Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@
earthlink.net,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.05.16
15:39:27 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-04-24 The Road Ahead

The Road Ahead - Richard Fine, online public access (PACER) and case management systems (CM/ECF) of the
US courts, and the 2010 UN Review of Human Rights in the United States.

By Joseph Zernik, PhD

Executive Summary
Richard Fine has largely exhausted existing venues of the California and US justice systems. It was evident all along,
that the US justice system was not willing, ready, able to address its own compellingly evidenced corruption.
Nevertheless, the proceedings, which were initiated by Richard Fine, were not in vain. Such proceedings provided
unprecedented, unique, detailed documentation of the routine ways in which justice is allegedly perverted in the
California and US courts: Through false and deliberately misleading presentation of unverified, unauthenticated, void,
not voidable court minutes, orders, judgments, and mandates in unvalidated online public access (e.g. PACER) and
case management systems (e.g. CM/ECF). Such systems were introduced by the US judiciary in recent decades with
no foundation in Local Rules of Courts, out of compliance with Rule Making Enabling Act. The timing of Richard Fine's
actions was of unprecedented and unique significance as well, since in November 2010 the Human Rights record of the
United States would be reviewed for the first time ever by the United Nations. Therefore, in the six remaining months,
coordinated efforts should be focused on:
a) Urgently obtaining conclusive legal and computer expert opinions regarding the fraud alleged in PACER and
CM/ECF.
b) Armed with such opinions - attempting again - if only for the record - to engage the US government in
corrective actions.
c) Lobbying the international community to center the November 2010 Human Rights Review of the US on
allegations, by then opined, of fraud in the online public access systems and case management systems of the
courts and large-scale abuse of the Human Rights of the people of the United States by the US courts - national
tribunal for protection of rights. Such report would set the foundation for internationally monitored corrective
actions in both US and California/state courts between 2010 and 2014 - the next UN Human Rights review of
the US.
Accordingly, instant action plan was forwarded to certain individuals and institutions as an attachment to an urgent formal
request for assistance through review and issuance of expert opinions regarding the alleged fraud in PACER and
CM/ECF - online public access and case management systems of the US Courts, and Sustain - the case management
system of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Please sign our petition: Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

____

The case of the 70 yo, falsely hospitalized, former US prosecutor Richard Fine, who has been held under solitary
confinement for over a year, after he had exposed "not permitted" payments to all 250 judges and 150 commissioners of
the Los Angeles Superior Court (~$45,000 per judge per year), has galvanized public opinion regarding the alleged
widespread corruption of the Los Angeles County justice system. [1] Albeit, much of it was communicated not through
mainstream media, but instead through smaller outlets and numerous web sites that have routinely followed the case.
The irony in the case must not be overlooked: A two-year, 200-investigator probe of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000)
established the widespread corruption of the Los Angeles justice system already a decade ago, and a chain of
successive official and unofficial reports documented the ongoing false imprisonment of thousands (8,000, 16,000, or
more) of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), almost exclusively black and Hispanic, and about a third - still
juveniles when they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to long prison terms. Regardless, the Los Angeles
County, the California, and the US justice systems, in a coordinate fashion, have been steadfast in their insistence on
keeping them falsely imprisoned, as documented in the 2006 Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006). [2] Both cases
are claimed in the recent Human Rights Alert report to the United Nations as part of the pattern of abuse of Human
Rights of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, through widespread corruption of the courts. [3]

1) In April 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 United Nations (UN) Universal Periodic Review

Page 2/6 April 24, 2010

(UPR) of the United States, compelling evidence of large-scale Human Rights abuses by the US Government
through conduct of the California and US Courts and justice systems was outlined. [3]

On April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submitted its report and recommendations to the United Nations, which outlined
precipitous deterioration in Human Rights conditions in the United States. It highlighted as a key cause the installation of
online public access systems (OPASs) and case management systems (CMSs) in the California and US courts in the
past 2-3 decades.

Such systems, which are critical for the integrity of the administration of justice:
a) Were never subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification);
b) Were never established in Local Rules of Court, as required by law - the Rule Making Enabling Act;
c) Were accompanied by denial of public access to court records - to inspect and to copy - the authentication records
(Audit Data of the LA Superior Court records, the NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filings - of the US District courts, and
NDAs - Notices of Docketing Activity - at the US courts of appeals);
d) Were accompanied by the denial of notice and service of court minutes, orders, and judgements (at the LA Superior
Court), by the routine alleged fraud in notice and service of invalid, false and deliberately misleading authentication
records on pro se filers, who were not authorized to access CM/ECF (at the US district courts), and by the routine
alleged fraud in notice of orders which were never verified by judges, with no authentication records at all (at the US
courts of appeals).

