10-06-05 Data Mining of The Online Records of The Networked US Federal Courts - Draft Scholarly Paper S

Digitally signed
10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1 by Joseph

Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@
earthlink.net,
c=US
Date: 2010.06.06
06:07:26 +03'00'
Data Mining of the Online Records of the

Networked US Federal Courts
Joseph Zernik, PhD *
*Human Rights Alert (NGO) , Los Angeles, California
* jz12345@earthlink.net
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
Abstract: The US federal courts have completed a decade-long project of

networking coast to coast through a dual online public access and case
management systems. Data mining was conducted through the online public
access system. The records were found universally missing their authentication
instruments, required by law to render them valid and effectual. Authentication
instruments – previously public records – were now excluded from public
access and delegated instead to the case management system. Further review
revealed that records, which are today posted online in the public access system
were a mixed population of authenticated and unauthenticated records, albeit –
the public was unable to discern the difference. It is proposed that government
networks, which are critical for the safeguard of Human Rights must be
subjected to publicly-accountable validation (certified, functional logic
verification). Mandated system transparency would permit ongoing public data
mining – a prerequisite for integrity of the courts in the digital era.
Key words: United States district courts, case management systems, human
rights, Los Angeles, California, United States, justice system, law, fraud,
corruption, judges
1. Introduction 1
In this study we set out to demonstrate that an unprecedented transition, of historic magnitude - the
recently completed conversion of the US courts from paper to digital administration - underlies
precipitous deterioration in integrity of the United States courts and Human Rights in the United
States. Paper administrative procedures in the English speaking courts evolved over centuries, and
formed the foundation of Due Process and Fair Hearings. The transition to digital administration of
the US district courts and US courts of appeals was executed over a comparatively short time,
through a large scale project, managed by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, an arm of
the US judicial branch. Dual electronic public access – PACER, and case management/electronic
court filing system - CM/ECF, were established.
Due Process and Fair Hearings are fundamental Human Rights, and their essence can be viewed as
disambiguation of procedures and actions of the courts. The current study aimed to investigate
through data mining the degree to which transition of the US courts to digital administration
involved substantial ambiguation of court procedures and court actions. Areas of review included
a) access to judicial records, b) notice and service of judicial papers, c) verification/authentication
of judicial records, 2 d) certification of paper filed by parties, and e) published rules of court.
Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
1.1 Access judicial records – to inspect and to copy – a fundamental Human Right
Public access to judicial records – to inspect and to copy - is a fundamental right, which is
quintessential for Due Process and Fair Hearings. In US law the right to access judicial records is
considered a First Amendment right, as re-affirmed in Nixon v Warner Communications (1978). 3
In British law it is deemed a Common Law right. State of California law – the California Public
Records Act, California Government Code §6254(f) states:
…public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the…agency and every
person has a right to inspect any public record… [and to receive] an exact copy…
Judicial records, which were the core public paper records of the courts included the records, which
were maintained by the Clerk of the Court - individual Court Files together with Books of Courts,
including, but not limited to the Index of All Cases, Calendars of the Courts, Dockets - logs of all
proceedings and all records that were entered in the respective Court Files, and Books of Judgments
– logs and copies of all judgments and dispositive actions that were entered as valid and effectual
outcomes in the respective cases – in fact – the law of the land. Public access to these records was
considered an essential safeguard of the courts’ integrity.
Figure 1. Historic, paper-based Books of Court - Criminal Dockets; City of Santa Monica, California
1.2 Notice and Service of Judicial Records

The right for notice and service of court papers is likewise a fundamental right, which is
quintessential for Due Process and Fair Hearings. In the US courts, notice and service of court
minutes, orders, and judgments is incorporated as part of authentication of such court records by
the Clerk of the Court. The clerks would mail out to all parties on the service list authenticated
copies of all court actions in a given case. Identical method of service and notice was applied to all
parties.
1.3 Verification by Judge and Authentication by Clerk of Court Orders and Judgments,
Certification of Court Dockets and Papers by the Clerk.
Verification and authentication of court orders and judgments is a prerequisite for entry of
such court records as honest, valid, and effectual court papers. 4

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Verification requirements originated in common law – graphical “wet” hand signatures were
traditionally required on all court papers - as symbols affixed with the intent to take responsibility.
Such requirement were further declared in the US Constitution 5 and were further legislated in acts
of US Congress. 6 Various other requirements relative to conduct of the courts, including
the requirement for maintenance of dockets by the clerks, and the requirements pertaining
to notice and service are prescribed by law in the Federal Rules of Civil/Criminal
Procedure. 7 The use of graphical “wet” hand signatures became obsolete with the
implementation of digital records, and new instruments had to be devised for verification and
authentication.
1.4 Published Rules Of Court 8
Procedures of the US Courts, which are not established by law, are governed by Local Rules of
Court. The US courts were permitted to publish such rules in the Rulemaking Enabling Act 28
USC §2071-2077. Local Rules of Court should be published – as part of Due Process and Fair
Hearings, and any proposed new rules must be posted for a reasonable time prior to their adoption,
for public comment and challenge. Local Rules of Court typically govern specific procedures of
the office of the Clerk of the Court pertaining to the filing of papers and their entry as valid and
effectual records of the court.
1.5 Computerized Relational Database Management Systems – a Government-Owned
Social Network of Public Records – Open for Data Mining 9
The traditional paper-based Court Files, Dockets, Index of All Cases, Calendars of the Courts, and
Books of Judgments included interrelated, redundant data. The redundancy in the requirement of
keeping such records in physically separate books, in and of itself, generated critical safeguards for
integrity of the courts. Such system could be deemed as a particular type of relational databases.
Implementation of such system as digital records likewise entailed the establishment of novel
digital relational databases. The networking of all US courts can be further seen as a subtype of
social network, and given that its records are public by law – open to data mining.
1.6 Certified, functional logic verification 10
Transition of the court to digital administration required the adoption of digital verification and
authentication procedures for the individual records as well. Moreover, establishment of the
system as a whole required that standard paradigms of system development would be followed –
from specification through system design and implementation to system validation and functional
logic verification. 11 The system as a whole was developed by the Administrative Office of the US
Court, an arm of the judicial branch, and its specifications and validation/verification were never
published.
2. Objective
The current study aimed to investigate through data mining the online public records of the US
courts and evaluate the safeguard of the fundamentals of Due Process and Fair Hearings in the
transition from paper to digital administration of the courts. Moreover, the current study aimed to
explore the potential role of data mining of online public records of the court as an essential civic
duty – public scrutiny of integrity of the courts and safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
3. The System
3.1 PACER – the online system for Public Access to Court Electronic Records of the US
Courts 12
PACER permits public access at pay to court records of the US district courts and US courts of
appeals – to inspect and to copy. Through the system access is permitted to the dockets and records
of the various cases, as well as certain calendars and indices of the courts.
Figure 2. PACER – the public access system of the US courts was established through a decade long
project by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
3.2 CM/ECF – the online system for Case Management/Electronic Court Filing of the US
Courts. 13
CM/ECF access is permitted to attorneys authorized by a given US court in a given case. Through
CM/ECF authorized attorneys may file papers with the court, receive email notices of papers filed
in a given case by other parties and by the court itself. Pro se litigants – those representing
themselves in court, which includes most prisoners, who petition the US courts for protection of
Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights (including, but not limited to habeas corpus petitions) are
routinely excluded from access to CM/ECF. Therefore pro se litigants are permitted to file with
the courts only on paper, and likewise – are permitted access to court records through PACER
alone. Therefore, those authorized in CM/ECF get notice and service of papers filed by the courts
and by other authorized parties via email. Unauthorized parties get notice and service by First Class
US mail. Likewise, while those authorized in CM/ECF file papers by email, which are
instantaneously and automatically listed as “entered”, those who are not authorized must file on
paper – subject to scrutiny of all filed paper by the clerks prior to their entry, a system that used to
be equally applied to all parties in the past.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Figure 3. CM/ECF – the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system of the United States
Courts was established in a decade long project by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. Today it is the effective access system for both the US District Courts and US Courts of
Appeals.
Figure 4. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts - a judicial branch agency
devised and implemented PACER and CM/ECF.
3.3 NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filings and NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity
NEFs - at the US district courts, and NDAs – at the US courts of appeals are the instruments, which
were established by the US courts for digital authentication of court records. Key differences
between such novel authentication instruments and the former certificates of service are:
a) Certificates of service were in the past issued by the parties, or the court – whichever filed
the papers, and certifications of entry were separately affected by authorized clerks –
neutral parties, exclusively. The clerks certified the entry by stamping the papers and
endorsed them the papers on their faces prior to their entry into the respective court
dockets, as required by law. The NEFs and NDAs combined the two functions – file and

