Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings where appropriate, in re: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, and US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE – for conduct, which undermined Banking Regulation and/or Human Rights in the United States
Los Angeles, December 4 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request [[i]] with Congressman John Conyers, Jr, Chair - House Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair - Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Chair – House Committee on Rules, for investigation and impeachment proceedings, where appropriate, against Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, and US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE. The request alleged that the conduct of the named judges and magistrate undermined Banking Regulation and/or Human Rights in the United States.
The request further claimed that such conduct could not take place absent collusion by the Clerks of the respective courts:
1. RUBY KRAJICK - Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Southern District of New York, and
2. TERRY NAFISI – Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Central District of California.
The request and attached detailed reports described conduct of the US judges, the US magistrate, and the respective Clerks, which followed the same pattern: presiding with no valid assignment/referral orders, failing to issue judicial records, or issuing deliberately invalid judicial records, which were published in the online PACER dockets of the respective courts, as if they were valid and effectual. The request claimed that such conduct amounted to pretense judicial review and violation of the Oaths of Office, including, but not limited to: denial of access to the courts, deprivation of rights under the color of law, and/or misprision of felonies; therefore - impeachable offences.
The request claimed that the matters held the highest public policy significance, because of the nature of the underlying matters:
1. In SEC v BAC (1-09-cv-06829) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - the request alleged that conduct of Judge JED RAKOFF, Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, and Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE was intended to cover-up criminality by BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION (and COUNTRYWIDE FINANICIAL CORPORATION) and its most senior officers, which SEC, banking regulators, and law enforcement have refused to address in recent years. Therefore, the conduct of Judges RAKOFF and PHILLIPS and Magistrate WOEHRLE amounted to undermined Banking Regulation.
2. In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – the request alleged that conduct of Judge JOHN WALTER, Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, and Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE was intended to cover-up widespread corruption of judges of the Superior Court of California, County of the Los Angeles and/or large-scale false imprisonment by the same Court, which US Department of Justice has refused to address over the past decade. Therefore, conduct of Judges WALTER and PHILLIPS and Magistrate WOEHRLE undermined the Human Rights of all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California.
The request furthermore claimed that the conduct of the named Judges, the Magistrate, and Clerks reflected structural deficiencies relative to integrity of the United States courts:
1. Lack of accountability of the Clerks of the Courts for integrity of the electronic court records.
Conditions, which now prevailed in the US courts, enabled the publication of false and deliberately misleading PACER dockets and false and deliberately misleading minutes, orders, and judgments.
2. Lack of validity and integrity of PACER and CM/ECF as electronic court administration systems.
The systems enabled the publication of dockets, minutes, orders, and judgments in a manner that prevented the public from distinguishing between records, which the US courts themselves deemed valid and effectual and records, which the US courts themselves deemed void. The systems were implemented over the past decade by the Administrative Office of the US Courts with insufficient public oversight. It was claimed that the systems were central to undermining the integrity of the US courts.
An additional structural deficiency was directly related to the case of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), and to Habeas Corpus rights in the United States:
3. Lack of validity of the Los Angeles County Booking Records system and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s online Inmate Information Center.
The case of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) documented how the systems were used to affect alleged false imprisonment under the pretense of lawfulness.
The request referred to a series of reports, either published or pending review, which detailed the conduct of the named judges, magistrate, and clerks, as well as the outlined structural deficiencies:
1. The Calendars and the Clerks of the US Courts – pending [[ii]]
2. SEC v Bank of America Corporation – pretense litigation and pretense banking regulation in the United States – pending [[iii]]
3. Case management and online public access systems of the US courts – pending [[iv]]
4. Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) [[v]]
5. Zernik, J: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010) [[vi]]
The request noted that the latter two reports were published in an international, peer-reviewed computer science journal, listing on its Editorial Board scholars from six European nations and Canada.
