs.
———— ——
Hi [ ],
Thanks, since it appears that you know all the right people. Maybe you could help me in the most urgent task, relative to PACER in the US courts and US courts of appeals:
THE CLAIMS:
My basic claims relative to the recent implementation of the public access (PACER) and case management/ electronic filing (CM/ECF) systems at the United States courts is that it was the largest Shell Game fraud in the history of mankind, and that it was executed with no legal authority at all, since there was no way that the public could tell through PACER, which records were honest, valid, and effectual court records, and which were false and deliberately misleading court records.
Through many generations of paper-based administration of the courts, fundamental safeguards were established, which required that court orders and judgments be verified by the hand signature of the judge, and certified/authentic ated by the stamp/seal of the court and hand endorsement by the clerk of the court. Moreover, the clerk of the court was the only one authorized to hold the seals/stamps of the court.
Such basic procedures could be compared to the signing of an instrument by an individual, and acknowledgment of such individual’s signature on the instrument by a notary public, based on the notary’s hand endorsement and stamp, which the notary was required to keep possession of at all times.
The claim is that with the introduction of computer-based administration of the US courts, the certification/ authentication by the clerk was implemented as NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). The hand endorsement of the clerk was replaced by an RSA-encrypted digital signature, which appeared at the bottom of the NEFs as a 3-5 line nonsensical alphanumeric string.
However, in coordinated fashion, such newly practiced court procedures were NEVER lawfully established through local rules of courts in any US court or court of appeals that I examined.
Furthermore, in devising its dual computerized case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems, the US courts deliberately eliminated from public access, and were actively denying public access to the NEFs. The NEFs were simply excluded from PACER.
In other words, the public access system (PACER) permitted the inspection and the copying of the instruments alone (and even then – not always the signatures on the instruments) , but the NEFs – the equivalent of notary public acknowledgements – were uniformly eliminated from the PACER records.
Therefore, there was no way that the public could distinguish through PACER between court records that were honest, valid, and effectual, and the multitude of false and deliberately misleading records that populated PACER through misconduct of the courts.
Moreover, the claim is that there was no reasonable explanation for the design of such dual systems that was consistent with the furtherance of justice and honest administration of the courts.
CURRENT EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTAT ION:
Ample documentation of the claims above was accumulated from the US District Court in LA and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (in re: case of Richard Fine), and from the US District Court in Brattleboro, Vermont, and the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (case of Scott Huminski).
The alleged fraud in such cases was in the issuance by the US District Court of court orders and judgments with NEFs with no digital signatures, and the service of court orders by the US courts of appeals with no signatures by the judges, and no NEFs at all.
WHERE IT STANDS TODAY:
I am in the process of seeking prominent expert opinions on the matter from outside the US (no US expert that is prominent, whom I have approached, was willing to issue a written opinion on the matter). I do have non-formal opinion from a prominent US expert, and preliminary formal opinion from a prominent expert from outside he US.
REQUEST FOR HELP:
I am seeking:
A) COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCAL RULES OF COURTS/ GENERAL ORDERS/ USER MANUALS ACROSS THE US:
Review of as many US District Courts and Courts of Appeals, to establish whether they documented in their Local Rules of Courts the basis for operation of PACER and CM/ECF, the nature of certification/ authentication of records through RSA-encrypted digital signatures in NEFs. The only good reference that I found was often in informal “CM/ECF USER MANUALS”, which were not adequate court records at all.
What I would expect from those who were willing to help was a short declaration under penalty of perjury such as:
1) On this and that date I inspected the Local Rules of Court of this and that US District Court – as posted by the court at this and that URL, the Standing Orders – as posted by the court at this and that URL, and the local “CM/ECF User’s Manual” -as posted by the court at this and that URL. (I would appreciate also a time-date stamped PDF copies of the complete Local Rules of Court, General Orders, and CM/ECF Manuals of each court that was examined)
2) The only mention of PACER and CM/ECF was such and such.
3) The practice and procedure of NEFs and RSA-encrypted digital signatures in the NEFs, as the valid certification/ authentication of court records was/was not mentioned in such Local Rules of Court – Rule #xx; Was/was not mentioned in the local General Orders – General Order #xx-xx; Was/was not mentioned in informal “CM/ECF User’s Manual” of the court, pp xx-xx.
2) ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF FRAUD ON INDIVIDUALS AT THE US DISTRICT COURTS AND US COURTS OF APPEALS, PARTICULARLY IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO HABEAS CORPUS, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
I am seeking:
a) US District Court orders and judgments that were served with NEFs bearing no RSA-encrypted digital signatures, and/or
b) US Courts of Appeals orders that were served with no signatures of the judges and no NEFs at all.
Such fraud is typically perpetrated on litigants who are:
a) Prisoners filing habeas corpus petitions.
b) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to civil rights abuses.
c) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to complaints against members of the judiciary.
d) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to financial institutions – truth in lending, disability insurance, ERISA, benefits plans, etc.
My email for direct communications is:
jz12345@earthlink. net.
Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla .blogspot. com/
http://www.scribd. com/Free_ the_Rampart_ FIPs
http://www.liveleak .com/user/ jz12345
http://www.examiner .com/x-38742- LA-Business- Headlines- Examiner
Please sign our petition – Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetit ionsite.com/ 1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce’ Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
LINKS:
[1] NEFs – a review with examples of honest and fraudulent NEFs:
http://www.scribd. com/doc/24732941 /10-01-03- Notice-of- Electronic- Filing-NEF- First-Amendment- CMSs-Review
[2] Large Scale Fraud Alleged in PACER
http://inproperinla .blogspot. com/2010/ 03/10-03- 17-large- scale-fraud- alleged-in. html
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: CM/ECF, county recorder, court record, foreclosure defense, foreclosure litigation, Fraudlent documents, hadn signature of judge, Joseph Zernik, MERS, NEF, Notice of electronic Filing, Pacer, property appraiser, recording, Richard Fine, RSA-encrypted, stamp of the clerk | 9 Comments »
