10-05-02 Repeat Request for Harvard Yale Deans Opinions Re Large Scale Fraud in Us Courts

Publish in

Finance

78 views

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
Human Rights Alert PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert SATURDAY, MAY 1, 2010 10-05-02 Repeat Request for Opinions by Harvard, Yale Deans re: Large-scale Fraud in US Courts Computers Harvard Law Dean - Prof Martha Minow; Yale Law Dean - Prof Robert Post Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:02 +0300 To: robert.c.post@yale.edu, minow@law.harvard.edu From: joseph zern
Tags
Transcript
    Human Rights Alert  PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net   Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/   Scribd:  http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert   SATURDAY, MAY 1, 2010 10-05-02 Repeat Request for Opinions by Harvard, Yale Deans re:Large-scale Fraud in US Courts Computers Harvard Law Dean - Prof Martha Minow; Yale Law Dean - Prof Robert Post Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:02 +0300To: robert.c.post@yale.edu, minow@law.harvard.eduFrom: joseph zernik Subject: Repeat request for opinions by Deans of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School in re: Alleged large-scale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and case management systems of the UnitedStates courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively. Prof Martha L MinowDean, Harvard Law SchoolBy ermailminow@law.harvard.edu  Prof Robert C PostDean, Yale Law SchoolBy email robert.c.post@yale.edu RE: Repeat request for opinions by Deans of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School in re:Alleged large-scale fraud in the design and operation of the online public access and casemanagement systems of the United States courts - PACER and CM/ECF, respectively. Dear Prof Minow and Prof Post:   Page 2/8 May 2, 2010 I write to repeat the request for opinions regarding alleged large scale fraud in the design and operationof the online public access and case management systems of the United States courts - PACER andCM/ECF, respectively. [1] Please also notice, attached below, a news article and comments fromthe  ABA Journal  in re: Kids for Cash in Luzerne County, PA vs Los Angeles County,CA.   [2] Please also notice the opinions of two California law school deans quoted among thecomments. The ongoing large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, provide aclear example of the profound harm to the rights of all in the US from the alleged fraud in PACER andCM/ECF. The case of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) itself, came for review before the US DistrictCourt, Central District of California under US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769). The outcome of thatlitigation was the June 2001 Consent Decree, which served as the purported legal foundation for theoffice of Overseer of Civil Rights (2001-2009) in Los Angeles. However, the Consent Decree itself isalleged as typical product of the fraud in PACER and CM/ECF. It appears as a valid court record inPACER, but it is alleged that it was never truly entered and authenticated. Furthermore, the US DistrictCourt, Central District of California, now denies access to the records of the case with no explanation atall. Key provisions of the Consent Decree were later never enforced. Such Consent Decree is alleged asvoid, not voidable court record, which was deemed as void by the Court, but posed in PACER as a falseand deliberately misleading record.I hope that this additional information would move you to reconsider the request for opinions. Thealleged fraud in PACER and CM/ECF in its essence is simple: [1] All authentication records wereuniversally removed from PACER - the online public access system, and US District Courts and USCourts of Appeals across the country are denying public access to such court records - NEFs at the USDistrict Courts, and NDAs at the US Courts of Appeals. Access to the authentication records is nowpermitted only to attorneys authorized in a given case. In parallel - the US District Courts and USCourts of Appeals have been publishing in PACER a large volume of void, not voidable, false anddeliberately misleading minutes, orders, judgments, and mandates, with no valid authentication at all.However, the public is unable to discern such false and deliberately misleading court records from thosethat truly required full faith and credit , since the public is unable to view the authentication records.You are again called upon to reconsider your duties to the public at large, to review the evidence, [1] andto issue opinions on this critical matter, which pertains to the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all who reside in the US.   Truly,Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO   Page 3/8 May 2, 2010 http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert  CC: 1) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - Founding Dean, University of California Irvine Law School2) Prof David Burcham - Former Dean, Los Angeles Loyola Law School3) Law School faculty 4) UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. LINKS/ ATTACHMENTS: [1]Solicitation of Expert Opinions regarding alleged fraud in the online public access (PACER) and casemanagementsystem (CM/ECF) of the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. ã http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-managementsystem - of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s ã http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-casemanagement -system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine ã http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-Casemanagement -system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s [2]   Kids for Cash in Luzerne County, PA vs Los Angeles County, CA. JUDICIARY  Ex-Judge to Plead Guilty in Kids-for-Cash Scandal; Is He ‘Singing Like a Bird’?   Posted Apr 30, 2010 8:09 AM CDTBy Debra Cassens Weiss   ã Email  ã Print  ã Reprints  ã Former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan has agreed to plead guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy in the$2.8 million “kids for cash” scandal.Conahan faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when he is sentenced, according totheLegal Intelligencerand the Associated Press. The agreement does not include a minimum sentence; instead it   Page 4/8 May 2, 2010 specifies the penalty will be “determined by the court.” According to the Intelligencer, “The sentiment from several sources upon reviewing the plea deal was: ‘He must besinging like a bird.’ ” The sources said Conahan essentially ran the county and will be expected to name lawyers or othersin the alleged conspiracy.Conahan and another judge, Mark Ciavarella Jr., were accused of accepting kickbacks in exchange for jailing juveniles ina private detention facility. A federal judgerejected a plea deallast year that called for sentences of 87 months in prison,saying the defendants had not accepted responsibility for their wrongdoing.Ciavarella’s lawyer, Al Flora Jr., told AP that his client maintains his innocence. ''He's going to trial,'' Flora said.   Related Topics Criminal Justice,Juvenile Justice, White Collar Crime,Judiciary ,Legal Ethics   COMMENTS 1.B. McLeod  Apr 30, 2010 8:27 AM CDTIf so, I hope he knows “The Olde Triangle.” That could come in pretty handy for the next few years or so.2.John M  Apr 30, 2010 9:39 AM CDTMoon River would probably be more useful.3.Plea Deal  Apr 30, 2010 10:19 AM CDTHe pleas down from 48 counts to 1 count, when the feds had him clean on every issue? Nice to be connected.4.Houman  Apr 30, 2010 11:25 AM CDTHow did he manage to strike a deal that would put him out on the street again someday? What lawyer could suppressthe thought that every day these men walk free is a disgrace to the profession?5.John M  Apr 30, 2010 11:30 AM CDT Which lawyer? The defendant or the prosecutor? In the former, the lawyer’s obligation is to his client, not to the larger
Related Search
Related Documents
Request for Proposal
Sep 23, 2017

Request for Proposal

View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks