Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2010-03-27 Addendum #1 to Request for Opinions Re CM/ECF - case management system of the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, as reviewed in orders in Fine v Sheriff s

2010-03-27 Addendum #1 to Request for Opinions Re CM/ECF - case management system of the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, as reviewed in orders in Fine v Sheriff s

Ratings: (0)|Views: 108|Likes:
It is alleged that the case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems of the United States courts are the largest Shell Game Fraud in the history of mankind.

Please also see:
10-03-25 - Request for expert opinions
10-04-06 - Addendum #2
It is alleged that the case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems of the United States courts are the largest Shell Game Fraud in the history of mankind.

Please also see:
10-03-25 - Request for expert opinions
10-04-06 - Addendum #2

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Apr 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog:http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs 
10-03-27 Addendum #1 to Request for Opinion in re: PACER & CM/ECF – Docket, Orders, Judgments of the US Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit, in Appeal in
Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, et al 
List of Attached Records:
1) Docket of the Appeal2) 09-07-17-dkt-05-denial-certificate-of-appealability-judge-warner.pdf3) 09-07-24-dkt-07-request-for-certificate-of-appealability-by-fine.pdf4) 09-08-12-dkt-12-early-version-kleinfeld-granting-appealability-unsigned.pdf5) 09-08-12-dkt-12-order-on-appealability-by-kleinfeld-unsigned.pdf6) 09-08-12-dkt-13-order-denying-release-on-appeal-by-schroeder-kleinfeld-unsigned.pdf7) 09-08-26-dkt-16-order-denying reconsideration-by-schroeder-kleinfeld-unsigned.pdf8) 09-09-15-dkt-21-order-denying-release-on-appeal-unsigned.pdf9) 09-09-23-dkt-23-order-denying-emergency-petition-for-habeas-corpus-unsigned-no-judge-named.pdf10) 09-10-13-dkt-27-clerk-order-calendar-unsigned.pdf11) 09-10-16-dkt-35-clerk-order-calendar-unsigned.pdf12) 09-11-12-dkt-39-clerk-order-calendar-unsigned.pdf13) 09-11-24-dkt-48-clerk-order-denying-petition-for-writ-of-mandater-unsigned.pdf14) 09-12-04-dkt-50-clerk-order-denying-judicial-notice-unsigned.pdf15) 09-12-08-dkt-52-letter-by-gotlieb.pdf16) 09-12-09-dkt-54-order-denying-reconsideration-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw--unsigned.pdf17) 09-12-11-dkt-57-order-denying-amicus-brief-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw--unsigned.pdf18) 09-12-15-dkt-58-order-denying-reconsideration-of-clerk-denying-judicial-notice-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf19) 09-12-16-dkt-59-judgment-affirming-us-district-crt-judgment-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw--unsigned.pdf20) 09-12-24-dkt-62-order-denying-judicial-notice-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf21) 10-02-10-dkt-66-order-denying-en-blanc-rehearing-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf22) 10-02-12-dkt-68-order-denying-disqualification-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf23) 10-02-18-dkt-69-mandate-by-clerk-unsigned.pdf
B. General Comments Regarding PACER and CM/ECF at the US Court of Appeals, 9
Based on multiple phone conversations with senior technical staff of the PACER service center in Texas, DrZernik concluded:1) PACER and CM/ECF platforms were implemented in all US District Courts and US Courts of Appealsby 2009.2) Regardless of the common platform, certain variations, relatively minor, were permitted in the various USDistrict Courts.3) The US Courts of Appeals assumed much wider latitude in implementation of the systems. The systemsas implemented at the US Courts of Appeals are distinct compared to any of the US District Courtsimplementations. Moreover, they vary widely among the US Courts of Appeals.4) An extreme example – the US Court of Appeals, 2
Circuit (NYC) implemented on January 1, 2010modifications in its system, which were described by the PACER Service Center as “unilateral”. As aresult, it became impossible to access any records, or even the index pertaining to cases filed prior toJanuary 1, 2010, in any manner that could have be recognized by PACER users. A roundabout way was
Digitally signedby Joseph HZernik DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USLocation: LaVerne, CaliforniaDate: 2010.03.2707:30:45 -07'00'
Page 2/5 March 27, 2010
provided to such records, but one that could only be deciphered through step by step guidance by theService Center staff.
C. Case Numbering at the US Court of Appeals, 9
1) Consecutive numbering of dockets is considered an essential safeguard for integrity of operations of theOffice of the Clerk of the Court. In fact, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that dockets benumbered consecutively.
2) For reasons that were inexplicable, the US Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit, exempted itself from such rules.The Richard Fine petition, filed in June 2009 was designated case number
(09-71692). In contrast, theappeal, filed in July 2009, was designated case number (09-56073).
 D. Filing and Entry of Records