The request also noted that the same reports proposed corrective measures by US Congress:
1. Restoring provisions of the Salary Act of 1919 - placing the clerks under the authority of the US Attorney General.
The Salary Act of 1919 was credited as a key measure in restoring the integrity of the US courts a century ago. It placed the clerks under authority of the US Attorney General. Conditions in the courts today indicated that reform was in order – through placing the clerks under authority of the US Attorney General again. [[vii]]
2. Enacting federal rules for the electronic administration of the courts.
Implementation of electronic case management and online public access systems amounted to a sea-change in court procedures. Regardless, both the courts and the US Congress had so far failed to establish design and operation of the systems under statute.
The request suggested that combined, the two above measures by US Congress could address the following issues:
1. Restoring accountability of the clerks for the integrity of electronic court records.
The evidence demonstrated that clerks today held themselves unaccountable for the validity and integrity of electronic court records, in particular – online public access systems.
2. Restoring the right to access judicial records – to inspect and to copy.
Combined, PACER and CM/ECF were today used to conceal critical attestation/authentication records (the NEFs and NDAs), and therefore did not permit the public to distinguish between valid and effectual court records and such that were deemed by the US courts as void.
3. Establishing valid, publicly accessible digital signatures on all applicable court records by judges, clerks, and counsel.
The evidence showed that courts established as acceptable various methods, which did not meet minimal requirements for valid digital signatures for judges, clerks, and counsel.
4. Establishing valid procedures for the clerks’ electronic attestation/authentication records.
The evidence showed that the NEFs and NDAs, which were established by the US courts as electronic clerks’ attestation/authentication records were invalid and void, as to form.
5. Establishing publicly accessible, valid procedures for certification by counsel of his/her authorization as counsel of record for parties, on behalf of whom such counsel appeared in court.
Certification of counsel’s authority as counsel of record was left vague and ambiguous, permitting unauthorized appearances in the courts.
6. Validation of electronic administrative systems of the courts.
Validation of such systems had to be undertaken prior to their installation, in a manner that was legally and publicly accountable – e.g. through agencies that were accountable to the legislative branch. Such validation had to be based on certified, functional logic verification [[viii]] in all stages of from development, through implementation, to any modifications and ongoing security. [[ix]]
Inherent in the validation of the system was also the requirement that all unpublished Local Rules of Court, which were today embedded in specification and implementation of the systems, be explicitly pre-published in natural language for public comment and challenge, as required by the Rulemaking Enabling Act. [[x]]
Similar problems were previously identified in the implementation of electronic voting machines, and the US government was yet to adequately address the issue, despite ongoing protests. [[xi], [xii]]
7. Establishing an enhanced level of transparency in the electronic administrative systems of the courts.
Enhanced transparency was required to permit ongoing effective public monitoring of the systems.
The request was copied to Congressman Barney Frank, Chair - House Financial Services Committee, Senator Christopher Dodd, Chair - Senate Banking Committee, Senator Carl Levin, Chair - Senate Investigations Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Basel Accords Committee (on international banking), various national central banks, and the United Nations Human Rights Council - Working Group on the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES?
* "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations."
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
WHAT DID THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
* "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
[i] 10-12-04 RE: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE - Request for Investigation, Impeachment Proceedings where appropriate
[ii] The Calendars and the Clerks of the US Courts – pending
[iii] SEC v Bank of America Corporation – pretense litigation and pretense banking regulation in the United States – pending
[iv] Case management and online public access systems of the US courts – pending
[v] Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
[vi] Zernik, J: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010)
[vii] Zernik, J: Calendars and the Clerks of the US Courts – pending
[viii] Coenen, F: Verification and Validation Issues in Expert and Database Systems: The Expert Systems Perspective, dexa, pp.16, 9th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'98), (1998)
[ix] Codd, EF: The relational model for database management: version 2, ACM Classic Books Series, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc (1990)
[x] Robling Denning, D E: Cryptography and data security , Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc (1982)
[xi] Voting Machines Report: Malfunction and Malfeasance, report by Common Cause (undated)
[xii] April 19, 2010 letter by Brennan Center for Justice letter in re: Unprecleared voting machines