Declaration of Joseph H ZernikIn re: March 24, 2010 Visit to US District Court, Central District of California, LosAngeles, andReview of Records, and Opinion of Joseph H ZernikIn re: Integrity of Records and Operations of PACER & CM/ECF at the US DistrictCourt, Central District of California
I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows:Instant Declaration was written as a memorandum of my March 24, 2010 visit to the US District Court,Los Angeles on North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. I have personal knowledge of the facts setforth herein, which I know to be true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated as based uponinformation and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well. If called asa witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto.Instant Declaration was also written as an Opinion, based on records that were accessed on March 24,2010 during the visit to the US District Court, and also based on extensive surveys of the practices of theUS District Courts and US Courts of Appeals relative to the relatively new digital public access(PACER) and case management/ electronic court filing (CM/ECF) systems.Such Declaration and Opinion were written in part, as part of a planned Los Angeles County, California,Human Rights Report for submission in the pending Periodic Universal Review by the United NationsOffice of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, scheduled for November 2010.Such Declaration and Opinion was also written as intended part of a request for corrective actions by theChief Judge of the US District Court, Central District of California, Audrey Collins, and the Clerk of theCourt – Terry Nafisi, relative to the case of a person – Richard I Fine, whose Liberty was deprived, andrelative to the people of Central District of California, whose Human Rights for competent tribunals andfair hearings were deprived.1. For about nine (9) months, I have been attempting to exercise my First Amendment right to access courtrecords – to inspect and to copy - at the US District Court, Los Angeles. My attempts were included, butwere not limited to access court records which were the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) in my case,
Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550) as well as other cases, such as
Richard I Fine vSheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) – the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine, and
US vCity of Los Angeles et al
(2:00-cv-11769) – litigation that took place in the wake of the Rampartcorruption scandal (1998-2000).2. In late December 2009 I gained access to some, but not all NEFs in my case -
Joseph Zernik v JacquelineConnor et al
(2:08-cv-01550), described elsewhere. The findings in that case were essentially the same asdescribed below in the case of
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914).3. In late December 2009, I was first permitted by the Office of the Clerk of the Court to access theNEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) in my own case -
Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550). The records were elsewhere described. Such records confirmed the concerns outlined above.4.
Exhibit 1
is a true and correct copy of the March 16, 2010 letter by Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court,which came as a response to my prior letters expressing my concerns regarding the denial of accessto court records and the legal foundation for the operations of the court in CM/ECF. In such letterthe
General Order 08-02
was included as an attachment, and was claimed to provide the legalfoundation for the operation of CM/ECF at the Court.5. Paragraph IV (0) of the General Order 08-02 stated:
O. Certification of Electronic Documents
. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described
1/77
Digitally signed byJoseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph HZernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USLocation: La Verne,CaliforniaDate: 2010.03.2515:17:16 -07'00'
March 25, 2010
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 UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. Anencrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of theNEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirmingthe 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.
6. The copy of the
General Order 08-02
, which was provided in the March 16, 2010 letter, wasunsigned.7.
Exhibit 2
is a true and correct copy of the March 24, 2010 AM email notice, which I addressed toTerry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, and copied to the Chief Judge of the Court, the Hon AudreyCollins, to Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock, and to the Public Intake Unit Supervisor SharonMcGee. My March 24, 2010 email notice responded to Clerk Nafisi’s March 16, 2010 letter. Insuch email notice, I again asked for the legal foundation of denial of access to court records, andagain expressed my concerns regarding dishonest handling of court records at the Office of theClerk, US District Court, Central District of California. Ms Sharon McGee and the Clerk of Chief Judge Audrey Collins confirmed “read” shortly after the email notice was sent. Dawn Bullock provided an automatic notice that she was out of the office.8.
Exhibit 3
is a true and correct copy of the March 24, 2010 letter addressed to Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court. The letter was prepared for hand delivery, as part of yet another attempt to gain access torecords – to inspect and to copy – by appearing in person at the Public Department of the Office of the Clerk. It again requested access to: (a) Two NEFs from the habeas corpus petition of RichardFine – for the
March 20, 2009 Petition
and the
June 29, 2009 Judgment
, and (b) a signed copy of
General Order 08-02
.
