Prof Erwin Chemerinsky is asked to take a stand in view of widespread corruption of the US courts
The validity, integrity, and transparency of court records are at the foundation of Fair Hearing/Due Process and the Human, Constructional, and Civil Rights of the People. Widespread corruption of the US courts is key to the disintegration of socio-economic development and civil society in the United States under our watch.
Los Angeles, February 26 - following last week's letter by over 100 law professors, renowned civic leader and constitutional scholar Prof Erwin Chemerinsky has been asked by Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) to take a public stand in view of widespread corruption of the US courts.  Prof Chemerinsky is the Dean of the Irvine School of Law, University of California.
In his letter, Dr Zernik noted Prof Chemerinsky's admirable courage in standing up to the corrupt Los Angeles County justice system in the aftermath of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), and Prof Chemerinsky's lifelong commitment as a civic leader in California and beyond.
Zernik asked Prof Chemerinsky to explain to the People specific conduct of the US courts, starting from California, where Prof Chemerinsky resides.
US District Court, Central District of California
The question pertained to conduct of US Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS and Clerk of the Court TERRY NAFISI in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al. Based on document examination and refusal of NAFISI to certify the records in the case, Dr Zernik opined that conduct of PHILLIPS and NAFISI in this case is Fraud, regardless of any ruling or legal opinions issued in the case:
* The first judgment in the case was issued by US Judge GEORGE SCHIAVELLI in 2006 in favor of the USA. It was listed in the Judgment Index of the Court. However, the Clerk NAFISI refuses to certify the 2006 judgment. Consequently, the case was listed as "closed". The 2006 judgment was never overturned through any judicial proceedings.
* Later, PHILLIPS appeared in the same case with no assignment order. In 2010 she issued in the same case a second, opposing judgment in favor of Log Cabin Republicans. The 2010 judgment was NOT listed in the Judgment Index of the Court. NAFISI refuses to certify the 2010 judgment as well.
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
The question pertained to conduct of Circuit Judges WILLIAM CANBY, JR and EDWARD LEAVY, as well as Clerk of the Court MOLLY DWYER in the appeal from Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al. Based on document examination and refusal of DWYER to certify the docket in the appeal, Dr Zernik has opined conduct of CANBY, LEAVY, and DWYER in this case as Fraud, regardless of any ruling or legal opinions that were issued in the case.
* The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is today running an appeal from the 2010, uncertified PHILLIPS judgment of the US District Court.
Decisions of CANBY and LEAVY appear in the docket unsigned and were served with no certificate of authentication/attestation by Clerk DWYER.
* The US Court of Appeals refuses to explain why it would not dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, the appeal from a void not voidable 2010 PHILLIPS judgment.
* Clerk DWYER refuses to certify the docket of the appeal in this case.
Supreme Court of the United State
The question pertained to conduct of Clerk of the Court WILLIAM SUTER relative to notice and service and public access to court records. Based on review of the conduct of SUTER in multiple cases, regardless of any ruling or legal opinions in such cases, Dr Zernik opined SUTER's conduct as Fraud.
* SUTER routinely issues notices of denial of petitions and applications in cases pertaining to civil rights, where the notices are unsigned, or signed in a false and deliberately misleading manner.
* The notices are never accompanied by service of any form of judicial record of the denials.
* Multiple attempts to access the paper court files have failed to discover any judicial record of the denials.
* Multiple attempt to access the electronic court records have been denied.
SUTER has refused to explain, in which form, or where, the Supreme Court of the United States maintains its records.
* The United Nations Crime Prevention Center Report (2001) lists "missing court records" as a cardinal sign of judicial corruption.
US legal scholars can make a difference regarding widespread corruption of the courts.
Dr Zernik noted the key role that legal scholars could take in restoring the integrity of the US justice system:
Previous public statements by Prof ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, by Prof DAVID BURCHAM, and by Prof LAURENCE TRIBE (linked below), are admired, but they have been few and far between. Moreover, they only addressed conditions in the state courts.
Last week's public statement by over 100 law professors (linked below), regarding conditions in the Supreme Court of the United States, is admirable. However, it was remarkably subtle in view of the widespread corruption of the US courts.
Dr Zernik claims that conditions in the US courts are unprecedented, for at least a century, when the US courts were described in the US Congress as a "burlesque".
Dr Zernik also claims that fraud in the design and operation of the computer systems of the US courts is key to enabling the corruption. Prof Chemerinsky previously claimed that as a constitutional scholar, he had no expertise in court administration. However, Dr Zernik notes "there is no doubt that the validity, integrity, and transparency of court records are at the foundation of Fair Hearing/Due Process and the Human, Constructional, and Civil Rights of the People. Widespread corruption of the US courts is key to the disintegration of socio-economic development and civil society in the United States under our watch."
 11-02-26 Letter to Prof Erwin Chemerinsky regarding widespread corruption of the US courts
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. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
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 EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?* "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California." United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS 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 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?
* "More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning "mandatory and enforceable" ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by "recent media reports," the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others."More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (2010)