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
10-04-01 Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing - US District Court, Western District of Texas, Revised April 1, 2010

10-04-01 Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing - US District Court, Western District of Texas, Revised April 1, 2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 38|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Feb 07, 2011
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





Human Rights Alert 
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
10-04-01 Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and CriminalCases Requesting Comments, Responses by US Administrative Office of the Courts.United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Revised April 1, 2010
Comments:1. Generally, the document resembles "Users Manuals", which were issued in some courts, but not others.Review of such manuals from various US district courts was one of the main sources for my investigationof PACER and CM/ECF, which led to the opinion that the systems is large scale fraud on the People.2. In no way can Users Manuals, or in this case, the unsigned "Administrative Policies and Procedures forElectronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases" substitute for laws enacted by the US congress or Rules of Court, established pursuant to the
 Rules Making Enabling Act 
in creating new federal rules of electroniccourts
As one can readily figure out from this short document, it overhauled court procedures, which forcenturies were the core of Due Process, and which were enacted in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Federal Rules of Criminal procedure
.3. The most interesting parts in this document are the following three:
a) Page 9:
e. Traditionally Filed documents must be served in accordance with Rule 5, FEDERALRULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 49, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,and Local Court Rules CV-5(b)(2) and CR-49(a). (Note: Although a NEF will begenerated for Traditionally Filed documents that are scanned by the Clerk, the NEFdoes not constitute service of Traditionally Filed documents.)
This passage makes it clear that records, which are submitted by
 pro se
filers are subject to electronicfiling, with the clerk acting as mediator. NEF is issued for such records. Many
 pro se
filers, not bychance, are under the perception that their cases are conducted outside of the electronic filing proceduresof the US courts.
b) Page 11 [underline added-jz]:
b. The transmission of a NEF constitutes entry on the docket pursuant to Rules 58 and79, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rules 49 and 55, FEDERAL RULES OFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
This is a unique paragraph, the like of it I have never seen anywhere else, although I always claimed thesame:Under paper administration of the courts, the clerk had to stamp a paper record "ENTERED" and sign iton its face, for the record to become part of the public records in a given court file (in contrast with the"FILED" stamp, which only indicates that a record was received by the office of the clerk".This paragraph explicitly states that today the "
NEF constitutes entry
". That means that if no NEF wasissued on a record, regarding of any stamps that may appear on a paper copy of the record, the record infact is not entered (and that includes orders and judgments). This is a major point, which the US Courtsmanaged to make vague and ambiguous.
Page 2/2 February 7, 2011
c) Page 20
Electronic document Stamp:[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1080075687 [Date=10/14/2005] [FileNumber=71428-0][40a012c27475ba6fb0d1a468a60f5962228243fbc57e1ff2c42e51ed9dfdf5a17bfcc831fb5a747c4834dc51e8a5b7957a40e44746c31f9a05cb9aa2b07d0cd5]]
 The sample NEF, which is provided in page 20, includes the section that is the
Electronic DocumentStamp,
an electronically encrypted alphanumeric string, which in fact is a "Checksum" algorithmproduct.. Almost all Manuals,which I have examined, show only partial figure of the NEF, omitting thesection, which is the
Electronic Document Stamp.
4. The most deceptive issue in this document is:This document fails to explain that today, the US district courts deem the
Electronic Document Stamp,
as the replacement of the ENTERED stamp with the hand signature of the clerk, as practiced under paper-based administration of the court.The only place where I found this issue defined, albeit, in a vague and ambiguous manner, is in the
General Order 
08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California: In Users Manuals the issueis often referenced in a more oblique manner, through warning to counsel to print out the NEFs and keepthem on file as an important records.
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification describedherein 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 ofCourt, 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 ofthe 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.
See a copy of the General Order 08-02:http://www.scribd.com/doc/28339822/  See discussion of the General Order 08-02 and the NEFs, both alleged as deprivation of rights under thecolor of law, as part of Motion to Intervene in
 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al
: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 docketshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/ The US Courts from coast to coast publish in PACER dockets records, where an NEF missing theElectronic Document Stamp were issued for particular records. Such records are not deemed by the USCourts themselves as "Entered". However, the People and
 pro se
litigants, who have no access toCM/ECF, are mislead to believe that such papers (including orders and judgments) are valid and effectualcourt records.In parallel, the clerks of the US courts, from coast to coast, deny
 pro se
litigants and the People access tothe NEFs, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.

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)//-->