A. March 24, 2010 Visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles.
9. On March 24, 2010, shortly after 3:00pm, I appeared at the Public Department of the Office of theClerk of the Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles. The Duty Deputy Clerk identifiedherself as Luz. I presented her with two copies of a March 24, 2010 letter (
Exhibit 3
) addressed toTerry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, and again requested access to the records named in the letter.10. I asked Luz to sign my copy “Received”. However, she stated that she was not authorized to do so.11. I then asked Luz to inspect the signed
General Order 08-02
. Luz agreed to show me the copy thatwas kept on file at the Public Department of the Clerk’s Office – in folder titled
Volume 11
of the
General Orders
of the Court. However, the copy that she had on file was unsigned, just like thecopy posted online by the Court, and also like the copy provided by Clerk Nafisi in her March 16,2010 letter (
Exhibit 1
). Luz advised me that I might want to approach the Office of Terry Nafisi,Clerk of the Court, on the same floor, in attempt to inspect a signed copy of the
General Order 08-02
.12. I then asked Luz to inspect and to copy the
General Orders 10-01, 10-02
, and
10-03
. The reasonfor such request was that it was clear that the Court allowed online public access only to selectGeneral Orders. For example, the first General Order in 2010 was numbered
General Order 10-04
.My previous requests for an index of all recent General Orders was answered in the March 16, 2010letter of Terry Nafisi (
Exhibit 1
) in a manner that was deemed by me dubious. Luz permitted me toinspect that General Orders, which I asked for, and also permitted me to obtain copies.13.
Exhibit 4
is a true and correct copy of the
General Orders 10-01, 10-02
, and
10-03
copies of whichI obtained from Luz at the Public Department of the Office of the Clerk of the Court, US District
2/77
March 25, 2010
Court, Central District of California, on March 24, 2010. All three orders were hand signed by theHon Audrey Collins, Chief Judge of the Court. All three orders showed “FILED” stamps on theirface page, with endorsement by the hand of a Deputy Clerk, whose name neither Luz, nor I coulddecipher. I asked Luz regarding attestation of entry or authentication of the
General Order 10-01
.Luz explained to me that
General Order 10-01
in fact pertained to case
James E Keener v HSBC Mortgage Services Inc et al
(09-cv-06956). Therefore, she stated that the NEF for such order wouldbe found in the respective case file in CM/ECF.14. I then asked Luz to access the NEFs of the commencing and terminating records in the habeascorpus of Richard Fine:
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914): (a)
March 20,2009 Petition,
and (b)
June 29, 2009 Judgment,
as stated in the March 24, 2010 letter, which washand delivered to her (
Exhibit 3
). Luz stated that she would be able to allow me to inspect the NEFs onher computer screen, but that she was not authorized to permit the copying of such records. She advisedme that I would have to request such copies from the office of Terry Nafisi.15. I had never permitted to inspect any of the NEFs in the case of
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los AngelesCounty
(2:09-cv-01914) prior to March 24, 2010, not even on the computer screen at the Office of theClerk.16. Deputy Clerk Luz and I then proceeded to inspect the two NEFs:a. For the commencing record –
Dkt #1 – March 20, 2009 Petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) we concluded that the NEFincluded four distinct RSA-encrypted digital signature. The first was for the main document, andthe others were for Part I, Part II, Part III.b. For the terminating record
Dkt #31
-
June 29, 2009 Judgment
by Judge John Walter in
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) we concluded that the NEFincluded no RSA-encrypted digital signature at all.17. With that I concluded my visit to the Public Department of the Clerk’s Office.18. I then proceeded to the office of Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court. It was a high security office, withcombination lock door. I knocked, and was assisted by a Deputy Clerk, who took my request toaccess court records (
Exhibit 3)
. After about 30 minutes, Ms Theresa Doty, Chief Deputy Clerk-Operations, came out of that office to address my requests.19.
Exhibit 5
is a true and correct copy of the business card that was provide to me by Ms Theresa Doty,Chief Deputy Clerk- Operations.20. Chief Deputy Doty and another Deputy Clerk, which appeared as a witness, then showed me a copyof the
General Order 08-02
, which adjoined to it had a page of hand signatures of judges. Incontrast with the
General Orders 10-01, 10-02 10-03
, which included only the signature of theChief Judge, Audrey Collins, the
General Order 08-02
included for a signature page a roster of the judges of the US District Court, Central District of California, some of whom signed the
GeneralOrder 08-02
, and others did not. The practice relative to the signatures on General
Order 08-02
wasclearly different than the practice relative to
General Orders 10-01, 10-02 10-03.
21. I asked Ms Doty regarding attestation by a Clerk of the
General Order 08-02
– specifically-regarding the NEF for such order, since the practice of NEFs was already well established by thetime that such order was issued. Ms Doty told me that there was no NEF for the
General Order 08-02
, and “That is how we do it”.22.
Exhibit 6
is a true and correct copy of the two NEFs, which I then received from Ms Doty, inresponse to my written request (
Exhibit 3
).23. After receiving the two NEFs (
Exhibit 6
), I left the courthouse. Later, I reviewed all records again,and also accessed relevant records in PACER.
3/77
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
10-03-25 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: Visit to US Dist Crt, Los Angeles, and Opinion re: Integrity of Operations s
I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows:
Instant Declaration was written as a memorandum of my March 23, 2010 visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles on North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. I have… (More)
Instant Declaration was written as a memorandum of my March 23, 2010 visit to the US District Court, Los Angeles on North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. I have… (More)
706
Reads
3
Readcasts
2
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