In all courts that were examined, the final outcome was what must be deemed upon review by competent Human Rights
panels as routine, large-scale fraud in re: Entry of Minutes, Orders, and Judgments at the LA Superior Court and at the
US district courts, and Entry of Orders and Mandates at the US courts of appeals.

The Human Rights Alert report is due for review in November 2010 as part of the first ever UPR (Universal Periodic
Review) by the United Nations of Human Rights conditions in the US.

2) In April 2010 Motion to Intervene was filed in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court, in attempt to
have the Court review the allegations of such large-scale fraud in the OPASs and CMSs of the courts, and
resulting Human Rights violations by the US justice system itself. [4]

On April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) was filed at the US Supreme Court in Washington DC
. The motion provided detailed analysis of the alleged fraud in the OPASs and CMSs of the courts, and its employ in
false and deliberately misleading entry of Minutes, Orders, Judgments and Mandates in the case of Richard Fine, to
affect deprivation of his Liberty.

Such analysis was also extended to demonstrate similar alleged fraud in the OPAS and CMS of the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department - with large scale alleged false imprisonments under false and deliberately misleading records the
arrest and booking of thousands of inmates, Richard Fine being merely one of many.

The Motion to Intervene asked the US Supreme Court to order the immediate release of Richard Fine - for the simple
reason - that there never was any valid record to provide the foundation for his arrest and imprisonment, which
conformed with the fundamentals of the law - Fay v Noia (1963).

Moreover, the Motion to Intervene asked the US Supreme Court to issue mandates to the lower US courts:
a) To establish their OPASs and CMSs in Local Rules of Courts in compliance with the Rule Making Enabling Act 28
USC §2071-7;
b) To comply with First Amendment rights of public access to court records - to inspect and to copy;
c) To comply with Due Process rights of Notice and Service of court Minutes, Orders, and Judgments on all parties to
litigations, whether or not they were CM/ECF authorized.

3) The March-April 2010 course of events at the US Supreme Court provided additional affirmation for the
conclusions and recommendations in the Human Rights Alert UPR submission - that the US justice system
was not ready, willing, able to address its own corruption. [3]

The US Supreme Court refused to review the Motion to Intervene. Dr Joseph Zernik was effectively denied access to the
Court in violation of various Civil Rights. His motion was filed with the Court, but was never listed in the US Supreme
Court docket, neither was its denial of filing ever listed in the docket. Furthermore - the decision regarding such
treatment of petitions filed with government to address grievances was made by a person who never held the authority

Page 3/6 April 24, 2010

of a Deputy Clerk. [4]

In such conduct, the US Supreme Court provided additional affirmation of the conclusions and recommendations that
were drawn in the Human Rights Alert submission to the United Nations:
a) That the United States judiciary were not ready, willing, able to address the widespread corruption of the justice
system itself.
b) That due to the unprecedented nature of the situation, which involved the judiciary as a class, Human Rights
conditions in the US were unlikely to be corrected in a timely manner through the checks and balances that were
inherent to the US Constitution.
c) That allowing the deterioration in integrity of government systems in the US to proceed unchecked, was not a viable
option for the international community - the risks to world peace and welfare were difficult or impossible to assess. The
current financial crisis was alleged as a direct outcome of the disintegration of the US justice system and banking
regulation, and credible evidence was provided to support such claims.
d) That following the 2010 UPR, the UN should enter negotiations with the US in setting clear goals and time frames for
corrective actions, addressing the alleged fraud in the OPASs and CMSs of the courts.
e) That international monitoring of US compliance with such goals and time frames was essential for any improvement in
Human Rights conditions in the US.

4)The Urban Justice Center's "UPR Tool Kit", which was forwarded by the UN Office of High Commissioner of
Human Rights highlighted the need to lobby both the US and other governments between the April submission
of reports and the November 2010 UPR official session. [4]

The Urban Justice Center's Tool Kit should be credited as an essential road-map in this first ever UPR of the US. The
Tool Kit recommended that NGOs concentrate their efforts as follows:

a) Consultations with US government - until August 2010 - the deadline for the US State Department for
submitting its own UPR report to the UN.

"The OHCHR strongly encourages countries to consult with civil society in the preparation of the country's national
report. In the United States, the State Department is responsible for the preparation of this report, therefore NGOs
should insist on substantive, inclusive, and ongoing consultation. This will help NGOs inform what topics the
government's report will address, identify the strengths and weaknesses of their coverage, and prepare to fill the gaps in
the national report with additional information."

