08-06-10 Beyond Voting Machines - Computers & the Courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior...

8/9/2019 08-06-10 Beyond Voting Machines - Computers & the Courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Ab

1/26

-1-

Rapid Communication

BEYOND VOTING MACHINES CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Public-policy concerns based on review of a courts central computer systemJoseph Zernik, Los Angeles

Voting machines focused the computing communitys attention on its critical duty in the

safeguard of democratic institutions in the transition to a digital society. Here we review,

possibly for the first time ever, a Case Management System (CMS ), which is the

cornerstone of any court today . Sustain , the Los Angeles Superior Courts CMS, introduced

in the early 1980s, and based on dBase or one of its derivatives, today reveals a system that

combined with human neglect and abuse, contributes to the production of contradictory,

false and misleading records, that are deliberately hidden from the public, under the claim of

privileged status 1. Circumstantial evidence also strongly suggests that such records from

Sustain are directly available to the California Court of Appeal without the knowledge or

notice to the parties involved 2. Our analysis is based on limited records since Sustain

records are typically not accessible to the public (in what appears as defiance of CRC 2.500

et seq ), and mostly explored internal inconsistencies and incompleteness of the records

among various paper and electronic sources:

1) Minute Orders - are written by the judge after each proceeding in open court orchamber, and the clerk is required to have them mailed to each party and entered into the

court file; with Clerks Certificate of Mailing and Entry, bearing his/her hand signature, all

on same day as the proceeding.

2) Case History - a report, which in Los Angeles Superior Court also serves as Register of

Actions - the definitive formal concise record of all transactions in a given court case, and

together with Indexes of All Cases one of the two primary documents that allow oversight

of the integrity of the courts.

Our findings can be summarized as follows:a. Inherently Invalid Data Entries - Case History report listed documents as filed on dates

that were at times years prior to the date of filing of the claims - the start point of the

case ( Fig 1 ). Such obviously invalid data entirely undermined the validity and

reliability of the record as a whole. Additional data provided conclusive evidence that


2/26


3/26

-3-

proceedings were marked in electronic records as Proceedings not recorded and then

indeed were missing from the paper file.

f. Critical legal records that fail to comply with any standard at all - In one extreme case, a

judge who was requested to disqualify for a cause (- served with a Statement of

Prejudice) responded with a combination of a Strike and Answer (a combination that isnot allowed per Judges Bench Guide of the California Judicial Council ), later than the

10 days allowed by law (CCP 170.3), back-dated it 11 days - to day 1, then added an

improvised judges certificate of mailing for self (not allowed), addressed to one party

only (not allowed), unsigned (unverified), never mailed out at all, and yet entered into

the electronic record, but not the paper/public record.

The operation of such CMSs as Sustain puts at peril any notion of Due Process - a basic

right, presumably guaranteed by the 1 st, 5 th and 14 th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The next generation of such systems must distill and mimic the essence of some older court

traditions. On his own, neither a Clerk, nor a Judge, could mail the minutes out. The Judge

could rule, order, adjudicate, but had to rely on the Clerk, who had the sole authority to

incorporate such pronouncements into the formal records and thus make them actions. 3 No

such segregation of authorities appears to have been implemented in Sustain. A new

generation of such systems, introduced under public comment and challenge (pursuant to the

Rule-Making Enabling Act, which was entirely defied in setting up Sustain, on more aspect

than one) must help enforce the safeguard of court records that are coherent, consistent and

transparent, in all respects, including exact timing of "birth" (at the bench or in chambers)

true time and form at entry (by the Clerk), with adequate due notice and service to parties,

after which further read/write actions by any party must not be allowed. This is not the case

with Sustain.--and other systems currently in use 4. Contemporary encryption, protection,

transactionhandling, and security methods, can provably implement such procedures at

very low cost [at least if 99.9999 ...% security is acceptable]. Supported by re-indoctrination

of court personnel regarding their duties to the public at large a CMS could be a guardian

of Due Process. Yet, full transparency of Public Records is possibly the most cost/effectivelong-term security measure. Sustain must be an extreme a data entry and a legal deposit

system with what appears like effectively no quality assurance measures whatsoever.

Sustain, the CMS reviewed in here, allows the generation and propagation of court records

of quality that is far removed from any standard that would reasonably support Due Process

of the Law.


