Follow on Google News News By Tag Industry News News By Location Country(s) Industry News
Follow on Google News |  Human Rights in the Digital Era - Publicly Accountable Computers Validation in the Justice SystemAlthough the data is primarily from US courts and prisons, it is expected that similar problems may arise in any nation where the justice system transitions to administration based on digital records.
By: Human Rights Alert, NGO In April 2010 report, [1] filed with the United Nations by Human Rights Alert (NGO), large-scale fraud was alleged in the United States courts online public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF) systems. The essence of the alleged fraud was and is: (a) In the failure of the courts to spell out in Rules of Court their new verification and authentication procedures, as required by law; (b) In the omission of all authentication records (NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filing and NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity) from public access in PACER - such records are today accessible only in CM/ECF, and there too - only to counsel authorized in a given caption; (c) Denial of public access to such authentication records of the US courts, even upon request to access court records - to inspect and to copy - pursuant to First Amendment rights and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978); (d) Routine issuance by the US courts of minutes, orders, judgments, and mandates with no authentication at all. Such records, which are deemed by the courts themselves as void, not voidable, are posted in PACER as "entered" – was part of false and deliberately misleading PACER court dockets. Such fraud was alleged as the enabling tool for routine abuse of Human Rights at the United States courts in both civil and criminal litigations. For example, such fraud was alleged as having effectively denied access to the US courts in the habeas corpus and related petitions and appeal of the falsely hospitalized, 70 yo, former US prosecutor Richard Fine, [2] [3] As detailed in papers filed with the US Supreme Court in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), such fraud was also alleged as a routine in litigations involving large financial institutions, undermining effective banking regulation in the United States. [4] The papers also provided documentation of inexplicable discrepancies in the above referenced caption between the online public access records and the true court file records of the US Supreme Court itself. [4b] However, such papers were omitted from the docket of the US Supreme Court with no authority and with no notation at all. [5] Similar fraud was alleged in the online public access and case management systems of various correctional institutions, particularly in Los Angeles County, California, where the online public access system was demonstrated as showing no valid records, or no records at all, for approximately half of the inmates, where the case of Richard Fine was but one example. [6] The solution proposed in the submission to the United Nations: Publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) Although such deficiencies were first analyzed in the US courts, it is expected that similar problems may arise in any nation where the justice system transitions to digital records based administration. [7] Therefore, the November 2010 the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations, pending November 2010, may serve as a wake up call new safeguard for Human Rights in the digital era worldwide. LINKS: [1] April 2010 report filed with the United Nations by Human Rights Alert (NGO): a) Report http://www.scribd.com/ b) Appendix: http://www.scribd.com/ [2] Richard Fine - a Review http://www.scribd.com/ [3] Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/ [4] April 23, 2010 US Supreme Court conference in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - Motion to Intervene and related papers filed by Dr Joseph Zernik a) http://www.scribd.com/ b) http://www.scribd.com/ c) http://www.scribd.com/ d) http://www.scribd.com/ [5] April 23, 2010 denial by US Supreme Court conference of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - Omission of Papers filed by Dr Joseph Zernik from the US Supreme Court Docket with no notation at all. a) http://www.scribd.com/ b) http://www.scribd.com/ c) http://www.scribd.com/ [6] Online public access and case management system (CMS) of the sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles County, California: Large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California are alleged through holding of inmates based on false records, routinely posted by the Sheriff’s Department in its online public access system “Inmate Information Center”, while denying access to the true arrest and booking records, which are public records by California Public Records Act – GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48 a) Data Survey http://www.scribd.com/ Center-data- b) Data Survey http://www.scribd.com/ Inmate-Information- c) Data Survey http://www.scribd.com/ Inmate-Information- d) Data Survey http://www.scribd.com/ Department-Inmate- e) Data Survey http://www.scribd.com/ data-survey- f) Addendum to Complaint filed with the Sheriff’s Department – alleged fraud in Booking Terminals http://www.scribd.com/ Department-re- [7] January 2010 inexplicable features in new case management system introduced in the Israeli courts: http://www.scribd.com/ # # # Human Rights Alert, a Los Angeles County, California, NGO, is committed to monitoring Human Rights violations by the US government, and reporting such violations, including, but not limited to the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the US by the UN. End
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
