UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Scott Huminski, )
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
v. )
)
Hon. Nancy Corsones, et al, ) Case No.1:99-cv-160
Defendants. )

Ex Parte Application by Pro Se Filer Joseph Zernik, of the People of The State Of
California, for Leave to File a Paper as Party In Interest.

NOW COMES, Joseph Zernik (“Zernik”), Pro Se Filer, of the people of the State of California
and files instant Ex Parte Application for a leave to file the attached paper:
Request by Pro Se Filer Zernik for the US District Court, Vermont, to Cease Issuing on
Pro Se Plaintiff Huminski Sham Orders - Bearing Dishonest, Invalid, Ineffectual NEFs
(Notices of Electronic Filings).

Pro Se Filer Zernik holds himself Party in Interest in any litigation in the US Courts, where the
dual docketing systems of PACER & CM/ECF are employed to deceive and defraud his fellow
pro se filers, through what is defined and explained in the attached paper as “Kozinski Fraud”.
WHERFORE, Pro Se Filer Zernik requests the Honorable Court’s leave to file the attached
paper as Party in Interest.
Respectfully filed,
Dated at La Verne, California this 14th day of January, 2010.
Joseph Zernik
Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US
Location: La Verne, California
Date: 2010.01.14 11:36:31 -08'00'
By: _______________________
Joseph Zernik, Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd,
La Verne, California 91750
Fax: 801.998.0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

1/28
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Scott Huminski, )
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
v. )
)
Hon. Nancy Corsones, et al, ) Case No.1:99-cv-160
Defendants. )

Request by Pro Se Filer, Joseph Zernik, that the US District Court, Vermont, Cease
Issuing on Pro Se Plaintiff Huminski Sham Orders - Bearing No Valid and Effectual
NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings).

NOW COMES, Joseph Zernik (“Zernik”), Pro Se Filer, of the people of the State of California,
– requesting the Honorable Murtha and the US District Court, Vermont, to cease serving on his
fellow, Pro Se Plaintiff Huminski, sham orders - bearing dishonest, invalid, ineffectual NEFs
(Notices of Electronic Filings).

1. Court orders and rulings in cases involving Pro Se Plaintiff Scott Huminski
demonstrated deception on pro se filer.

Attached as Exhibit 1 to this request, are copies of two NEFs by the US District Court
Vermont, in Huminski v Corsones et al, alternatively - Huminski v Rutland Police Dept et al
(1:99-cv-00160). Zernik was informed and believed that such NEFs were served upon Pro Se
Plaintiff Huminski. Upon review, such NEFs failed to include any RSA-encrypted digital
stamp of the court. Therefore, such NEFs were deemed false and deliberately misleading.

Attached as Exhibit 2 to this request, is a copy of an order by US Court of Appeals, for the 2nd
District, in Huminski v Town of Bennington, Vermont (03-7036), issued in the name of circuit
judges, including then Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, today – Supreme Court Justice Sonia
Sotomayor. Zernik was informed and believed that such order was posted online by the court.
Upon review, such Order failed to include any signatures of the judges or the clerk.

2/28
Attempt was made to ascertain the facts in re: NEF for the order bearing the name of Supreme
Court Justice Sotomayor. Request was made to access court records – to inspect and to copy -
at the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. The request was explicitly made pursuant to US
Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). In such decision, the
US Supreme Court re-affirmed the common law right of any person to access court records – to
inspect and to copy. The US Supreme Court, in such decision, also found that such rights – to
access court records – to inspect and to copy – were inherent, in their various manifestations, to
the First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution. The request to
access court records was flatly denied by the office of the US Court of Appeals, for the 2nd
Circuit.

2. Court orders and rulings in cases involving jailed Pro Se Petitioner Richard Fine
demonstrated deception on pro se filer who was a prisoner.

Attached as Exhibit 3 to this request, is a copy of an order by US Court of Appeals, for the 9th
Circuit, in Fine v Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (09-71692), in the name of circuit
judges, including Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, for the 9th Circuit – Alex Kozinski.
Zernik was served with a copy of this order, with no signatures of the judges, and no NEF or
any other valid attestation by the clerk whatsoever. Zernik was informed and believed that also
jailed Pro Se Petitioner Richard Fine, was served with such order, likewise – unsigned and
lacking any valid NEF.