4/26

-4-

WORD COUNT: 1224

NOTES:

1 This short communication is not intended as a legal review. The basis for opencourt records is a common law right to inspect and copy public records anddocuments, including judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589 (1978). Recently reviewed in: Public Accessto Electronic Court Records and Competing Privacy Interests , Susan Larson,Judgelink June 6, 2008. < http://a2j.kentlaw.edu/Insights/2001/E-Records/ >

2 The result could be an absurd where Appellant/Petitioners brief is based on onerecord, and the review is based on another, materially different record, that theappellant/petitioner was never even privy to, and 100% of trial court decisions areupheld.

3 CCP 167 provides: " Any act required or permitted to be performed by the clerk of a court maybe performed by a judge thereof ." A judge can perform all acts performed by a clerk, butneither a clerk nor a judge is allowed to execute proof of service for self.

4 Some exposure to C|C the California Court of Appeal CMS, and Pacer theFederal CMS. Pacer is by far superior, albeit, they all reflect a combination wherethe operators are equally important. As a rule of thumb, any CMS which presentsa Register of Actions to the public that is different than that used by the courtshould be held suspect, and same for any CMS that presents a Docket, orRegister of Actions where entries are not enumerated. Pacers transparency isadmirable, e.g. operators are required to enter initials with their comments. Theopen record and visible and identifiable signature are critical for instillingrecognition of accountability. Notice and Service are largely automated throughemail, an example how technology improved Due Process, but Pacer at presentharshly discriminates against the Pro Se party, exposing him/her to multiple levelsof human bias in filing and entry that the licensed attorney, much better equippedfor such encounters is entirely spared.

KEY WORDS:Amendment, 14thAmendment, 5 th
http://a2j.kentlaw.edu/Insights/2001/E-Records/http://a2j.kentlaw.edu/Insights/2001/E-Records/


5/26

-5-

AnswerCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure 170.3California Rules of Courts 2.500 et seqCase HistoryCase Management SystemClerk

Clerks Certification of Mailing and Notice of EntryCMSComputersConstitution, United StatesDisqualification for a CauseIndexes of All CasesJudgeLos Angeles Superior CourtMinute Order

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589 (1978)Notice Public RecordQuality AssuranceRegister of ActionsRulemaking Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. 2071 - 2077 SecurityServiceSignatureStrikeSustainVoting Machines

END


6/26

FIGURE 1 a

Digitally signed by JosZernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernikemail=jz12345@earthnet, c=USDate: 2008.06.08 02:0-07'00'


7/26

S a n t a Monica - West D i s t r i c t - C i v i l D i v i s i o n- - P r e s s : t o e x i t o r t o p r i n t o r An y ' S c r o l l ' key t o Vlew - -

S a n t a Monica - West D i s t r i c tC i v i l D i v i s i o n

Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK :::::

C A S E H I S T O R Y

Date

IS SIGNEDJUDGE

BY: JACQUELINE

A c t i v i t y

A . CONNOR

07 /24 /04 Document F i l e dO p p o s i t i o nRea l P a r t i e s i n I n t e r e s t

l\ilEMO

- - P r e s s :S a n t a Monica - West D i s t r i c t - C i v i l D i v i s i o n

t o e x i t o r t o p r i n t o r An y ' S c r o l l '

S a n t a Monica - West D i s t r i c tC i v i l D i v i s i o n

key t o view - -

Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

C A S E H I S T O R Y

Date

IS SIGNEDJUDGE

BY: JACQUELINE

A c t i v i t y

A. CONNOR

07 /24 /04 Document F i l e dO p p o s i t i o nRea l P a r t i e s i n I n t e r e s t

MEMO

FIGURE 1 b- AUDIT FILE DATA


8/26

S a n t a Monica - West D i s t r i c t - C i v i l D i v i s i o n- - P r e s s : t o e x i t o r t o p r i n t o r An y ' S c r o l l ' key t o view - -

( BY COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS)

07 /24 /04 Document F i l e dO p p o s i t i o n

A t t o r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f

l\lEMO

TO DEFT'S EX PARTE APPL TO MOVETHE HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FORLEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

01 /17 /05 Document F i l e dO p p o s i t i o n P o i n t s & A u t h o r i t i e sA t t o r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f

MEMO

IN OPPOSITONCOMPLAINT

TO DEMURRER TO

SUSTAIN PAGE 4

Notice the designation of Countrywideas Real Parties in Interest, at a timethat the court pronounced that anysuch claim by Defendant is"conspirace theory."Why did Judge Connor decide toprominently post on 7/24/07 thisnotice on page one of case history?A most plausible explanation is thaton that week she was leaving onsummer vaction, and she wanted tomake sure that any other judgehearing the case in her absence isaware of the special status of thiscase - relative to Countrywide...

