2008-02-07 US District Court, Central District of California: General Order 08-02 Authorizing CM/ECF and Electronic Certificates of Authentication/Attestation by the Clerk as NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing)
See also:
Dr Zernik's Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit -
Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California Amounts to Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law:
[1] 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
_____
The General Order 08-02 is purported by the US District Court, Central District of California, as providing the authority of its present day practice of NEFs in CM/ECF. The General Order 08-02 is alleged as central to the fraud in CM/ECF. First - such practice had to be established by Rules of Court, not by General Order, and second - the General Order 08-02 failed to even name its author, let alone bear a signature.
BELOW ARE PARAGRAPHS THAT MAY BE OBLITERATED BY THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS IN SOME BROWSERS:
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.
...
I. Hyperlinks. Documents filed electronically may only contain
hyperlinks to sections of the same document. Hyperlinks to other documents,
websites, source documents, or citations are not permitted.
...
K. Notice of Discrepancies For Electronically Filed Documents. The
Clerk’s Office may notify CM/ECF Users of discrepancies found in electronically
filed documents by a discrepancy notice. In response to this notice, the assigned
judge may order: (1) an amended or corrected document to be filed, (2) the
document stricken, or (3) other action as the assigned judge deems appropriate.
...
55.
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described
herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court.
The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An
encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the
NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be 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.
...
B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to
be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s
Office into the CM/ECF system.
...
VI. Proposed Orders, Proposed Judgments, or Other Proposed Documents
That Require a Judge’s Signature.
A. Electronically Filed Proposed Documents. When a proposed
order or other proposed document accompanies a filing, the proposed order or other
proposed document shall be in PDF format and included, as an attachment, to the
main electronically filed document (e.g., stipulations, applications, motions).
Proposed orders or other proposed documents that are not filed with a main
document, such as a proposed judgment or proposed findings of fact, shall be
electronically filed as an attachment to a Notice of Lodging and shall be linked to
the order or minute order directing the preparation of the proposed document.
...
B. Service of the Court’s Orders or Other Court Generated
Documents. Orders or other documents generated by the court will be served
See also:
Dr Zernik's Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit -
Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California Amounts to Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law:
[1] 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
_____
The General Order 08-02 is purported by the US District Court, Central District of California, as providing the authority of its present day practice of NEFs in CM/ECF. The General Order 08-02 is alleged as central to the fraud in CM/ECF. First - such practice had to be established by Rules of Court, not by General Order, and second - the General Order 08-02 failed to even name its author, let alone bear a signature.
BELOW ARE PARAGRAPHS THAT MAY BE OBLITERATED BY THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS IN SOME BROWSERS:
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.
...
I. Hyperlinks. Documents filed electronically may only contain
hyperlinks to sections of the same document. Hyperlinks to other documents,
websites, source documents, or citations are not permitted.
...
K. Notice of Discrepancies For Electronically Filed Documents. The
Clerk’s Office may notify CM/ECF Users of discrepancies found in electronically
filed documents by a discrepancy notice. In response to this notice, the assigned
judge may order: (1) an amended or corrected document to be filed, (2) the
document stricken, or (3) other action as the assigned judge deems appropriate.
...
55.
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described
herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court.
The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An
encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the
NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be 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.
...
B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to
be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s
Office into the CM/ECF system.
...
VI. Proposed Orders, Proposed Judgments, or Other Proposed Documents
That Require a Judge’s Signature.
A. Electronically Filed Proposed Documents. When a proposed
order or other proposed document accompanies a filing, the proposed order or other
proposed document shall be in PDF format and included, as an attachment, to the
main electronically filed document (e.g., stipulations, applications, motions).
Proposed orders or other proposed documents that are not filed with a main
document, such as a proposed judgment or proposed findings of fact, shall be
electronically filed as an attachment to a Notice of Lodging and shall be linked to
the order or minute order directing the preparation of the proposed document.
...
B. Service of the Court’s Orders or Other Court Generated
Documents. Orders or other documents generated by the court will be served
2008-02-07 US District Court, Central District of California: General Order 08-02 Authorizing CM/ECF and Electronic Certificates of Authentication/Attestation by the Clerk as NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing)
See also:
Dr Zernik's Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit -
Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California Amounts to Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law:
[1] 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
_____
The General Order 08-02 is purported by the US District Court, Central District of California, as providing the authority of its present day practice of NEFs in CM/ECF. The General Order 08-02 is alleged as central to the fraud in CM/ECF. First - such practice had to be established by Rules of Court, not by General Order, and second - the General Order 08-02 failed to even name its author, let alone bear a signature.
BELOW ARE PARAGRAPHS THAT MAY BE OBLITERATED BY THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS IN SOME BROWSERS:
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.
...
I. Hyperlinks. Documents filed electronically may only contain
hyperlinks to sections of the same document. Hyperlinks to other documents,
websites, source documents, or citations are not permitted.
