Ruby Krajic, Clerk of the US Court by Joseph Zernik
The Data Analytics paper details how a. SEC, headed by Mary Schaprio, b. Bank of America, headed by Brian Moynihan c. Judge Jed Rakoff, US District Court, Southern District of New York, and d. Ruby Krajick, Clerk of the Court colluded in fraud on the People in the litigation of Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation to exonerate banking executives, who unlawfully took USD 5.8 billion. The paper focuses on the features of the electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF, which enable such fraud in the US courts from coast to coast. The paper claims that the large-scale fraud in the US courts amounts to unannounced regime change in the United States.
Barcelona, September 25 - a paper, detailing large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the US courts (PACER and CM/ECF), and focusing in particular on the employment of such fraud to undermine banking regulation, has been published by an international computer science journal, Data Analytics, following rigorous, anonymous peer-review by international computer-science academic scholars.
The US government has completed a decade-long project of transition to electronic administration of the US courts at a cost that is estimated at several billion US dollars. Record keeping under paper administration of the courts has evolved over centuries and formed the core of due process and fair hearing. The transition to electronic administration of the courts affected a sea change in such court procedures.
Two systems were implemented in the US district courts and US courts of appeals:
- PACER -- for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, and
- CM/ECF -- for Case Management and Electronic Court Filing.
Fraud in the state and US courts has been increasingly recognized as a key part of the current financial crisis. A legal expert opined, "" it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history" I can't think of one where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." (Reuters) Concern has also been repeatedly voiced with the ineffectiveness of US banking regulation.
Under such circumstances, the Data Analytics paper inspects the information systems, implemented by the US courts, and their implications in the litigation of a landmark case under the current financial crisis, Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829).
In this case, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) purportedly prosecuted Bank of America Corporation in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, for violations of securities laws, related to the unlawful taking by executives of $5.8 billion. Financial analysts described the underlying matter as a "criminal conspiracy' and "bigger than Watergate?'. Eventually, the outcome of the litigation was that pursuant to the final Settlement Agreement, compensation in the sum of $150 million was paid by the shareholders to themselves. No funds were returned by any of the perpetrators, and none of the perpetrators was held accountable for their unlawful conduct.
Based on data mining in this unique target area, the paper claims that instead of enhancing integrity and transparency of the courts, the electronic record systems have enabled unprecedented, widespread corruption in the US courts. The paper also calls for action by computing experts in general and data mining experts in particular for the safeguard of Human Rights and integrity of governments in the Digital Era.The paper defines critical defects in the electronic record systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF:
The outcome of such conditions, is that the public is unable to distinguish between valid and void court records. With it, the electronic record systems of the US courts enable the courts to conduct of simulated litigation, otherwise known as "Fraud on the Court".
Regarding Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829), the paper documents:
- Denial of public access to critical court records -- summons, authentication records, contradicting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ;
- Failure to issue and execute service of summons at the onset of the litigation, instead only an invalid summons was issued;