JZ 1/16/08


9/26

M E M 0TO DEFT'S EX PARTE APPL TO MOVETHE HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FORLEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

San ta Monica - West D i s t r i c t - C i v i l D i v i s i o nC087400 CV NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

D O C U M E N Toc Type : O p p o s i t i o na t e F i l e d : 7 /24 /04i l e d By : A t t o r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f

oc S t a t u s A c t i o n Date :

Ad d Change ! D e l e t e P r i n t Audi t Tex t Xref p a r t y lA U D I T

Date Time F u n c t i o n User Id User Name7 /24 /07 8:36 am ADD 6815 Ja ime , Viv ian

SUSTAIN PAGE 5

The notice itself was posted on 7/24/07, but if allowed to staythat way, it would not show up on page #1.The notice is back-date to 7/24/04, a nonsensical daterelativet to this litigation. Such a date should never have been

allowed by software that is safe and secure.Such a date ensures that the notice will appear on page #1.JZ 1/16/08


10/26

FIGURE 1 - SUSTAIN CASE HISTORY REPORT, p1 Electronic court file records .

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Digitally signed by JosZernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernikemail=jz12345@earthnet, c=USDate: 2008.06.07 21:4-07'00'


11/26

.

FIGURE 1: CASE HISTORY from Sustain

This report serves also as the formal definitive record of the case - "Register of Actions".1. Notice that this case was initiated on 10/25/05,therefore, the listing of documents filed in 2004 or 2000is clearly invalid.2. Notice at upper right corner:

"Disposed: 00/00/00"

lectronic court file records - Case History- Sustain .


12/26

/ \ '2v . \ ~) J ' ~ ~

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

A IE 0 5 / 1 4 / 0 7 OEPT. WEI

O;\iORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR lL"DGEII V. JAIME DEPCTY CLERK

ONORABLE

#12B. VARGAS CA

l lDGE PRO TL\1

Deputy Sheriffll L. McKENZIE

ELECTRO\"[C RECORDI:'JG YlOr\ ITOR

CSR#5567 Reponef

8:30 amjsc087400I

NIVIE SAMAANVSJOSEPH ZERNIK

PlaintIffCounsel

DeknJant

Counsel

PAUL NESBITT

MOIRA K. HUMMEL

(X)

(XO

CCP 170 .6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

NATURE OF PROCEEDlNGS:

DEFENDANT'S (JOSEPHA MOTION TO SHORTENRECONSIDERATION;

ZERNIK) EX PARTETIME FOR HEARING

APPLICATION FOROF MOTION FOR

The C o u r t r e a d s and c o n s i d e r sO p p o s i t i o n o f f t h e r e c o r d .

t h e Moving P a p e r s and

D e f e n d a n t ' s ex p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n i s DENIED.

Counse l f o r P l a i n t i f f i s o r d e r e d t o g i v e n o t i c e .

MINUTES ENTERED-

Page 1 o f 1 DEPT. WEI 05 /14 /07COUNTY CLERK

COURT FILE - SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) - COPY PROVIDED BY CLERK'S OFFICEVOLUME I

PAGE 44

EXHITBIT APPENDIX

MOTION FOR RECOSNSIDERATIONVOL I: MINUTES AND ORDERS FROMPAPER COURT FILE PAGE 44

FIGURE 2a - RECONSIDERATION May 14, 2007 Paper court file records .

(5)

(6)

(7)


13/26

EXHIBITS APPENDIXMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENTVOLUME II: MINUTE ORDERS FROM SUSTAIN

PAGE 37

FIGURE 2 b - RECONSIDERATION May 14, 2007

Electronic court file records .

( 6 )

(8)


14/26

FIGURE 2: 5/14/07 MINUTE ORDER-RECONSIDRATION OF ORDER IMPOSINGSANCTIONS

1a: Minute Order from paper court fileRequest is denied, sanctions remain intact.

1b: Minute Order from electronic court fileRequest is GRANTED, sanctions are eliminated..Minute Order is secretly invalidated


15/26

SOCOACO

M

NM

LT

CXNVJN

C

CD

NOP

DKN

I

OS

M

'Crr

At

DOcPsP

-


PAGE 6

EXHITBIT APPENDIX

MOTION FOR RECOSNSIDERATIONVOL I: MINUTES AND ORDERS FROM

PAPER COURT FILE PAGE 6

FIGURE 3a - RECORD OF DEMURRER, JAN 30, 2006, p1-3 Paper court file records .