1) Filing of Records: the definition of Filing and Entry of records are critical relative to the conduct of thebusiness of the courts. Procedures related to Filing and Entry are at the foundation of any due process atthe court. Filing – is typically defined as the conveyance of a record by a party or a judge into possessionof the Clerk of the Court.2) Entry of Record: Entry takes place at a later time relative to filing. It indicates that the Clerk of the Court,pursuant to his/her duties, inspected the record on its face, and did not find any clear discrepancies.Therefore, the record was incorporated into a particular court file, and with that – became part of thepublic records of the court.3) Entry of Judgment: Over centuries the English speaking courts developed particular, more elaborate, dueprocess procedures for the Entry of Judgment, given the overriding desire to eliminate any ambiguityrelative to both the execution of the Entry of Judgment, and its Date. Fraud related to appearance of Entryof Judgment, with no valid Entry of Judgment, is alleged as central to conduct of both the US Court,Central District of California, and even more so – the Superior Court of California, County of LosAngeles. It was alleged that due process procedures that were established over centuries were ambiguatedin the implementation of electronic case management and public access systems.4) Authentication – Proof of Service or Certificate of Service –as prerequisite for Entry of Records/Judgments: Honest, valid, and effectual Proof of Service or Certificate of Service, pursuant toclearly delineated procedures that are defined in the Rules of Courts are required for the Entry of Recordsor Judgments. A key claim regarding the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF at the US Courts andUS Courts of Appeals, is that the courts ambiguated the nature of authentication, and the practice of theNEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) or NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) were never adequatelydefined in Rules of Courts pursuant to the
 Rule Making Enabling Act 
28 USC §2071-7. The failure toadequately define the new procedures for Authentication was compounded by the denial of access tothe Authentication instruments. Such denial of access was alleged as abuse of Human Rights in andof itself. There simply was no reasonable explanation for such denial of access that was consistentwith the furtherance of justice. The resulting ambiguity created a large opening for dishonestconduct at the courts.An extreme example were the NDAs of the US Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit. Although Dr Zernik attempted for almost a year and a half to gain access to such records, it was not until March 26, 2010 thathe saw such record for the very first time. It was the gaining of access to such record that prompted thewriting of Addendum 1 and Addendum 2.
Page 3/5 March 27, 2010
5) Table 1 is an example of docketing text in docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9
08/12/2009131 pg, 23.51 KBFiled order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD) Appellant's motionsand submissions to this court, received on July 20, 23, 29 and 30 and August 6, 2009, areordered filed. Appellant's request for a certificate of appealability is addressed by separateorder. Appellant's remaining motions and requests – including his request for immediaterelease pending appeal – are hereby denied. [7024515] (DMM)
6) Table 2 is an example of docketing text in docket of the US District Court, Los Angeles:
Date Filed #
Docket Text
 03/25/20094NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error the Case has beenreassigned from Judge Dean D. Pregerson to Judge George H Wu for all furtherproceedings. The case will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 09-01914 GW (CW). (rn) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
7) Regardless of the similarity in format, the differences are profound:a. The US Court of Appeals left the columns undefined. Therefore, the definition of the date in theleft column was rendered vague and ambiguous. A naïve reader could interpret it as Date of Filing, or alternatively as Date of Entry of the records.b. Nowhere in the docketing texts of the US Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit, in fact, nowhere in thedockets in their entirety would the word “Entered” be found. In the US District Courts, eachdocketing text unit ends with “(Entered: <date>)”. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals left thedate of entry and even the existence of entry of the records vague and ambiguous. The failure toever use the word “Entered” or “Entry” appears far from chance occurrence, since variouscontrived substitutes were used in various places in the dockets, which appeared as erroneouslegal usage: “Received”, “Filed”, or “Docketed”. The outcome is dockets that are vague andambiguous regarding the entry of any of the records on the docket. Moreover, detailed review of the records in certain cases, such as the appeal at hand,
 Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los AngelesCounty, et al
(09-56073), would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the entire PACERdocket in such case was a sham docket, and none of the records in such docket were deemedentered by the US District Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit. It is further claimed that there is noplausible explanation for construction of such sham dockets, unless to deceive and defraud.c. The Service Center claimed that the initials at the end of the docketing text, e.g. “(rn)” in Table 2,above, of the US District Courts, were associated with digital signatures. However, PACER didnot allow any way to view any tags of such signatures, expecting the public to take such initials assignatures on sheer faith. However, the Service Center claimed that the initials at the end of thedocketing text of the US Courts of Appeals, e.g. “(DMM)” in Table 1, above, were NOTassociated with digital signatures. Therefore, if the information by the Service Center was to betrusted, the US Courts of Appeals, which implemented their system later than the US District

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->