In fact, the US State Department so far refuses to respond in any way at all on the UPR reports submitted to it.

b) Lobby other nations - before and during the November 2010 UPR session

"NGOs should identify countries that might be sympathetic to their issues and schedule meetings with representatives
from embassies, consulates, and missions in the home country and/or Geneva. The best place for NGOs to lobby in the
United States is Washington DC and New York City where the embassies and important diplomats are assigned.
Another opportunity for United States NGOs to lobby is in Geneva during the Human Rights Council sessions ". (9th
Session - 22 November - 3 December 2010.)

The Tool Kit provided a list of nations, who had already raised questions regarding Human Rights conditions in the US
pertaining to specific issues (e.g. - women's, minorities' rights) as part of the 2010 US UPR:
1. Algeria
2. Bolivia
3. Brazil
4. Canada
5. Chile
6. Czech Republic
7. Denmark
8. Egypt
9. Germany
10. Italy
11. Mexico
12. Netherlands
13. Philippines

Page 4/6 April 24, 2010

14. Slovenia
15. Sweden
16. United Kingdom
5) Lobbying by US stakeholders, particularly those whose primary concern is the case of Richard Fine, should
be coordinated and focused on three proposed specific aims:

The case of Richard Fine cannot be a lobbied in its own sake under the UPR. Others who are considered by many US
political prisoners, e.g., death row prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal, imprisoned civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart, and others,
are much better recognized in the international community. Regardless, none of them as an individual is likely to be
considered by the UPR process. Instead, the efforts should be focused on the alleged large-scale fraud now inherent in
operations of both the California and US courts through the OPASs and CMSs. Records from the case of Richard Fine
should be used as the compelling evidence to demonstrate such alleged fraud.

The three proposed specific lobbying aims are:

a) Urgently generate conclusive opinions regarding the alleged fraud in OPASs and CMSs of the courts by both
legal and computer science experts, US, or internationally-based.
1. Preliminary opinion was obtained by a world-class computer science expert - Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew
University, Israel. However, such opinion pertained only to Sustain - the civil CMS of the Los Angeles Superior
Court, and was narrowly qualified. Prof Shamir opined:

"... credible documentary evidence... serious allegations... material deficiencies in safety against possible
fraudulent actions on records, documents, and data by the Court staff. Such allegations deserve thorough and
objective investigation. We know for a fact that the USA has excellent experts able to design, check, and verify
the integrity of such systems. Integrity and public trust of such computer systems are essential for preserving
justice, Human Rights, and a law abiding community." [5]

2. Conclusive opinion was produced by fraud expert, highly decorated FBI veteran James Wedick regarding
conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which was founded in Sustain records. However, the opinion did not
directly address the OPASs and CMSs themselves:
" an immediate investigation should be instituted... fraud being committed... " [Italic in the original - jz] [6]

3. Highest urgency efforts must be therefore centered on obtaining detailed opinions on the alleged fraud in the
OPASs and CMSs of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the US District Court, Los Angeles, and the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit by either US or international experts. Core evidence was therefore compiled as "Solicitation
for Expert Opinions", or in other cases in the format of short manuscripts. [7] [8] Given the severity of the
allegations, opinions are sought mostly by panels, not by individuals:
a. Top law schools - are individually requested and urged to urgently establish expert review of the allegations of
fraud in OPASs & CMSs of the courts.
b. Top engineering schools - are individually requested and urged to urgently establish expert review of the
allegations of fraud in OPASs & CMSs of the courts.
c. The American Bar Association - is requested and urged to urgently establish expert review of the allegations
of fraud in OPASs & CMSs of the courts.
d. IEEE and subordinate associations - are requested and urged to urgently establish expert review of the
allegations of fraud in OPASs & CMSs of the courts.
e. UK top law schools and legal associations - are requested and urged to urgently establish expert review of
the allegations of fraud in OPASs & CMSs of the courts in the US. Due to the commonality in language and
origins of the legal systems, UK experts are believed to be the most likely to be effective in this matter.
f. UK engineering schools and associations - same
g. Other international scholarly associations.
b) Armed with conclusive opinions, address again the US government in consultation on the matter, if only for
the record.
1. US State Department - attempts to communicate in re: the 2010 UPR reports were so far left unanswered.
2. US Supreme Court - the April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), which was omitted
from the Court's records in disregard of First Amendment, Access to the Courts, and Due Process rights, should
be deemed as exhaustion of the US justice system on this matter.
3. US Department of Justice - at present there is already a complaint pending with US Department of Justice
Inspector General against Kenneth Kaiser - FBI Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations, and Kenneth
Melson - then Director of US Attorneys Office, on allegations of fraud on US Congress in 2008- in response to

Page 5/6 April 24, 2010

inquiries by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Diane Watson - why they would not respond to Dr
Joseph Zernik's request for Equal Protection for the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, in view of
overwhelming credible evidence of racketeering by judges of the court. Since Glenn A Fine seems delaying his
response on the complaint, there is yet again a Congressional Inquiry by Senator Dianne Feinstein - Why the
DOJ-IG would not respond on Dr Zernik's complaint against the two senior US DOJ officer.
4. Other US individuals of relevance should be identified at that stage, for example:
a. Jimmy Carter - Former US President - established Human Rights as the basis for US foreign policy,
Committed to Human Rights and democratic processes in election monitoring world-wide; Technically
educated, therefore should be able to gauge the issues at hand; Issues of validation, verification, authentication
of government processes and records surely had to be addressed in monitoring of election procedures world-
wide.
b. Ramsey Clark - Former US Attorney General, and committed Human Rights advocate, should have the
know-how and the authority to opine as an individual on the matter.
4. Other US institutions of relevance should be identified at that stage, for example:
a. House & Senate Judiciary Committees - should again be urged to institute hearings in re: alleged fraud in
OPASs & CMSs. Past efforts in this matter resulted in an opinion letter by Counsel for the House Judiciary
Committee that a hearing of this nature would amount to "politicizing of the courts".
5. US Media - based on experience so far in the case of Richard Fine, US media are unlikely to be of
significance in the matter.
6. Hollywood - experts opined that the overriding force that would enable initiation of corrective actions and
enforcement of the law on the courts would be a feature movie. However, such movie was unlikely to be
produced prior to the UPR.
c) Armed with conclusive expert opinions, lobby the international community in a targeted manner.
1. From the list produced by the Urban Justice Center Tool Kit, copied above, the following nations were
extracted, as those, whose opinions the US government would not be able to easily dismiss:
a. Canada
b. Czech Republic
c. Denmark
d. Germany
e. Mexico
f. Netherlands
g.. Sweden
h. United Kingdom
Nations that should be added to such list are:
i. France - a major EU nation
j. China - a major stakeholder in integrity, or lack thereof in the US banking system.
k. Venezuelan Government Ombudsman/ Secretary of the Network of the NHRIs of the Americas ,Ms.
Gabriela del Mar Ramírez Pérez
2. Key International Institutions - primarily those which are based in any of the nations listed above.
3. Key International Individuals - citizens of the nations listed above.
4. International Media - should be approached through compatriot institutions and individuals, which would be
found sympathetic to the cause.
LINKS

[1] Richard Fine - a Review

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/09-12-17-Richard-Isaac-Fine-Review-e
[2] Rampart-FIPs - a Review
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/09-12-17-Rampart-FIPs-Falsely-Imprisoned-Persons-Review
[3] April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert - 2010 UPR of the US submission and appendix
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Filed-UPR-Report-with-the-United-Nations

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/10-04-18-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Submission-to-the-United-Nations-
for-the-2010-Universal-Periodic-Review-of-the-US-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Appendix-for-Submission-to-the-
United-Nations-for-the-2010-UPR-of-the-United-States-s
[4] April 20, 2010 Fine v Sheriff (09-A837) Amended Motion to Intervene and related papers.

Page 6/6 April 24, 2010

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-1-Amended-Motion-to-Intervene-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-2-Amended-Request-for-Lenience-by-
Pro-Se-Filer-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-3-Amended-Request-for-Corrections-in-
US-Supreme-Court-Records-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-4-Amended-Request-for-Incorporation-
by-Reference-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendices-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendix-IX-b-Zernik-s-
Declaration-in-re-April-16-2010-search-for-records-in-the-Courts-microfilm-judgm
[5] April 20, 2009 Opinion Letter of Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, regarding Los Angeles Superior
Court computerized Sustain records.
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30454036/09-04-20-Prof-Eli-Shamir-Hebrew-University-Jerusalem-Opinion-Letter-
regarding-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-computerized-Sustain-records

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30454039/09-04-20-Prof-Eli-Shamir-Hebrew-University-Jerusalem-directory-
information
[6] December 17, 2007 Conveyance of title on behalf of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Opinion Letter of highly
decorated fraud expert, FBI veteran James Wedick:
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/07-12-17-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-David-Pasternak-Grant-Deeds-
opined-as-fraud-by-James-Wedick-ss
[7] Solicitation of Expert Opinions regarding alleged fraud in the online public access (PACER) and case management
system (CM/ECF) of the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-management-
system-of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-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

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-Case-
management-system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s
[8] Solicitation of Expert Opinions regarding alleged fraud in the Minute Orders and Registers of Actions (California civil
dockets) of the Los Angeles Superior Court case management system - Sustain
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162880/08-06-10-Beyond-Voting-Machines-Computers-the-Courts-Sustain-CMS-
of-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Abstract-and-Figures-s

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162461/08-10-19-Computers-the-Courts-Sustain-CMS-of-the-Los-Angeles-
Superior-Court-Registers-of-Action