Zernik was also informed and believed that all orders and judgment of the US Court, Central
District of California, in Fine v Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914),
were likewise served with no honest, valid, and effectual NEFs at all.

Attempts were also made to access such court records – to inspect and to copy - at both the US
Court of Appeals, for 9th Circuit, and at the US Court, Central District of California. The
requests were explicitly made pursuant to US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978). The requests were denied by the offices clerks of both the US
Court of Appeals, for the 9th Circuit, and the US Court, Central District of California.

3/28
Attorney Richard Fine is a 70 year-old, former US prosecutor, former successful anti-trust
attorney in Los Angeles County, California, and anti-judicial corruption activist. Starting in
2001 he exposed and protested secret payments by Los Angeles County to all judges of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Such payments, amounting today to over
$45,000 per judge, per year (for some 250 judges and some 150 commissioners), have
continued for well over a decade. Richard Fine was also the first to compile data to show that
during such years, it became practically impossible to win a case against Los Angeles County
at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

In October 2008, such payments were ruled “not permitted”, by the California Court of Appeal,
for the 4th District.

On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed into law retroactive immunities/
pardons (Sbx2-11) for all California judges, who had taken “not permitted” payments. Such
law was passed with no debate on the California Senate floor, and with no referral to
committee, in violation of the California Senate rules. It was passed at the urging of the
California Judicial Council, and reflected concerns regarding liabilities, both civil and criminal
of all the judges who had taken the payments.

Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was arrested by the Sheriff’s
Department Warrant Detail. Fine was arrested in open court, at the end of appearance before
Judge David Yaffe, of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, albeit – with
no warrant, no conviction, and no sentencing to support the arrest and jailing. Richard Fine has
been held in solitary confinement under coerced hospitalization by the Sheriff’s Department of
Los Angeles County, ever since then, albeit – with no medical reason for the hospitalization.

Fine v Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) was the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus of Richard Fine to the US Court, Central District of California, and Fine v
Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County (09-71692), was the emergency petition of Richard
Fine to the US Court of Appeals, for the 9th Circuit, originating from the aforementioned
habeas corpus petition.

4/28
3. Concerns regarding the common issuance by US courts of orders and judgments lacking
honest, valid, and effectual NEFs, concomitant with concerted denial of access to NEFs.

Attached as Exhibit 4 to this request, is a copy of a short review by Zernik in re: NEFs in the
US courts. The review explained the significance of the NEFs as the essential instrument for
rendering US court papers, such as orders and judgments, as valid and effectual. Therefore,
orders and judgments that fail to bear honest, valid, and effectual NEFs were sham court papers
– dishonest, invalid, and ineffectual. The review also makes it clear, that the legal foundation
for this novel practice – of using the NEFs as attestations by the clerks - had no foundation in
the law. Neither had it any foundation in the local rules of courts, in any of the US district
courts or US courts of appeals, where Zernik reviewed the matter.

The concomitant denial of access to the NEFs, a concerted practice in US courts across the
country, also had no foundation in the law or in the local rules of courts in any of the districts.
Furthermore, it was viewed as defying the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978). Additional features were found in regards to the NEFs, such as
that the local courts can arbitrarily set a number of days, such as 30, or 60, after which, the
email notice of the NEF to authorized attorneys, would self destruct. There simply was no
reasonable explanation why honest courts would permit such feature in their docketing system.

4. Concerns regarding the general design and operation of PACER & CM/ECF, and a
proposed solution.

a. The U.S. courts have completed the development and installation of the dual docketing
systems, PACER & CM/ECF. Such installation amounted to a sea change in the rules of
operations of the courts. However, no legal foundation was provided for such changes.

b. The US courts in fact established, in an organized fashion, dual docketing systems,

which were separate and unequal, where the courts can segregate parties at will.

c. Those segregated into PACER (attorneys who were not authorized by the court for a
given case, and invariably all pro se filers and all prisoners who file petitions) were
unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records among the large volume of

5/28
 invalid and ineffectual records posted online by the courts, since they were denied
access to the NEFs.

d. Therefore, litigations were conducted under such conditions - where some parties, but
not others, were left in the dark relative to the validity and effect of any records posted
in the docket by the courts during litigations.

e. The solution: Publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of

case management systems at the courts - pursuant to the Rulemaking Enabling Act - 28
USC §2071-2077.

5. Kozinski Fraud Defined

A reasonable person, reviewing such conduct at the US courts across the country, would
conclude:

a. That there was no other purpose for judges to issue invalid, ineffectual orders and
judgments, unless such orders and judgment were meant as false and deliberately
misleading.

b. That there was no other purpose for clerks to serve such orders and judgments,
unless such orders and judgments were meant as false and deliberately misleading.

c. That there was no other purpose for the denial of access to NEFs, unless to conceal
the false and deliberately misleading nature of court orders and judgments.’

d. That through such conduct, the US courts deprived persons of liberty, property and
other fundamental Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

e. That such conduct at the US courts across the country represented the largest shell-
game fraud in the history of mankind.

In reference to the order issued in the name of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in Fine v Sheriff,
described above, such conduct was defined as “Kozinski Fraud”.

6/28
6. Concerns regarding resulting large-scale alleged deprivation of the Human Rights of the
people under the color of law, by the US judges and courts, in violation of ratified
International Law.

The conduct at the US courts across the country was likely to be found as serious deprivation of
the Human Rights of the people of the US, pursuant to ratified International Law, including,
but not limited the Human Rights to for: Liberty (Article #3); Security of Person (Article #3);
Equal Protection under the Law (Article #7); Effective National Tribunals for Effective
Remedy of Acts Violating Human Rights & Rights Granted by the Constitution of this Country
and its Amendments (Article #8); Not Be Subjected to Arbitrary Arrest (Article #9); and Fair
and Public Hearing by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal, in the Determination of our
Rights and Obligations and of any Criminal Charge against us (Article #10). Furthermore, such
conduct represented deprivation of the common law right to access court records – to inspect
and to copy.

Overall, such conduct by the US courts, we, the People of the US, were forced to fight for the
rights for honest habeas corpus petitions and the right to access court records – to inspect and
to copy. Those two rights were connected at the hips, and both were some of the oldest rights in
the English-speaking courts. Combined – they established Liberty by law – what the late Justice
Brandies saw as the greatest achievement of the English-speaking courts, and what the late
Justice Brennan called the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus, and a Cornerstone of the US
Constitution.

In short – through the implementation of PACER & CM/ECF, with no published rules of court
to provide the legal foundation for the practices associated with them, and with no public
opportunity for challenge or comment, the US Courts regressed into somewhere in the post-
medieval period.

7. Therefore, Pro Se Filer Zernik kindly requests that Deputy Clerk Kathleen Korstange,
and the US District Court, Brattleboro, Vermont, issue honest valid, and effectual NEFs
on instant paper, and on any motions pending before the Court in instant caption,
including, but not limited to motion for disqualification.

7/28
Either serve honest, valid, and effectual court papers, or don’t serve them at all.

Respectfully filed,
Dated at La Verne, California this 14th day of January 2010.
Joseph Zernik

By: _______________________
Joseph Zernik, Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd,
La Verne, California 91750
Fax: 801.998.0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

8/28
 Exhibit 1
9/28
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-01-11 Two NEFs received from Mr Scott Huminski

X-McAfee-Timeout-Protection: 1
X-MSK: 2BIG
X-Originating-IP: [68.99.238.28]
From: scott huminski <s_huminski@live.com>
To: <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: 2 NEFs
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:35:27 -0500
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2010 19:35:28.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[3AB95DF0:01CA92F5]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Here are 2 nefs. I probably have gotten them all along. --scott

NEF_zernik0001.pdf

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

10/28
CMIECF - u.s. District Court - Ve11110nt(UVE)-Display Receipt Page 1 of 1
U.S. District Court

District of Vermont

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 1/7/2010 at 3:57 PM EST and filed on 1/7/2010
Case Name: Huminski v. Rutland Police Dept, et al
Case Number: L9.9.:cv-0016Q:.igl]l
Filer:
WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 02/08/2007
Document Number: 336(No document attached)

Docket Text:
ORDER granting [330] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re [326] MOTION for First
Amendment Rule 60(b)(4) Relief. Dft Rutland Police Department response due 1/11/2010.
Signed by Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 1/7/2010. (This is a text only Order.) (kbl)

11/28
https://ccf.vtd.circ2.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayRcccipt.pl?357689567511197-L_435 __0-1 1/8/2010
CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LJVE)-Display Receipt Page 1 of 1
U.S. District Court

District of Vermont

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 1/7/2010 at 4:02 PM EST and filed on 1/7/2010
Case Name: Huminski v. Rutland Police Dept, et al
Case Number: L99-_~v...()()U:i()-jgJ11
Filer:
WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 02/08/2007
Document Number: 337(No document attached)

Docket Text:
ORDER granting [334] Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings re
[326] MOTION for First Amendment Rule 60(b){4) Relief. Defendant Rutland County's
response shall be filed on or before 2/3/2010. Signed by Judge J. Garvan Murtha on
1/7/2010. (This is a text only Order.) (kbl)

12/28
https://ecf.vtd.circ2.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayRcceipt.pl?614626450086067 -L__435_0-1 1/8/2010
 Exhibit 2
13/28
 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3
4 SUMMARY ORDER
5
6 THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
7 REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO
8 THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION
9 OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE,
10 IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL
11 ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
12
13 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
14 held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 5th
15 day of November Two thousand four.
16
17 PRESENT:
18 RICHARD J. CARDAMONE
19 JOSÉ A. CABRANES
20 SONIA SOTOMAYOR
21 Circuit Judges
22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
23
24 SCOTT HUMINSKI,
25
26 Plaintiff-Appellant,
27
28 -v.- No. 03-7036
29
30 TOWN OF BENNINGTON, VERMONT, RICHARD
31 GUATHIER , STUART HURD , BENNINGTON
32 POLICE DEPARTMENT, VANESSA HAVERKOCH,
33 as a Representative, executor, administrator, or
34 holder of assets of or for Henry Haverkoch or
35 for the Estate of Henry Haverkoch, HENRY
36 HAVERKOCH (deceased),
37
38 Defendants-Appellees.
39
40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
41
42 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: ALAN URIS, Law Office of Alan Uris, (Scott

14/28
 1 Huminski, pro se, on the brief) Bayside, NY
2
3 APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: JAMES F. CARROLL , English, Carroll & Ritter,
4 P.C., Middlebury, VT
5
6 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
7 Vermont (J. Garvan Murtha, Judge).
8

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

10 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
11

12 Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment granting summary judgment for defendants.

13 Plaintiff argues on appeal that his federal and state constitutional rights to due process

14 and equal protection of the laws were violated because of various conflicts of interest in the

15 prosecutor’s office. For the reasons stated by the District Court in its Ruling on Cross-

16 Motions for Summary Judgment of November 27, 2002, we hold that none of these challenges

17 rise to the level of reversible error.

18 We have considered all of plaintiff’s claims on appeal and found them to be without

19 merit. We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

20

21

22
23 FOR THE COURT,
24 Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court
25
26
27 By

15/28
 Exhibit 3

16/28
 Case: 09-71692 06/30/2009 Page: 1 of 2 DktEntry: 6974360
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-71692

Petitioner, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW

Central District of California,
v. Los Angeles

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

ORDER
Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

The court is in receipt of petitioner’s original petition for a writ of habeas

corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An application for a writ of habeas

corpus must be made to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); see also 28

U.S.C. § 2241(b). Petitioner has an application for a writ of habeas corpus pending

in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No.

09-1914.

To the extent petitioner requests that this court order the district court to act

on or grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner’s filing is construed as

a petition for writ of mandamus. We note that on June 12, 2009, the district court

issued its findings and recommendations in petitioner’s case. Accordingly,

AT/MOATT

17/28
 Case: 09-71692 06/30/2009 Page: 2 of 2 DktEntry: 6974360

petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court

by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States

Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The petition is denied.

AT/MOATT 2 09-71692

18/28
 Exhibit 4

19/28
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-01-01 Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) at the United States Court

Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Notice of Electronic Filing (N
EF) is part of the system established by
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts through the dual docketing and access
systems of PACER & CM/ECF.[1] The NEF provides the authentication of the service of an
electronically-filed pleading or other filing by parties, or of service of the electronically-filed
orders and judgments of the courts, upon attorneys in the case who have been permitted by the
court to participate in electronic filing in CM/ECF. Therefore, for such parties, the
NEF replaced the traditional certificate of service or proof of service. Likewise, the graphic
hand-signatures in traditional certificates of service were replaced in NEFs by digital
signatures, which visibly appear as RSA encrypted alphanumeric strings. Therefore, an NEF
bearing a valid RSA-encryption is today the critical instrument, which provides the
authentication of court papers as such that should be given "full faith and credit".[2] Albeit,
access to this critical instrument is restricted only to those permitted access to CM/ECF in a
given case, in a given district court.

Contents
1 Sources of information
2 Authority in implementation
3 Perspectives
4 References
5 External links

Figure 1:
1 NEF including a digital signature,
encrypted as an RSA alphanumeric string (in
red rectangle), U.S. Court, Eastern District of
California, 2004

20/28
Page 2/8 January 03,
03, 2010

Sources of information
The central source for information regarding NEFs remains in CM/ECF
manuals.[3][4][5][6] For example, the most explicit definition of the power and effect of NEF
in the Central District of California, one of the most populous in the U.S., including Los
Angeles County, remained in the "Unofficial Manual" of CM/ECF as follows (Rev 07, 2008,
page 13):[3]

L. The Notice of Electronic Filing

The system will present you with a Notice of
Electronic Filing (“NEF”) screen and will also e-
mail you a copy of the NEF. The Notice of
Electronic Filing (“NEF”) is your proof that the
document has been E-Filed. You should print the
screen to a piece of paper or a PDF (or both)
before proceeding, because you will need
to attach the NEF as the last page of the
courtesy copy that you submit to the Court. The
NEF includes a “document number” and a link.
Be sure to note that document number, as you
will need it if you need to email a proposed order
to the Court. The NEF also includes an
Figure
Figure 2: NEF with no RSA encrypted
“Electronic Document Stamp” which is a string of digital signature, U.S. District Court, Alabama,
letters and numbers which Court staff can use to 2008.

verify the authenticity of the NEF. The NEF also

contains the path and file name of the document
you uploaded and any attachments.

The other source of information regarding the NEF at the Central District of
California was in General Order 08-02, which was posted on the U.S. District
Court's web site, albeit - an unsigned order, with no name of its author, and with no

21/28
Page 3/8 January 03,
03, 2010

authentication.[7]

Such order stated (page 6):

I. Authorization. Pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 5(d)(2)(3) and 83, the court
hereby authorizes and establishes operating
rules for the electronic filing of pleadings and
papers.
Figure 3: Traditional Certificate of Service,
by a pro se filer, US District Court, Vermont,
2009.

However, operating rules of the court required establishment pursuant to Rule

Making Enabling Act, not a General Order.

Critical definitions were provided in such order (page 7):

II. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to these rules regarding electronic
filing:
A. “CM/ECF System” refers to the automated Case Management/Electronic Case Filing
system implemented by the court. The CM/ECF system stores case files in a
database, and documents are filed electronically, to the extent possible. The
CM/ECF system is available at https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov.
B. “CM/ECF Website” refers to the court’s CM/ECF website that provides pertinent
information regarding the CM/ECF system. The CM/ECF website is available at
www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.
C. “CM/ECF Registration” refers to registering with the United States District Court,
Central District of California, to file documents electronically through the CM/ECF
system. Registration is completed on-line through the CM/ECF website. Upon
the completion of CM/ECF Registration, a CM/ECF login and password is provided.

22/28
Page 4/8 January 03,
03, 2010

D. “CM/ECF User” is a person who is registered to file in the CM/ECF system.

E. “Electronic Filing” refers to the process of logging on the CM/ECF system and
completing a transaction that includes the uploading of the document(s) to be filed.
Sending a document by e-mail does not constitute an electronic filing.
F. “Electronic Signature” refers to the signature of an electronically filed document
based on: (1) the CM/ECF User’s login and password and (2) the person’s
representative signature, “/S/ – Name,” or a digitized personalized signature or
facsimile signature on the signature line of the document. used for the purpose of
confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with
the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into
CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the
custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated
document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.

Authority in implementation
The authority for implementation of CM/ECF is often cited as the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures, which allow Local Rules of Courts. However the implementation, as shown above,
was not via Local Rules of Courts, which would have been established pursuant to the federal
Rule-Making Enabling Act28 USC 2071 2077, which required any new rules established by the
court to be posted for a reasonable opportunity for public comment and challenge, prior to
such published rules taking effect. For example, the detailed rules pertaining to
the implementation of PACER & CM/ECF at the Central District of California were provided
only in an "Unofficial Manual",[3], which stated, that at some future time it was expected that
such rules would be incorporated into Rules of Court.

Perspectives
There was no doubt that the change from paper administration of the courts to digital
administration was a must. However, such transition amounted, by necessity, to a sea change

23/28
Page 5/8 January 03,
03, 2010

in the mode of operations. The NEF represented a core issue in this regard, since it held the key
to any validity and effect of court papers. However, the authority of the NEF, in and of itself,
was never adequately established by either law or by rules of court, and so far has been hardly
documented in valid court records in various U.S. court districts that were examined. The
primary source of information, albeit no valid source of authority, remained in CM/ECF User
Manuals. Moreover, at times even access to the manuals was restricted. In contrast, no
mention of the NEF was made in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures[8] or respective Rules
of Criminal Procedures.[9] Neither was the power and effect of the NEF clearly defined in
General Orders in the local rules of the various courts.

Through the duality of PACER and CM/ECF, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
established in fact conditions in digital ("electronic") court records, that were substantially
different than those that prevailed for hundreds of years in paper court files in the U.S., and
even before that - in the English-speaking legal system, where a common law right was
established for public access to court records to inspect and to copy, which included all paper
court file records (unless sealed, for example). The common law public right to access court
records to inspect and to copy was re-affirmed in the U.S. by the Supreme Court in its
landmark  Nixon v Warner Communication, Inc (1978) decision. In that decision the U.S.
Supreme Court found that the common law right was critical for allowing the public to "keep a
watchful eye on the workings of public agencies"[10] - in fact - such "public agencies" included
the courts themselves - the judicial branch of government. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme
Court found that such common law right, in its various manifestations was also embedded in
the First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The dual digital systems diverged from such tradition considerably, since the NEFs were never
included so far in PACER -which was accessible to all. Instead, the NEFs were included so far
only in CM/ECF, where access was only by court permission. The outcome was that the public
was denied the access to critical court records, which were the only source of authority and
validity of court orders and judgments, and which determine which court papers required "full
faith and credit" and which ones did not.

24/28
Page 6/8 January 03,
03, 2010

References
1. ^ PACER is a public-access system, to which access is permitted to any person, albeit for pay
and after
registration. CM/ECF is the Case Management/Electronic Court Filing system, available only
to those permitted by a particular U.S. District or U.S. Court of Appeals.

2. ^ The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, §1, declares:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every
other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The Act of May 26, 1790, states:

That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by havig the seal of their
respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be
proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal
of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding
magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial
proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within
the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records
are, or shall be taken.

The Act of March 27, 1804, states:

That, from and after the passage of this act, all records and exemplifications of office books, which are or
may be kept in any public office of any state, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any
other court or office in any other state, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the
seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the
court of the county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept or of the
governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or the keeper of the great seal of the state, that the said
attestation is in due form, and by the proper officer and the said certificate, if given by the presiding justice

25/28
Page 7/8 January 03,
03, 2010

of a court, shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify,
under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified;
or if the said certificate be given by the; governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the
great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the state in which the said certificate is made. And the said
proceedings of the said court.

3. ^ a b c Anderson's Unofficial Manual for e-filing at the Central district of California. No

Official Manual existed. (http://efile.andersonlaw.net/)

4. ^ Official Manual of the Eastern District of California

(http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caed/DOCUMENTS/CMECF/UserManual.pdf)

5. ^ Official Manual of the Southern District of California

(http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf/pdf/SDCA_Users_manual.pdf)

6. ^ Compilations of Local Rules of U.S. District Courts (http://docs.google.com/viewer?

a=v&q=cache:MxhAitN1ZekJ:west.thomson.com/store/filingandshelvingdownload.aspx%3Ffil
e%3D12942_2008329_135333.pdf+northern+district+of+illinois+cm/ecf+manual&hl=en&gl
=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESibX6mf-
QKkbkmvQ7DB6JN3qCYs2lLHODLLTNo4BxdpajoFAJ4sFax8rb0NHzGP05V3fNLFfyGvmFH
uvcitHdh-1QjKVTY5NcpAMURpIQqWywiJDJaF5vujqLnPPiKCRP_28W-
k&sig=AHIEtbTeIuioblVZauGwfFnvZHdjeAxVZQ)

7. ^ http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-pacer-cm-ecf-us-dist-ct-cacd-general-
orders-08-02-authorizingcm-ecf-digital-verification-of-attestation-in-nef.pdf

8. ^ Portal for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/)

9. ^ Portal for Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/)

10. ^ "The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been
found, for example, in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public

26/28
Page 8/8 January 03,
03, 2010

agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E. 535, 536-538
(1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L.332, 336-339 (1879)" Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978),(pp 434-5)

Please cite:
Joseph Zernik, 12/17/2009

27/28
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Joseph Zernik hereby certifies that copies of the above papers, titled:
1) Ex Parte Application by Pro Se Filer Joseph Zernik, of the People of The State Of
California, for Leave to File a Paper as Party In Interest,
2) Request by Pro Se Filer Zernik for the Honorable Murtha and the US District Court,
Vermont, to Cease Issuing on Pro Se Plaintiff Huminski Sham Orders - Bearing
Dishonest, Invalid, Ineffectual NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings),
as filed in the above-captioned matter were mailed, First Class,* prepaid to the following
parties or counsel:

1) Lynn, Lynn & Blackman P.O. Box 6740

76 St. Paul St, Suite 400 Rutland, Vermont 05702
Burlington, VT 05401
6) Richard Fine
2) Shannon Bertrand Booking No.: 1824367
Kenlan, Schwiebert & Facey Men's Central Jail
P.O. Box 578 441 Bauchet Street
Rutland, VT 05702 Los Angeles, California 90012

3) Mark Patane, esq.. 7) Kathleen Korstange

Vt Atty General’s Office Deputy Clerk
109 State Street US District Court, Vermont
Montpelier, VT 05609 204 Main Street, Room 201
Brattleboro, VT 05301
4) Nancy Sheahan, esq * Certified, restricted delivery.
271 S Union St.
Burlington, VT 05401 8) Scott Huminski
2624 S Bahama Drive
5) David Cleary, esq. Gilbert, AZ 85295

Dated at La Verne, California this 14th day of January 2010.

Joseph Zernik

By: _______________________
Joseph Zernik, Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd,
La Verne, California 91750
Fax: 801.998.0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
A true and correct copy of this paper, as filed in court was also posted at:
http://inproperinla.com/10-01-14-ex-parte-for-leave-to-file-and-request-not-to-serve-sham-court-orders-in-
huminski-v-corsones-s.pdf

28/28