...
K. Notice of Discrepancies For Electronically Filed Documents. The
Clerk’s Office may notify CM/ECF Users of discrepancies found in electronically
filed documents by a discrepancy notice. In response to this notice, the assigned
judge may order: (1) an amended or corrected document to be filed, (2) the
document stricken, or (3) other action as the assigned judge deems appropriate.
...
55.
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described
herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court.
The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An
encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the
NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be 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.
...
B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to
be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s
Office into the CM/ECF system.
...
VI. Proposed Orders, Proposed Judgments, or Other Proposed Documents
That Require a Judge’s Signature.
A. Electronically Filed Proposed Documents. When a proposed
order or other proposed document accompanies a filing, the proposed order or other
proposed document shall be in PDF format and included, as an attachment, to the
main electronically filed document (e.g., stipulations, applications, motions).
Proposed orders or other proposed documents that are not filed with a main
document, such as a proposed judgment or proposed findings of fact, shall be
electronically filed as an attachment to a Notice of Lodging and shall be linked to
the order or minute order directing the preparation of the proposed document.
...
B. Service of the Court’s Orders or Other Court Generated
Documents. Orders or other documents generated by the court will be served
0000-00-00 State of Israel v Ariel, Klass and Zernik (36318-08-19) Public Defender’s office false response on inquiry - undated, no reference number, no case number // מ"י נ אריאל קלס וצרניק (36318-08-19) - תשובה שקרית על פניה לסנגוריה הציבורית - ללא תאריך, ללא מספר אסמכתה, ללא מספר תיק
2012-05-31 Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision 88/12/Tel-Aviv District in the Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" affair // החלטת נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים 88/12/מחוזי תל-אביב בפרשת "הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים" של השופטת ורדה אלשייך
2017-10-01 Zernik v State of Israel et al (7631/17) – criminal appeal – in the Supreme Court – Notice of Appeal and Appeal // צרניק נ מדינת ישראל ואח' (7631/17) – ערעור פלילי – בבית המשפט העליון – הודעת ערעור וערעור
2017-10-22 Inquiry with Shin-Bet Head Nadav Argaman – failure of the Ministry of Interior to comply with FOIA, in re: computerization of the election system // פנייה לראש השב"כ נדב ארגמן בעניין מחשוב מערכת הבחירות – אי קיום חוק חופש המידע על ידי משרד הפנים
2017-10-22 Request for compliance with FOIA by Ministry of Interior, in re: Public Committee for Review of Computerization of the Election System // בקשה לקיום הוראות חוק חופש המידע על ידי משרד הפנים בנוגע לוועדה לבחינת מחשוב מערכת הבחירות
2017-09-06 Central Election Committee: Request for Chairman, Justice Hanan Melcer to perform his duties and ascertain compliance with FOIA (sent to the Supreme Court) // ועדת הבחירות המרכזית: בקשה לשופט בית המשפט העליון, יו”ר הוועדה חנן מלצר למלא את תפקידו ולוודא שהוועדה מקיימת את חוק חופש המידע (נשלח לבית המשפט העליון)
2017-09-12 Central Election Committee: Freedom of Information Request (No ) regarding IT systems of the Central Election Committee and Ombudsman’s reports // ועדת הבחירות המרכזית: בקשה (מס’ ) על פי חוק חופש המידע לגבי מחשוב ועדת הבחירות המרכזית ודוחות מבקר המדינה
2017-09-03 Central Election Committee: Freedom of Information Request regarding IT systems of the Central Election Committee – protocols of the Tender Committee ועדת הבחירות המרכזית: בקשה על פי חוק חופש המידע לגבי מחשוב ועדת הבחירות המרכזית - פרוטוקולים של ועדת המכרזים
2017-09-05 FOIA Request (-2017) on Ministry of Justice, in re: Authority to sign decisions of Ombudsman of the Judiciary // בקשה על פי חוק חופש המידע (-2017) למשרד המשפטים לגבי סמכות חתימה על החלטות נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים
2017-08-29 Central Election Committee: Freedom of Information Request regarding IT systems of the Central Election Committee – compliance with Israeli Standard IS 27001 – Information Technologies – security techniques ועדת הבחירות המרכזית: בקשה על פי חוק חופש המידע לגבי מחשוב ועדת הבחירות המרכזית - עמידה בתקן ישראלי ת.י. 27001 - טכנולוגיית המידע – טכניקות אבטחה
2017-05-03 Request for a valid Ministry of Justice FOIA response (90/17): E-signatures in Net-HaMishpat, “Israel Courts Authority” as a certifying authority pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) // בקשה לתשובה תקינה של משרד המשפטים על פי חוק חופש המידע (90/17): חתימות אלקטרוניות בנט-המשפט, “Israel Courts Authority” - כמאשר על פי חוק החתימה האלקטרונית (2001)