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
enter into one. Moreover, the authority to enter paper was therefore delegated to
authorized attorneys, who obviously represent parties in the respective cases. The clerks
may review such entries after the fact. Paper, which are filed by unauthorized parties are
scanned by the clerks, and upon their entry NEFs or NDAs are issued to authorized parties
– but not to the filing parties themselves.
b) Identical certificates of service were served in the past on all parties, while the NDAs and
NEFs are electronically served only on CM/ECF authorized parties. Unauthorized parties
are served by other parties traditional certificates of service together with First Class
service of the papers.
c) The NEFs and NDAs are universally excluded from access in PACER, while traditional
certificates of service were public records accessible to all.
In short, radical changes were established in conduct of the clerks, in entry of papers, in
construction of court files and court dockets, in equality of treatment in these respects of all parties
to court actions, and in public access to court records.
4. The Cases and the Courts
Data mining, which formed the basis for the current study was conducted on a number of US
district courts, US bankruptcy courts, and US courts of appeals, and multiple cases. 14,15,16,17,18
Although significant differences were found in implementation of PACER and CM/ECF in the
various courts, the basic platform was identical in all courts, which were examined. The basic
findings were likewise similar in all courts, which were examined. Therefore, for coherence of the
presentation, the data presentation is focused on the features, which were uniformly found in all
courts, and on the following three cases from two courts, which are described in further detail:
4.1 US District Court, Central District of California
Numerous cases were explored at the Court, but further data are provided mostly for a single case:
Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus
of the 70 year old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine, who has been held in solitary confinement
in the Los Angeles, California, Men’s Central Jail hospital ward since March 4, 2009. 19
4.2 US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Numerous cases were likewise explored at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, but further data are
provided mostly for two cases:
Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692) – emergency petition originating from
the habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, Central District of California. 20
Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-56073) – appeal originating from the habeas
corpus petition at the US District Court, Central District of California.21
5. Methods
5.1 Data Mining
Records of the courts in the cases referenced above were mined through routine, manual public
access to PACER, as permitted by law. Additionally, access was obtained to Local Rules of
Courts, General Orders, and CM/ECF Users Manual through routine web browsing of the web
pages of the respective courts, free of charge. 22 The Local Rules, General Orders, and CM/ECF

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
were reviewed to establish to what degree the courts published clearly and unambiguously the rules
governing the courts’ new practices and procedures. When no clear and unambiguous published
rules were found, requests were forwarded to the Clerk and Chief Judge to disclose the new rules
governing procedures of the courts.
In addition, repeated attempts were made over a period exceeding six months, as described below,
to gain access to public court records, where access through PACER was denied. These attempts
included specific written requests, by email, as well as repeat personal appearances at the offices of
the Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California and US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit. Such requests invoked rights pursuant to the First Amendment to the US Constitution
and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
5.2 Verification by Judge and Authentication by Clerk of Court Orders and Judgments
Verification by judges and authentication by clerks were inspected in all minutes, orders,
judgments, and mandates filed by the courts, in order to establish the nature of verification and
authentication under the new system, and validity and effect of the various court papers.
5.3 Attempts To Correct False US Courts’ Records.
In particular instances, where credible evidence was found that records provided through PACER
were false and misleading, lacking verification and/or authentication, but displayed as “entered”,
written requests were filed with the Clerk and Presiding Judge of the US District Court, Central
District of California, with requests to investigate such records and initiate corrective actions.
6. Results
6.1 Court Procedures And Court Rules
Evidently, the US courts have undergone a sea change in court procedures concomitantly with the
implementation of digital administration of the courts. However, review of the Local Rules of
Court of the US District Court, Central District of California, 23 and the respective rules of the US
Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 24 revealed no direct reference to PACER or CM/ECF in the Local
Rules of Court, and in particular – to the new procedures pertaining to the novel verification and
authentication instruments, to the public’s right to access court records, to the right to notice and
service.
6.2 General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California25, 26
Review of the General Orders of the US District Court, Central District of California revealed
several orders pertaining to the operation of PACER and CM/ECF. The most notable and
comprehensive among them was General Order 08-02. In pertinent part, General Order 08-02
states [underlines added – jz]:
IV. Electronic Filing
A. Generally. In all cases subject to electronic filing, all documents
required to be filed with the Clerk shall be filed electronically in the CM/ECF system.
...
I. Hyperlinks. Documents filed electronically may only contain
hyperlinks to sections of the same document. Hyperlinks to other documents, websites, source documents, or
citations are not permitted.
...
K. Notice of Discrepancies For Electronically Filed Documents. The

