Request Filed to Inspect and to Copy US Supreme Court Electronic Records
The outcome of petitions and applications by individuals against government or corporation remained vague and ambiguous. The Office of the Clerk sent invalid letters, as notices of "denial", while no judicial records were found in the paper court files as valid foundation for such letter. So far, no public access was permitted to the judicial records in the electronic case management of the US Supreme Court.
Los Angeles, January 18 – George McDermott of the People of the State of Maryland has filed request with the office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, to inspect and to copy paper and electronic court records. [[i]] The request pertained to applications and petitions by individuals in cases against government or corporations.
In some of the cases letters have been previously received by the individuals from the office of the Clerk of the Court, which purported to notice the denial of the petitions or applications. However, the letters were issued by unauthorized court personnel, in other cases were unsigned, or included invalid signature boxes. Therefore, the outcome of such cases of the Supreme Court remained vague and ambiguous. [[ii],[iii],[iv]]
In some of the cases, attempts have also been made to access the court’s paper files, to inspect and to copy. In cases, where access was permitted, no valid judicial records of court orders or decisions were found as the legal foundation for the denial letters.
Therefore, it was assumed, that if any valid judicial records existed in such cases, they would be found in the electronic case management system of the Supreme Court. However, like all other courts, which were examined, the Supreme Court of the United States has never published Rules of Court to establish its electronic case management procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights and the Rule Making Enabling Act.
Moreover, so far the public has not been permitted access to the records in the electronic case management system of the US Supreme Court, in alleged violation of First Amendment rights.
In part, McDermott’s request states:
The public at large and computing professionals, in particular, must assume their civic duties in ongoing monitoring the integrity of electronic court records. The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court said that the right was necessary for the public "to keep a watchful eye on government". Today, the public must keep a watchful eye particularly on electronic court records. No other measures could substitute for public scrutiny of court records in safeguarding the integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) has previously identified the offices of the clerks of the US courts and their electronic case management systems as key to conditions that now prevail in the courts and called upon the US Congress to perform its duties and initiate corrective actions:
· Restoring key provisions of the Salary Act of 1919 the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General:
At the time, conditions in the US courts were described in the US Congress as "a burlesque", and the Salary Act was credited as a key measure in restoring the US courts integrity. It replaced the clerks as checks and balances vis a vis judicial corruption, which was the reason for existence of the clerks since the late middle ages.
By the mid 20th century the clerks were again placed under the authority of the judiciary.
· Enactment of federal rules for electronic court records:
The evidence shows that the clerks of the US courts today do not deem themselves accountable for the integrity of electronic court records of both the case management systems of the courts and the online public access systems. The systems were implemented over the past two decades in the federal courts. In the process, a sea change was introduced in court procedures, which had been established for centuries, and were the core of Due Process. However, all courts that were examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to their new electronic procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights. Moreover, all the courts that were examined deny public access to various records in the electronic case management systems in alleged violation of First Amendment rights.
Therefore, the US Congress should perform its duties and establish the systems by law.
Implicit in such law should be the requirement for publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems prior to their implementation.
[i] 11-01-18 McDermott's Request to access US Supreme Court records to inspect and to copy:
[ii] 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleging Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights, In re: Fine v Sheriff (09-A827):
[iii] 10-08-01 Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Felonies at the office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, in re: Fine v Baca (09-A827):
[iv] 10-11-25 William Suter - Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States - Evidence of Public Corruption:
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.
|Liveleak on Facebook|