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