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Clerk’s Office may notify CM/ECF Users of discrepancies found in electronically filed documents by a
discrepancy notice. In response to this notice, the assigned judge may order: (1) an amended or corrected
document to be filed, (2) the document stricken, or (3) other action as the assigned judge deems appropriate.
...
N. Docket. Except as otherwise provided in this General Order, the
acceptance by the Clerk of a document electronically filed shall constitute entry of that pleading or other paper
on the docket maintained by the Clerk under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58, 77 and 79 and Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure 55.
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described herein is deemed proof of
an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court.
The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California as the sender. An encrypted verification code appears in the electronic
document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of
confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as
necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF,
the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The
NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with
the court.
V. Exclusions From Electronic Filing.
...
B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to
be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s Office into the CM/ECF
system.
The NEF – Notice of Electronic Filing - was never defined in the General Order 08-02. However,
General Order 08-02 established the NEF as valid when it bears the digitally encrypted “electronic
document stamp”, as the valid and effectual authentication instrument of the US District Court,
Central District of California.
It should also noted that General Order 08-02, in contrast with other general orders of the US
District Court, Central District of California, was published with no verification by a judge at all,
and with no name of its author either.
6.3 General Orders of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 27
No significant information pertaining to electronic filing practices were found in the General
Orders of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
6.4 Unofficial Anderson Manual for CM/ECF Users of the US District Court, Central District of
California 28
Additional critical description of the electronic filing system and procedures of the US District
Court, Central District of California were detailed in the Unofficial Anderson Manual. In that
respect the US District Court, Central District of California differed from any other US district
court or US court of appeals that was examined. In all other instances, Users’ Manual were
published by the courts themselves. Only in the Central District of California the users’ manual
was defined as “unofficial” and its publication was delegated to a third party, not the court itself.
6.5 CM/ECF “Users’ Manual” of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 29
The Users’ Manual of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit include detailed description of practices
of the Court relative to electronic filing, and also description of the NDAs – Notices of Docket
Activity – as the authentication records of the Court.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Court Rules of Court General Orders Users’ Manuals

Central District None General Order Detailed Description of electronic
of California 08-02 filing practices in an “unofficial”
manual
Court of None None Detailed Description of electronic
Appeals, 9th filing practices.
Circuit
Table 1: Summary of information pertaining to electronic filing for the US District Court, Central
District of California and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
6.6 Attempts to Access Judicial Records – to Inspect and to Copy – at the US District Court,
Central District of California and US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Both courts repeatedly denied requests to access judicial records in the case of Richard Fine and
other cases as well. No reason was ever provided for the denial of access. Limited access was
eventually gained on March 24, 2010. 30
6.7 Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) at the US District Court in Los
Angeles, California
6.7.1 PACER Docket 31
As noted below, key records in the docket were never issued honest, valid, and effectual NEF
authentication, and therefore, could not possibly be deemed by the Court as honest, valid, and
effectual records of the court. Regardless, key records, e.g. – the June 29, 2009 Judgment and the
February 12, 2010 Mandate were listed in the docket as “entered”.
However, it should be noted that nowhere in the docket is there any certification or statement by
the Clerk of the Court that such docket was constructed by the Clerk, as required by law.
Moreover, some 15 key records 32 in the case were docketed by “dt’ - Ms Donna Thomas, who was
indeed a Court employee, but never authorized as a Deputy Clerk. Following such discoveries,
repeated requests were addressed to Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi – to state whether the docket in
this case and others similar cases were dockets which were constructed pursuant to authority of the
Clerk of the Court and to US law. Clerk Nafisi to this date refused to respond on such requests. 33
6.7.2 Two NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filings

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Figure 5: NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) for the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Richard
Fine (Dkt #1) – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) at the US District Court, Central District of California.
Notice that the NEF of this records bears Electronic Document Stamps – encrypted alphanumeric
strigns.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Figure 6: NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) for the Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
(Dkt #59) , as entered in the docket of the petition for writ of habeas corpus of Richard Fine – Fine v
Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) at the US District Court, Central District of California. Notice that the NEF
is missing the Electronic Document Stamp.
The images of the two NEFs in Figure 5 and Figure 6 demonstrate a critical difference between
the two respective records: The former NEF bears a Document Stamp, while the latter bears none.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
The PACER docket texts for the two court papers, whose NEFs were reproduced in Figure 5 and
Figure 6, which is also quoted in the body of the NEFs, would not allow the PACER user to
distinguish this critical difference in validity of the respective NEFs.
The docket text for the Petition (Dkt #1) states:
03/20/2009 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254)
Case assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson and referred to Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. (Filing fee $ 5:
FEE PAID.), filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine. (Attachments: # 1 Part 1 of Petitioner, # 2 Part 2 of Petitioner,
# 3 Part 3 of Petitioner)(ghap) Modified on 3/24/2009 (ghap). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/24/2009: #
1 Part 2 of Petition, # 2 Part 3 of Petition, # 3 Part 4 of Petition) (ghap). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
The docket text of the Mandate (Dkt #59) states:

02/18/2010 59 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Petition for Certificate of Appealability 34 , CCA# 09−56073.
The Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Mandate received in this district on 2/18/2010. (lr) (Entered:
02/23/2010)
During a March 24, 2010 visit to the office of the Clerk of the Court, the author was also permitted
to inspect the NEF of the June 12, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #31) in the petition, however, his request
for a copy was denied with no explanation at all. The Judgment’s NEF, like the Mandate’s NEF
shown in Figure 6, was missing the Electronic Document Stamp.
Again, the PACER docket text would not allow the PACER user to discern that critical fact. The
PACER docket text for the Judgment (Dkt #31) states:
06/29/2009 31 JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter: IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ
of habeas corpus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (pcl)
(Entered: 06/29/2009)
6.7.3 Validity of the NEF as an Authentication Instrument, In and of Itself

In reviewing the nature of the standard NEF form it would be helpful to start by reviewing the
standard form of traditional paper Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk:
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
<Case caption and number> <Judge’s name> < Clerk Deputy Name>
<Text of Minutes or Order>
Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing/ Notice of Entry of Order
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above mentioned Court, do
hereby certify that I am not party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of <date> upon each party
or counsel named below by depositing at the United States mail at the
courthouse in Los Angeles, California, one copy of the original, entered
herein in a separate sealed envelope for each, addressed as shown below with
the postage thereon fully prepaid.
Date: <date > Minutes Entered
John A Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk <date>
County Clerk
By _[wet graphic signature______
<name typed> Deputy Clerk
<Service List>
Certain features should be noticed in this tradition paper authentication instrument:

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
a) Title: “Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing/ Notice of Entry of Order” is explicit. The title clearly
and unambiguously defines the nature of the instrument and the authority of the individual
issuing the certificate and notice – the Clerk of the Court.
b) Opening sentence: “I, the below signed Executive Officer/Clerk of the above mentioned
Court do hereby certify…” again - clearly invokes the authority of the Clerk of the Court.
c) Mode of service is identical for all parties.
d) Signature box – a standard legal valid signature box is used, which again invokes the
authority of the Clerk of the Court, as delegated to an individual Deputy Clerk, who is
identified by name and whose valid – “wet” graphical signature appears on the certificate.
e) Stamp of the Clerk - appears as block on the right bottom corner.
In contrast, in examining the NEF instrument as such, one should notice (quotes are from Dkt #59):
a) Title: “Notice of Electronic Filing” is vague and ambiguous. It fails to state certification of
service and also fails to state entry of the respective paper. It fails to state the authority of
the Clerk of the Court, which appears nowhere in the entire instrument.
b) Opening sentence: “The following transaction was entered on 2/23/2010.. and filed on…”,
yet another vague and ambiguous statement. It fails to state entry of any court paper, it
only states the entry of a “transaction”. Furthermore, the whole sentence is formulated in
the passive voice, as if affected by thin air.
c) Filer: No filer name is stated.
d) Document Number: 59 the document is never mentioned by name. Instead, the only way
that the NEF is tied to a specific court records is through a hyperlink – a practice that is
explicitly prohibited in General Order 08-02, for a good reason!
e) Docket Text: Quoting the docket text is irrelevant, particularly since the docket text is
again stated in the passive voice, never stating who filed the record. Moreover, the docket
text in this particular case is false and misleading, the February 12, 2010 mandate was
never for “Certificate of Appealability”. It was purported to be a mandate from an appeal.
f) Docket Text: in reviewing the docket texts of these records, as they appear in the NEFs,
one should notice that “ghap”, “lr”, and “pcl” are unidentified individuals, of unknown
authority. Moreover, the routine syntax appearing in such docket texts, such as “(pcl)
(Entered: 06/29/2009)” relative to the Judgment (Dkt #31), was never defined in any court
record as a valid electronic signature, although it may intuitively appear as such to most
naïve readers of the PACER dockets. No tags were ever found in the page source of
numerous PACER dockets, which were examined, which would suggest that such routine
syntax corresponded to any form of digital signature.
g) Document Description: Entirely missing from the NEF for Dkt #59, but in Dkt #1 it is
vague and ambiguous as well: “Main document”
h) Electronic Document Stamp: Entirely missing from the NEF for Dkt #59, but in Dkt #1 it
is likewise vague and ambiguous – it fails to identify an authorized individual who “takes
responsibility” – the very definition of a signatures. It again fails to identify the authority
by which such signature was issued.
In short: Regardless of the plethora of irrelevant technical information appearing in the NEF, a
reasonable person must conclude that it is invalid on its face as a certification or notice of any kind.
The same or similar fatal defects are also found in the NDAs – the authentication instruments of the
US courts of appeals. A reasonable person, upon review of the matter as a whole, would find it
unreasonable that such fatal defects in the authentication instruments of CM/ECF are chance

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
occurrence. CM/ECF was the product of a lengthy, costly national project, overseen by some of
the brightest jurists in the United States.
6.7.4 Verification by Judges
Out of the three records listed above, two were records issued by the courts:
a) Dkt #31 – June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter denying the habeas corpus of
Richard Fine. 34 The record appears as a paper record, which bears a “wet” graphical
signature of John Walter, United States District Judge, which was scanned into PACER.
b) Dkt #59 – February 12, 2010 Mandate by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit from appeal
originating from the habeas corpus of Richard Fine. 35 The record is composed of two
parts: First – Mandate issued by Clerk of the Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit- Molly C Dywer
and Deputy Clerk Gabriella Van Allen. Their names are types, but no semblance of
signature of any type is found on the face of the Mandate. Second – Memorandum issued
in the names of “ REINHARDT, TROTT, and WARDLAW Circuit Judges”. No
semblance of a signature appears on the face of the Memorandum. Not even the full names
of the judges are spelled out.
6.7.5 Requests for Investigation of Alleged Misconduct at the Court and Initiation of Corrective
Actions.
Repeated requests were filed with the Clerk Terry Nafisi and Chief Judge – Audrey Collins 36 to
investigate alleged misconduct at the Court, related to false records in the habeas corpus of Richard
Fine, and to initiate corrective actions pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges. No response
was received. No evidence was found of any corrective actions in the matter.
6.8 Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692) – emergency petition at the US Court
of Appeals, 9th Circuit
The petition to the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit originated from the habeas corpus petition at
the US District Court, Central District of California.
The PACER docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit appears vague and ambiguous even in
comparison to the PACER dockets of the US District Court, Central District of California:
a) The word “enter” or “entry” fail to ever appear in the docket in relationship to any
records.
b) Initials appear of “HC”, “MT”, “KKW” – unidentified persons of unknown authority.
6.8.2 Verification and Authentication of Orders of the Court
In the case of the petition of Richard Fine to the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, the Court served
on the author the orders in the case. The June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, shown in
Figure 7, below, was served unsigned – there isn’t even a signature box on the face of the record.
It was also served with no authentication instrument at all. The order appears likewise, unsigned in
the PACER docket of the case. The names of circuit judges appearing on such record, invalid on
its face include “KOZINKSI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges”. Therefore,

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Alex Kozinski – Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, one of the most senior jurists
in the United States was involved in issuing such false and deliberately misleading court record.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Figure 7: June 30, 2009 Order by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, served on the author
unsigned and unauthenticated.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
6.9 Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-56073) – appeal at the US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit
The appeal to the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit originated from the habeas corpus petition at the
US District Court, Central District of California
The docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit appears false on its face, for reasons similar to
those listed above for the docket of the petition to the Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. It should also
be noted that the docket fails to explicitly state the date of entry of judgment of the US District
Court, from which the appeal was purported to originate. The date of entry of judgment is the most
critical data regarding validity of the appeal process, since the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is
only relative to entered judgments, within the time limit to notice an appeal. However, in this case,
a reasonable person would conclude that the Judgment of the US District Court was never entered
in the first place – since no valid NEF was issued on the Judgment by the US District Court.
6.9.2 Verification by Judges
None of the orders by the Court in the appeal was signed by any of the judges, including, but not
limited to the Memorandum – presumed to be the dispositive order in this case.
6.10 NADs – Authentication Instruments of the US Court of Appeals

Following multiple attempts, access to the NDAs was gained on March 30, 2010. 39 Figure 8 is a
sample NDA from the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. NDAs obtained from the court
documented that key records had no valid NDA in court records. In addition – no NDAs and no
other form of authentication was served on pro se litigants by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
The NAD as an authentication instrument upon review demonstrate fatal defects, similar to those
found in the NEF, describe above:
a) Title: “Notice of Docket Activity” – is vague and ambiguous, no certification of notice to
parties and no notice of entry of a court paper are explicitly mentioned in such title.
b) The standard NDA form language of the NDA should be deemed invalid on its face as a
certificate of service– it states “Notice will be electronically mail to,” in the future tense,
instead of providing a past tense statement. Moreover, it is a passive voice statement,
failing to state the person executing the notice.
c) The standard NDA form language never states name of the individual who issued the
notice, or for that matter his/her authority to issue a notice.
d) The document, which the NDA pertains to is never explicitly stated in the NDA, instead it
is defined as Document(s), with a link to an external file. One should recall that for
example, in General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California –
link to external records in court papers were prohibited – for obvious reasons. At least in
one NDA (unrelated to Richard Fine) it was found that the link was to a false record.
e) The “Electronic Document Stamp” fails to pertain to any person certifying or any
statement of certification.
f) In the specific NDA at hand, two parties were explicitly excluded from service “Case
participants listed below will not receive this electronic notice:”

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
Figure 8: NDA of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as issued on the February 18, 2010
Mandate on the appeal from habeas corpus at the US District Court, Central District of
California. The Mandate itself is an unsigned court record.
It is unlikely that such fatal defects in the authentication instruments of both US district courts and
US courts of appeals are merely chance occurrences.
7. Discussion
The records of the US courts, which are presented in the current study, are limited to three cases,
and even in these cases, discussion was limited to some of the more glaring defects, and numerous
other dishonest features were not mentioned, due to space limits. Regardless, the findings described
in this study should raise serious concerns regarding substantial ambiguity introduced into conduct
of the US District Court, Central District of California – one of the most populous in the United
States, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – which covers by large the most populous circuit
among the US courts of appeals. Such ambiguity, in and of itself should be deemed as antithetical
to Due Process and Fair Hearings. Although the results shown in the current study are from two
courts only, similar results were found in US courts and US courts of appeals elsewhere in the
United States.
7.1 Published Rules of Court
The results show that neither the US District Court, Central District of California, nor the US Court
of Appeals, 9th Circuit published rules of court to spell out the new revolutionary procedures, which
were adopted by the two courts as part of implementation of PACER and CM/ECF as the basis for
digital administration of the courts.
Office of the Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California claimed that the
new procedures were established in General Order 08-02. However, General Orders are not the
legitimate vehicle for establishing new rules of court. Moreover, the particular General Order 08-
02, upon review by a reasonable person would be found deficient in defining the new practices of
the courts. Moreover – the General Order 08-02 was published by the Court as an unsigned order
with no name of its author and his/her authority listed in the Order at all.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
The Unofficial Anderson Manual provides a much more detailed view of the new local rules of the
Court. However, a third party, “unofficial” publication was surely never deemed a legitimate
vehicle for rules of court in compliance with the law.
7.2 Segregation of Litigants into Two Separate and Unequal Access Systems, Denial of Access to
Records.
The new procedures of both courts, and US courts across the land, in fact established two separate,
unequal access systems, one – CM/ECF – for attorneys who were authorized by a given court in a
given case, and the other – PACER – for the public at large and pro se litigants – including the vast
majority of prisoners petitioning for protection of rights (including, but not limited to habeas
corpus petitioners). Those denied CM/ECF access were denied electronic notice and service of
court records. Moreover, they were generally denied access to NEFs and NDAs, which were
excluded from PACER with no legal foundation at all. Such conditions prevent those who are
denied access to CM/ECF from discerning honest, valid, and effectual court records from false and
misleading court records – lacking in authentication.
In parallel, the courts were shown to adopt the habit of posting in PACER dockets, and in the case
of the US district courts listing as “entered” papers that were never authenticated, and therefore
could never be deemed valid and effectual court records that were “entered” by the courts.
7.3 Conduct of the US Courts May be Related to Decades Long Struggle Relative to Rulemaking
Authority of the Courts.
It should be noted that the conditions described here are not without precedent. The Rulemaking
Enabling Act was signed into law in 1934. It provided the US Supreme Court, and to lesser degree
other US courts, the authority to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure, similar
to authority delegated to various administrative agencies. However, when the Federal Rules of
Evidence promulgated by the US Supreme Court in 1972, were reported to US Congress in 1973,
they raised objections, which eventually led US Congress to a drastic reaction, which ended with
substantial modifications of the Rules promulgated by the courts, through legislation. 40
Therefore, it appears that the US Courts in this instance, where revolutionary changes were
introduced in the courts, of never publishing any rules in the first place. While the Rulemaking
Enabling Act delegated to the courts rulemaking authority, it never mandated the courts to publish
new rules of court. As a result – no duty was found by the courts to report their newly established
procedures of digital administration to US Congress either.
7.4 US Courts Introduced Substantial Ambiguity into their Procedures and Records
A reasonable person would conclude that such state of affairs resulted in unreasonable ambiguity in
conduct of the US courts and validity of court records. The evidence presented in the current study,
and a large body of additional evidence demonstrate that pro se litigants were unlikely to find the
true rules of courts under electronic filing, since they were almost universally excluded from access
to electronic filing and electronic notice and service of court records. Moreover, evidence presented
here, and a large body of evidence obtained in additional cases documented that such conditions
led to the routine abuse of the Due Process and Fair Hearings rights of pro se litigants.
7.5 Exclusion of the NEFs from PACER and Concomitant Denial of Access to NEFs
The failure to define the NEF in rules of court, and its vague and ambiguous description in the
General Order 08-02, combined with the universal exclusion of the NEF from PACER, and denial

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
of access to the NEFs by clerks of various courts, are unlikely to be viewed by a reasonable person
as merely coincidental occurrences. Through such coordinated actions, all of them in contradiction
of the law, the public at large, and pro se litigants in particular, are denied the ability to discern
honest, valid, and effectual court records from records that are false and deliberately misleading.
7.6 Glaring Defects are Found in CM/ECF as a Valid Case Management System
It is further claimed that a valid case management system of the court should never have permitted
the issuance of court records and inclusion of such records in court dockets, while no valid NEFs
bearing Electronic Document Stamp were issued. It is likewise claimed that a valid and secure case
management system should never have permitted persons, who were not authorized as Deputy
Clerks, such as seen in the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine and in other cases as well, to
access the dockets and execute transactions that should have been permitted only to those
authorized as Deputy Clerks.
7.7 Access to Judicial Records, Service and Notice, Verification and Authentication of Court
Orders and Judgments
Conditions prevailing at the US courts, which were documented in the current study were likewise
documented in other courts throughout the United States. The linkage between transition to digital
administration and the disintegration of the frameworks of Due Process and Fair Hearings, such as
public access to judicial records, service and notice of court actions, verification and authentication
of court orders and judgments, appears incontrovertible. However, the disintegration of Due
Process and Fair Hearings under digital administration of the US courts was not inevitable. Instead,
such conditions resulted from deliberate design of CM/ECF, specific procedures, and effective
rules, which were adopted by the US courts in the transition process, out of public oversight, and
never published. In short – the transition presented various scenarios, where decisions had to be
made. Absent public scrutiny, decisions were made that were contrary to the Due Process and Fair
Hearings, and undermined integrity of the courts.
7.8 Refusal of the Court to Correct False Records and Initiate Corrective Actions
Refusal of the Clerk and Chief Judge of the US District Court, Central District of California to
investigate allegations of misconduct at the Court and initiate corrective actions, provided direct
evidence that conduct of the Court in the case of Richard Fine, and other cases as well, was not the
outcome of inadvertent errors, but instead – fraud intended to deprive Richard Fine of Liberty
through denial of Due Process and Fair Hearings in a national tribunal for protection of rights
pursuant to international law.41
7.9 Digital Administration of the US Supreme Court
Like all other US courts, the US Supreme Court has gone in recent years the through the transition
to digital administration. However, the US Supreme Court is not using the platforms of PACER
and CM/ECF for online public access and court filings. Therefore, records obtained from the US
Supreme Court and their analysis were excluded from instant study. Suffice is to say that
conditions were found in the US Supreme Court, which are of similar to those found in the lower
US courts relative to effect of the transition to digital administration on integrity of court records.
7.10 Disintegration of the Courts - a Chain Reaction
Of particular concern were such conditions, as documented in Fine v Baca (09-A827) –
applications for review by the US Supreme Court, which originated from the case Richard Fine.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
The case of Richard Fine initially stemmed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles – a state court. The case resulted in imprisonment of Richard Fine by the Sheriff’s
Department of Los Angeles County, California, under solitary confinement – in a hospital ward,
with no valid records to support the arrest and imprisonment, as documented in review of the
digital records of the Sheriff’s online public access system, 42 detailed in a study concomitantly
submitted with instant study. The case was later reviewed as the habeas corpus petition of Richard
Fine at the US District Court, Central District of California, and twice at the US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit, first as a petition, and later as an appeal. Finally – it came for review twice, as part of
applications, before the US Supreme Court. The case provided a fully detailed example of the
phenomenon, where invalid false practices in one justice system agency – in this case – the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, leads other agencies and higher courts to
follow suit. All courts implemented invalid false, and ineffectual procedures, in a chain reaction. In
all instances, such false and invalid procedures were enabled through digital administration of the
respective agencies. Through such conduct the various agencies addressed the dilemma they were
faced with – exposing wrongdoing by another justice system agency, versus compliance with the
law. It appears that the various justice system agencies in the United States have reached an
unwritten understanding, that conducting invalid, false, ineffectual proceedings, and issuing false
records, which the courts themselves deem invalid and ineffectual, is not in violation of the law.
7.11 Significance of the Cases of Richard Fine in Detailed Documentation of Disintegration of
the Justice System.
Therefore, the case of Richard Fine may, with the passage of time, be recognized for its historic
significance. The Sheriff’s Department in Los Angeles County holds staggering numbers of
prisoners under false records, as documented in an adjoining study. However, Richard Fine, a
former US prosecutor, a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and London School of
Economics PhD in international law, meticulously and diligently exhausted review of his case in all
instances of the US justice system. Although many may deem his efforts as futile, they generated
documentation of the disintegration, which is tightly linked with digital administration of the
justice system, detailed in an unprecedented manner.
7.12 Refusal of US Experts to Address the Conduct of PACER and CM/ECF
The problem documented in the current study – relative to disintegration of the US justice system,
is compounded by refusal of both law and computing leading experts in the United States to opine
on the matter, even when presented with compelling detailed evidence. 43
7.13 Digital Administration of State Courts
Like the US federal courts, state courts throughout the United States have transitioned to digital
administration. Similar to what is described in the current study, transition of the state courts to
digital administration was affected outside any discernable process involving public scrutiny. For
example, a newsletter of the California Judicial Council stated that over seventy (70) independent
case management systems were implemented in the Superior Court of California in the various
counties, through independent initiatives of the local courts.
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – by far the largest county court in the
United States – serving over 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, was one of the first
courts to transition to digital administration – in the mid 1980s. The case management system of
the civil division of that court – Sustain – was separately reviewed, but results were excluded from
instant study. Conditions prevailing at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
pertaining to its digital case management system are deemed by far worse than any seen in the US
courts.
7.14 Digital Administration of Prisons and Jails.
Like the courts, other agencies, which are part of the justice system transitioned in recent decades
to digital administration. Of particular concern are conditions now prevailing as a result in prisons
and jails in the United States. A separate study, concomitantly submitted with the current study,
reviewed conditions at the jails administered by the Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County.
Such study led to the conclusion that digital administration of the jails in Los Angeles County,
California, enables the false imprisonment of tens of thousands of prisoners.
Conditions that were deduced through data mining of the Los Angeles courts and jails are
consistent with conclusions previously reached by official and unofficial reports. The Blue Ribbon
Review Panel concluded “innocent people remain in prison” and pointed out the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles as central to the problem. 44 The independent report of Pro
Erwin Chemerinsky – renowned constitutional scholar and Dena of the University of California
Irvine Law School concluded “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and
police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”45 Prof
David Burcham, then Dean of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles concluded “…judges tried and
sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."46
7.15 Disintegration of the US Courts, the Current Financial Crisis, and Banking Regulation
Although entirely excluded from presentation in the current study, records obtained from multiple
cases in various US courts across the United States document the tight relationship between
conditions at the US courts, the current financial crisis, and dysfunctional US banking regulation.
7.16 Data Mining as a Civic Duty for Protection of Rights
Although emphasis was placed in the current study on documentation of the falsehood of court
records through access to the NEFs and NDAs of court orders and judgments, sufficient evidence is
available in records of the US courts to identify cases that are likely to be undermined through
routine data mining in PACER – where public access is permitted, at pay.
Two cases of high public policy significant are mentioned below, only to demonstrate that the
conditions, which were documented in the current study in cases related to Richard Fine are
universal. Both cases were extensively reported in national and international media, but both cases
should be considered as plagued by false records, and likely to have been only pretense of
administration of justice:
a) US v City of Los Angeles et al (2:00-cv-11769) – at the US District Court, Central District
of California
The case was represented as pitting the US Department of Justice against the government of Los
Angeles in the wake of the largest corruption scandal in the history of the United States – the
Rampart Corruption Scandal (1998-2000). The outcome of the action was publicly represented as
the Consent Decree of 2001, which led to the appointment of an Overseer for Civil Rights for the
people of Los Angeles. Such Overseer kept office in Los Angeles from 2001 to 2009. However, he
failed to enforce key provisions of the Consent Decree. Review of the PACER records in the case
led to the conclusion that the Consent Decree was never entered by the Court as an honest, valid,
and effectual court records. Additional findings in the records led to the conclusion that the whole

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
litigation was most likely of undermined integrity. Repeated requests to access court records in the
case were denied by the Clerk of the Court – with no reason at all.
b) Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)
Following collapse of major US banking institutions in recent years, protests were voiced both in
the United States and abroad of the dysfunctional state of US banking regulation. The action by
the SEC against Bank of America was widely reported by media, and was represented as the
hallmark of enforcement in the past couple of years. However, review of PACER records in the
case revealed sufficient clues that the litigation as a whole was not an honest, valid, and effectual
court action. Again, requests were made to the Clerk of the Court – to access court records to
inspect and to copy. All requests were denied with no reason at all.
7.17 Urgent Need for Publicly Accountable Validation of the Case Management and Online
Public Access Systems of the US Courts.
The solution proposed for the conditions described in the current study should involve publicly
accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of such systems in the courts --
pursuant to the Rulemaking Enabling Act.
7.18 Urgent Need for Oversight by the International Community and Computing Professionals.
Conditions, which were described in the current study, should cause alarm, since it is doubted that
checks and balances that are inherent to the US Constitution can address such large-scale alleged
misconduct at the US courts. It is therefore proposed that there is an urgent need for international
monitoring of the US courts, if not for care of the international community regarding Human
Rights of the people of the United States, then for enabling functional banking regulation in the
United States in view of risks to the international community under the current crisis
8. Conclusions
Transition of the courts to digital administration entailed a sea change in practices and procedures
of the courts. The transition took place over a relatively short time, was independently executed by
the US courts through the Administrative Office of the Courts, with insufficient public
accountability. The transition resulted in precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts and
Human Rights in the United States.
a. Disintegration of the US courts as a result of transition to digital administration.
b. Detrimental effects on Human Rights of the people in the United States.
c. The proposed solution should involve publicly accountable validation (certified, functional
logic verification) of case management systems that are critical to preservation of Human
Rights. Mandated system transparency should permit ongoing public data mining – a
prerequisite for integrity of the courts in the digital era.
d. Similar Conditions may arise in other nations in transition to digital administration of the
courts.
e. Data Mining of the Courts should be deemed a civic duty
f. Computing professionals should assume a leading role in protection of rights in the digital
era.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
References
1
The matters covered in the current study were covered in greater details in a series of three papers,
as solicitation of expert opinions:
a) 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/29525744/
b) 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
c) 10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-apos-Opinions-RE-Case-management-system-
NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s
2
AUTHENTICATION - An attestation made by a proper officer, by which he certifies that a
record is in due form of law, and that the person who certifies it is the officer appointed by law to
do so.
3
In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) the US Supreme Court affirmed
"the common-law right of access to judicial records" otherwise referred to as "the common-law
right to inspect and copy judicial records".
4
The legal foundation for issues related to judicial verification and ministerial attestation are
reviewed, and the citations in short review: NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) of the US Courts:
5
US Constitution, Article. IV § I, declares,
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every
other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,, records and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
6
By the Act of May 26, 1790, it is provided,
That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective
states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or
admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court
annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the
case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings,
authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United
States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be
taken.
The above act having provided only for one species of record, it was necessary to pass the Act of
March 27, 1804, to provide for other cases. By this act it is enacted,
That, from and after the passage of this act, all records and exemplifications of office books, which are or may
be kept in any public office of any state, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any other
court or office in any other state, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his
office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept or of the governor, the secretary of
state, the chancellor or the keeper of the great seal of the state, that the said attestation is in due form, and by
the proper officer and the said certificate, if given by the presiding justice of a court, shall be further
authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his
office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or if the said certificate be given by
the; governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of
the state in which the said certificate is made. And the said records and exemplifications, authenticated as
aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States, as
they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the state from whence the same are or shall be taken.
That all the provisions of this act, and the act to which this is, a supplement, shall apply, as well to the public
acts, records, office books, judicial proceedings, courts, and offices of the respective territories of the United
States, and countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as to the public acts, records, office books,
judicial proceedings, courts and offices of the several states.
The Act of May 8, 1792, § 12, provides:

That all the records and proceedings of the court of appeals, heretofore appointed, previous to the adoption of
the present constitution, shall be deposited in the office of the clerk of the supreme court of the United States,
who is hereby authorized and directed to give copies of all such records and proceedings, to any person
requiring and paying for the same, in like manner as copies of the records and other proceedings of the said
court are by law directed to be given; which copies shall have like faith and credit as all other proceedings of
the said court.
7
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/
8
Rule Making Enabling Act states:
§ 2071. Rule-making power generally
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for
the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and
procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.
(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only
after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date
specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court
may order.
(c)(1) A rule of a district court prescribed under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or
abrogated by the judicial council of the relevant circuit.
(2) Any other rule prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall remain in
effect unless modified or abrogated by the Judicial Conference.
(d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council,
and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be
furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the
public. (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may
proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such
court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment. (f) No rule may be prescribed
by a district court other than under this section.
§ 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of
evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrates thereof) and
courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules
shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291
of this title.
§ 2073. Rules of procedure and evidence; method of prescribing
(a)(1) The Judicial Conference shall prescribe and publish the procedures for the consideration of proposed
rules under this section.
(2) The Judicial Conference may authorize the appointment of committees to assist the Conference by
recommending rules to be prescribed under sections 2072 and 2075 of this title. Each such committee shall
consist of members of the bench and the professional bar, and trial and appellate judges.
(b) The Judicial Conference shall authorize the appointment of a standing committee on rules of practice,
procedure, and evidence under subsection
(a) of this section. Such standing committee shall review each recommendation of any other committees so
appointed and recommend to the Judicial Conference rules of practice, procedure, and evidence and
such changes in rules proposed by a committee appointed under subsection (a)(2) of this section as may be
necessary to maintain consistency and otherwise promote the interest of justice.
(c)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business under this chapter by any committee appointed under this
section shall be open to the public, except when the committee so meeting, in open session and with a majority
present, determines that it is in the public interest that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day
shall be closed to the public, and states the reason for so closing the meeting. Minutes of each meeting for the
transaction of business under this chapter shall be maintained by the committee and made available to the
public, except that any portion of such minutes, relating to a closed meeting and made available to the public,
may contain such deletions as may be necessary to avoid frustrating the purposes of closing the meeting.
(2) Any meeting for the transaction of business under this chapter, by a committee appointed under this section,
shall be preceded by sufficient notice to enable all interested persons to attend.
(d) In making a recommendation under this section or under section 2072 or 2075, the body making that
recommendation shall provide a proposed rule, an explanatory note on the rule, and a written report explaining
the body's action, including any minority or other separate views.
(e) Failure to comply with this section does not invalidate a rule prescribed under section 2072 or 2075 of this
title.
§ 2074. Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date
(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule
prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no
earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The
Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme
Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the
opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings
would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.
(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect
unless approved by Act of Congress.
…
§ 2077. Publication of rules; advisory committees
(a) The rules for the conduct of the business of each court of appeals, including the operating procedures of
such court, shall be published. Each court of appeals shall print or cause to be printed necessary copies of the
rules. The Judicial Conference shall prescribe the fees for sales of copies under section 1913 of this title, but the
Judicial Conference may provide for free distribution of copies to members of the bar of each court and to other
interested persons.
(b) Each court, except the Supreme Court, that is authorized to prescribe rules of the conduct of such court's
business under section 2071 of this title shall appoint an advisory committee for the study of the rules of
practice and internal operating procedures of such court and, in the case of an advisory committee appointed by
a court of appeals, of the rules of the judicial council of the circuit. The advisory committee shall make
recommendations to the court concerning such rules and procedures. Members of the committee shall serve
without compensation, but the Director may pay travel and transportation expenses in accordance with section
5703 of title 5.
9
Relational databases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database_management_system

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
10
Functional Logic Verification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_verification
11
Similar issued were raised regarding database management and public access systems of the
prisoners registration and underwriting database management systems of large US financial
institutions. A separate abstract was filed “Data mining as a civic duty – Prisoners’ Registration
Systems”.
12
PACER login page:
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?court_id=00idx
13
CM/ECF of the US District Court, Central District of California – login page:
https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl
14
US courts and US courts of appeals where data was obtained supporting the findings of the
current study:
a) US District Court, Central District of California
b) US District Court, District of Columbia
c) US District Court, Southern District of New York
d) US District Court, Vermont
e) UA Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California
f) US Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
g) US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas
nd
h) US Court of Appeals, 2 Circuit
i) US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
15
US District Court, Southern District of New York
10-01-26-Requesting-Bank-of-America-President-Moynihan-to-provide-public-papers-in-SEC-v-
BAC-1-09-cv-06829-s
10-01-30-US-v-City-of-LA-et-al-2-00-cv-11769-and-SEC-v-Bank-of-America-Corporation-1-09-
cv-06829-Public-Displays-of-Pretense-Justice
09-08-29-SEC-v-Bank-of-America-Corporation-1-09-cv-06829-Dr-Zernik-s-Request-to-US-
District-Court-Southern-District-of-NY-to-access-court-records
16
The case of SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829), at the US District Court,
Southern District of NY is of particular significance, since it demonstrates the critical significance
of the claims made in the current study, not only relative to Human Rights in the United States, but
also relative to the current instability and disintegration of financial infrastructure and banking
regulation.
17
US District Court, Vermont

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
10-01-12-Huminski-v-Rutland-Police-Department-1-99-cv-160-Letter-to-Prof-Fallon-Harvard-
Law-in-re-Two-false-Huminski-NEFs-a-Kozinski-Fraud-s
10-02-12-Huminski-v-Rutland-Police-Department-et-al-1-99-cv-160-at-the-US-District-Court-
Vermont-False-Memo-and-Order-served-with-no-NEF-at-all-s
10-05-15-Huminski-v-Rutland-Pollice-Department-et-al-1-99-cv-160-Alleged-Honest-Services-
Fraud-at-the-US-District-Court-Vermont
10-05-15-Huminski-v-Rutland-Police-Department-1-99-cv-160-Dr-Zernik-apos-s-Notice-to-
Defendant-Nancy-Corsones-apos-Attorney-re-Alleged-fraud-in-counsel-appearances-and-in-court-
order
18
US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit:
10-02-24-Huminski-v-Town-of-Bennington-Vermont-03-7036-Alleged-Fraud-by-Justice-
Sotomayor-s
09-06-04-US-Senate-Judiciary-Committee-then-Circuit-Judge-Sotomayor-apos-s-Questionnaire-
Appendix
04-11-05-Huminski-v-Town-of-Bennington-Vermont-03-7036-US-App-Ct-2nd-Unsigned-Order-
Judgment-Affirming-Vermont-Court-Judgment
10-02-25-Huminski-v-Town-of-Bennington-Vermont-et-al-03-7036-Repeat-request-to-access-US-
Court-of-Appeals-2nd-Circuit-court-records-s
19
Large portion of the records of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), which are available on PACER
were copied into archive, indexed at: http://inproperinla.com/ The records pertaining to the
specific case can be viewed by searching the index page for “01914”.
20
Large portion of the records of Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692), which
are available on PACER were copied into archive, indexed at: http://inproperinla.com/ The
records pertaining to the specific case can be viewed by searching the index page for “71692”.
21
Large portion of the records of Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-56073), which
are available on PACER were copied into archive, indexed at: http://inproperinla.com/ The
records pertaining to the specific case can be viewed by searching the index page for “56073”.
22
Access to Local Rules of Court, General Orders, and other specific information of the US
District Court, Central District of California: http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
23
Local Rules of Court of the US District Court, Central District of California
24
Local Rules of Court of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
March 30, 2010 records, which were downloaded from the web site of the US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit: the Local Rules of Court, the General Orders, the CM/ECF User’s Guide, and
Transcripts of CM/ECF instructional videos.
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-30-nda-at-9th-cca-rules-orders-manuals-video-transcripts-s.pdf
25
General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California:
26
General Orders of the US District Court, Central District of California:
27
General Orders of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
28
US District Court Central District of California CM/ECF “Unofficial Anderson Manual”
29
CM/ECF “Users’ Manual” of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:
30
March 24, 2010 declaration and opinion by Joseph Zernik regarding attempt to access court
records – to inspect and to copy – at the US District Court, Central District of California.
31
Pacer docket of Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) at the US District
Court in Los Angeles, California:
32
Upon further review of the docket in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914), the following fifteen records, most of which were Court minutes, orders, or opinions, were
found to have been “entered” by “(dt)”:
a. 04/07/2009 6 ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION;
b. 04/09/2009 7 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle;
c. 04/23/2009 13 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle;

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
d. 04/24/2009 14 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of

Habeas Corpus Or, In The Alternative, Request That This Court Direct The Real Parties In
Interest To Respond To Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition;
e. 05/05/2009 17 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle;
f. 05/05/2009 18 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle;
g. 05/05/2009 19 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle;
h. 05/05/2009 20 ORDER STRIKING by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
i. 06/12/2009 25 NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle;
j. 06/12/2009 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle;
k. 06/12/2009 27 AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
l. 06/26/2009 32 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle;
m. 07/09/2009 37 STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD − EX PARTE APPLICATION;
n. 07/21/2009 46 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
o. 07/21/2009 47 (DUPLICATE) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle:
33
Requests filed with Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi to state whether the docket in Fine v Sheriff
(2:09-cv-01914) was constructed pursuant to authority of the Clerk of the Court and US law.
34
Dkt #31 – June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter denying the habeas corpus of Richard
Fine.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-31-judgment.pdf
35
February 12, 2010 Mandate by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit from appeal originating from
the habeas corpus of Richard Fine.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-59_us-cca9th-mandate-
feb-12-2010.pdf
36
March 25, 2010 – Notice and Request for Corrective Actions filed with Chief Judge Audrey
Collins of the US District Court, Central District of California, relative to false records in the Court
in the cases, including but not limited to Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914):
37
38

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1
39
Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: March 30, 2010 copies of NDAs obtained during a visit to
the Office of the Clerk, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Pasadena, California.
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-30-declaration-visit-to-us-court-of-appeals-9th-s.pdf
40
Moore, James Wm and Bendix Helen I: Congress, Evidence and Rulemaking, The Yale Law
Journal, Vol 84, pp 9-38 (1974) The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc
41
Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ratified international law:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
42
Brief review of the records for imprisonment of Richard Fine:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
43
Refusal of Harvard Law School Dean to address claims of fraud in conduct of PACER and
CM/ECF at the US courts:
44
Blue Ribbon Review Panel report – Rampart Reconsidered (2006)
45
Chemerinsky, E: The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County, Guild Practitioner Vol.
57, pp. 121-133 NLG (2001)
46
Burcham, D and Fisk, K : The Rampart Scandal: Policing The Criminal Justice System, Loyola
Law Review Vol 34, pp 537- 543 (2001)

10-06-05 Data Mining of The Online Records of The Networked US Federal Courts - Draft Scholarly Paper S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10-06-05 Data Mining of The Online Records of The Networked US Federal Courts - Draft Scholarly Paper S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digitally signed

10-06-03 PAPER #2, DRAFT #1 by Joseph

Data Mining of the Online Records of the

*Human Rights Alert (NGO) , Los Angeles, California

Abstract: The US federal courts have completed a decade-long project of

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

1.2 Notice and Service of Judicial Records

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Court Rules of Court General Orders Users’ Manuals

6.7.2 Two NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filings

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

The docket text of the Mandate (Dkt #59) states:

6.7.3 Validity of the NEF as an Authentication Instrument, In and of Itself

Certain features should be noticed in this tradition paper authentication instrument:

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

6.10 NADs – Authentication Instruments of the US Court of Appeals

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

The Act of May 8, 1792, § 12, provides:

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

d. 04/24/2009 14 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

Running Title: Online Data Mining of US Courts

You might also like