(10)

(11)


16/26

SOA

M

M

LTC

CXNVJN

C

CD

NO

antDiPd

FsdwddtwaKCAcctck

-


PAGE 7

EXHITBIT APPENDIX



l

(12)

(13)


17/26


18/26



PAGE 7

IGURE 3b - RECORD OF DEMURRER, JAN 30, 2006, p1-3lectronic court file records - Minute Order retrieved from memory

(15)

(16)


19/26


20/26



PAGE 9

iii.

18


21/26

C A S E H I S T O R Y R E P 0 R T

Santa Monica - West D i s t r i c tCi v i l Di vi s ian

~ Case Number: SC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK

C A S E H I S T O R YDate A c t i v i t y

demur re r f o r u n c e r t a i n t y w i l l be s u s t a i n e d o n l ywhere t h e c o m p l a i n t i s so p o o r l y d r a f t e d t h a t th ed e f e n d a n t canno t r e a s o n a b l y r e spond . Thus ,demur re r s f o r u n c e r t a i n t y w i l l be o v e r r u l e d wheret h e f a c t s a l l e g e d i n th e c o m p l a i n t a r e p r e s u m p t i v e l yw i t h i n t h e knowledge o f t h e demur r ing p a r t y o ra s c e r t a i n a b l e by i nvok ing d i s c o v e r y p r o c e d u r e s .Khoury v. M a l y ' s o f C a l i f . , I n c . (1993) 14C a l . A p p . 4 t h 612, 616. Here , th e wrongfu l a c t scompla ined o f a r e n o t so vague such t h a t Defendan tcanno t r e a s o n a b l y r e spond , e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t o fth e f a c t t h a t Defendan t i s an a l l e g e d p a r t y t o t h ec o n t r a c t sough t t o be e n f o r c e d and presumab ly hasknowledge o f t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e i n s t a n td i s p u t e . Accord ing ly, th e demur re r i s o v e r r u l e d .

O r d e r t o Show Cause and I n i t i a l S t a t u sa r e h e l d and d i s c h a r g e d .

Confe rence

Counse l r e p r e s e n t s t o th e Cour t t h a tCompla in t w i l l be f i l e d t h i s week.

a C r o s s -

Case Management Confe rencea t 8 :30 a .m. i n Depar tmen t

i s s e tWE"I".

f o r A p r i l 6, 2006

N o t i c e i s waived.

2)3)

osci RE: POSINITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

0 1 / 3 0 / 0 6 E v e n t Comple teDemurrerMotion Gran ted

MEMO

2)3)

osci RE: POSINITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

AGE: 9 04 /30 /08 15 :28 :50

EXHIBIT APPENDIX

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

MOTION TO DESIGNATE LASC PRIMARY RESPONDENT

VOL III: LITIGATION RODRSIN SUSTAIN.

PAGE 11

i.

ii

iii.

FIGURE 3c - RECORD OF DEMURRER, JAN 30, 2006

lectronic court file records - Case History .

19


22/26

FIGURE 3: HEARING ON DEFENDANT'SDEMURRER, Jan 30, 2006

Demurrer is heard at the start of litigation, and if granted, the complaint is dismissed. Therefore, it hasdecisive impact on the case as a whole.

Fig 3a: Minute Order, from paper court filei. Demurrer is overruled.

ii. Date of the record on page 3 is 1/30/06

Fig 3b: Minute Order, retrieved from memory - Sustaini. Demurrer is overruled.ii. Date of the record on page 3 is 00/00/00The electronic record shows that the "Demurreroverruled" was invalidated.

Fig 3c: Case History, retrieved from Sustaini. Demurrer is overruled.ii. Notice to parties is waivediii. Demurrer is "GRANTED"


23/26

SOOAOA

EGM

RR

CN

DVC

J

NO

1

PMWHgtCmM

(

CoCat

Cod

Trammc

'


PAGE 2

EXHITBIT APPENDIX



FIGURE 4a - NOV 1, 2005 MINUTE ORDER -REASSIGNMENT TO A JUDGE. p1-2

Paper court file records .

(20)

(22)

(21)


24/26

SOAO

DC

NM

R

CN

DV

J

NOP

aas1dioft

D~.---~

B

J1sL


PAGE 3

EXHITBIT APPENDIX



(22)

(23)


25/26



PAGE 5

FIGURE 4b - NOV 1, 2005 MINUTE ORDER -REASSIGNMENT TO A JUDGE. p1-2Electronic court file records - retrieved from Sustain memory.

(24)

(25)


26/26

EXHIBITS APPENDIX

(26)

08-06-10 Beyond Voting Machines - Computers & the Courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior...

Documents

Transcript of 08-06-10 Beyond Voting Machines - Computers & the Courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior...