Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.07.24
05:02:01 +03'00'
US Courts’ Case Management and Public Access Systems – Enabling Tools for
Abuse of Human Rights

Discussion in the messages, previously posted, detailed the alleged large-scale abuse of
Human Rights of the people of the United States by the United States district courts and
the United States courts of appeals through PACER & CM/ECF:
1) By implementing PACER & CM/ECF, the US courts affected a sea change in
court procedures. However, all US district courts and US courts of appeals, where
records were examined, without exception, failed to publish any Local Rules of
Courts pertaining to PACER & CM/ECF procedures that would allow to clearly
determine the nature of judicial records that were honest, valid, and effectual.
2) The US district courts and US courts of appeals published PACER dockets, which
conduct of the courts themselves indicated were never deemed by the courts as
“official court dockets”. However, most reasonable persons, and even experienced
attorneys were mislead through representations by the courts to believe that
PACER dockets were indeed the “official” dockets of the courts.
3) The US district courts and US courts of appeals advertised PACER as a system
for “Public Access to Court Records”. However, conduct of the courts themselves
indicated that PACER was never deemed by the courts as an “official” public
access system to court records.
4) Of particular concern was the universal denial of access to the authentication
records of the courts (NEFs at the US district courts and NDAs at the US courts of
appeals) in PACER. Through such denial of access, the public was deprived of
the ability to distinguish authenticated from unauthenticated records.
5) Detailed examination of conduct of the courts through PACER & CM/ECF in
numerous individual cases would lead a reasonable person to conclude that
PACER & CM/ECF were enabling tools for large-scale fraud by the US courts on
the people of the United States.
Through such conduct the US courts deprived the people of the United States of their
Human Rights for Due Process, Fair Hearings, and National Tribunals for Protection of
Rights.
Therefore, Human Rights Alert (NGO) in its April 2010 report to the United Nations, as
part of the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States,
called for publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic
verification) of all computerized case management and online public access systems of
the courts.
Moreover, in scholarly papers filed for peer review in computer science journals, Human
Rights Alert called upon computer science/informatics professionals to assume a leading
role in the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.
_______

Notice: The discussion below includes also messages pertaining to similar conditions at
the Supreme Court of the United States.
 Comments posted at Native Born and Natural Citizenship
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/zernik-discusses-taitz/#comments

1. Joseph Zernik says:

July 24, 2010 at 00:35
1) NBC wrote:
“In other words, you argue that there was a failure to help you understand how
the system really works. Fair enough. But that hardly rises to fraud.”
My statement never alleged fraud on that count. However, conditions, which
were described in that statement are alleged as serious violation of the Human
Rights of the people of the United States.
Nevertheless, when you get into the analysis of individual cases, such as Fine v
Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) you find the evidence for the PACER and CM/ECF as the
enabling tools for fraud, as alleged in complaint filed against Terri Nafisi – Clerk
of the US District Court and others.

2) NBC wrote:
“So let’s presume the following to be accurate:
1. The electronic docket is the official court record”
.
False presumptions.
- Where did you ever find a Rule of Court that stated that PACER dockets were
official court records?
- The US Courts themselves, through their conduct, obviously do not consider the
online PACER dockets as “official court records”:
a) The PACER docket in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) was largely constructed by
persons who were unauthorized.
b) The Clerk of the US District Court, Terri Nafisi, refuses to certify the PACER
docket in that case.
.
3) Let me take it one step further: PACER is represented online as “Public Access
to Court Records”. However, the US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals,
through their conduct, obviously do not recognize PACER as an “official” public
access system. To wit:
a) Many of the US District Courts that were examined fail to permit access in
PACER to the Summons.
 c) All US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals, which were examined,
without exception, denied PACER access to the authentication records of the
courts (NEFs at the US District Courts, and NDAs at the US Courts of Appeals).
d) The US District Courts, and more so the US Courts of Appeals, arbitrarily deny
access to numerous court records in many records that were examined in the
various courts, with no sealing orders at all.
.
I guess we are getting closer to the alleged key role of PACER & CM/ECF as
enabling tools for fraud at the courts.

Rate This
Reply
2. Joseph Zernik says:
July 24, 2010 at 00:04
PACER & CM/ECF- THE MISSING RULES OF COURT
NBC writes:
1) “I apologize for confusing the rules with the training document outlining how
the system works. ”
- No problem, we all err at times.
2) “However, the latter helps understand how the rules have been implemented.”
- What Rules of Court are you talking about exactly?
I stand by my previous statement:
In PACER and CM/ECF the US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals affected
a sea change in court procedures and court records. However, in all US District
Courts and US Courts of Appeals, whose records were examined, without
exception, no Local Rules of Courts at all were discovered pertaining to PACER
and CM/ECF, which would allow the determination of the nature of court records
which were honest, valid, and effectual.

Rate This
Reply

Reply
3. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 23:40
Thanks to NBC for finally stating that the numerous quotes that he brought up as
“rules” were no rules at all.
 Rate This
Reply
4. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 23:37
1) NBC wrote:
“In response to Joseph Zernik on July 23, 2010 at 21:48:
- NBC wrote: “per SCOTUS rules, these notices are unsigned.” – Joseph Zernik
wrote: * There was no notice at all in Rhodes v McDonald. * Could you please
provide reference to the Local Rules of Court, where it states that Notices are
unsigned? – NBC writes: “The vast majority of cases filed in the [...]
- Could NBC please identify the record from which this quote was made?
Was it at all from the official Local Rules of the US Supreme Court?
The quote was made on the Supreme Court’s website”
.
Thank you NBC for clarifying this point. Obviously, a website is nowhere even
close to Local Rules of Court.
.
2) NBC wrote:
“The official rules do not address whether or not a signature is required for denial
of stay.”
- I beg to differ, the official rules state that such denial of application be inscribed
on the face of the Application itself.
- In the case of Fine v Sheriff, the evidence is definitive that Justice Kennedy
never inscribed anything on the face of the Application.
- In the case of Rhodes v McDonald, the evidence has not been discovered yet,
whether Justice Thomas did or did not inscribe his denial on the application.
.
3) NBC wrote:
“It is not an order in the common sense of word so it seems appropriate that it
can be unsigned.”
- Here we go again with vague and ambiguous “seemingness” – offered as the
Local Rules of the highest court of the land.
.
4) NBC wrote:
“The clerk however did return a signed statement informing the parties of the
decision.”
 - In the case of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), the Clerk never advised the parties in a
signed notice – the notice was in an unsigned letter by Court Counsel Danny
Bickell, who in a phone call with Joseph Zernik admitted that he was never
authorized as Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the US Supreme Court.

Rate This
5. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 22:28
IN RE: PACER & CM/ECF

The Transition of the US courts to digital administration was executed over the
past decade, through a large-scale project, managed by the Administrative Office
of the US Courts, an arm of the US judicial branch. Dual systems were
established: PACER – for public access to court records, and CM/ECF – for case
management/electronic court filing. The systems are effectively a series of
relational databases. With it – a sea change was affected in court procedures.

In contrast, procedures for paper administration of the English speaking courts

evolved over centuries, and formed the foundation of Due Process and Fair
Hearings rights. Disambiguation of court procedures and court records was the
cornerstone for such rights.

In establishing PACER & CM/ECF, all US District Courts and US Courts of

Appeals, which were examine, without exception, failed to publish Local Rules of
Courts defining the new procedures of the courts, which are embedded in PACER
& CM/ECF, and which are critical for determination of the nature of honest,
valid, and effectual court orders and judgments.

Rate This
Reply
6. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 22:38
In other words, you argue that there was a failure to help you understand how the
system really works. Fair enough. But that hardly rises to fraud.
It’s an area where the courts may improve but then again, to me, the docketing
system appears to be quite straightforward.
 Although it still is based upon the concept of filing, notification. In other words,
the documents are still filed but rather than signed and physically delivered, they
can be electronically filed, where, depending on the Court, signatures are added
through a variety of means. The notification includes an electronic form (NEF) as
well as a physical form for those without electronic access. Court orders are
entered on the docket and become the official court record and notifications are
sent to the parties as above. How this becomes a lack of due process etc appears
to be somewhat uncertain to me. And one should not confuse failure to
understand the process, with ambiguity of the process.

Combine the information that the Docket is the official court record and that
once a document is filed, it becomes part of such record, it is trivial to conclude
that orders from the court, once filed, become the official court ruling. That the
courts may have been confusing you with how exactly the signing of the
documents in the system took place is understandable as the rules, acts and laws
appear to be rather vague when stating ‘in accordance with the law’ as to how a
document is to be signed.

So let’s presume the following to be accurate

1. The electronic docket is the official court record

2. Documents filed by parties become official records and their filing is noticed
using a NEF with an RSA code, or, if the system informs the user, via old
fashioned mail delivery
3. Documents filed by the court become official rulings and orders and their
filings are noticed using a NEF without the need for a RSA code.
4. Absent any signature, the document, if electronically filed, is still considered
to be signed (since the Judge used his official access to make the ruling), other
methods of signing may include: real signature scanned in, /s/, RSA signature
(there may be more)

So far so good?

Rate This
Reply
7. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 22:20
NBC: Formatted

RE: FAILURE OF THE US COURTS TO PUBLISH RULES OF COURTS IN RE:

PACER AND CM/ECF

NBC writes:
“Some examples of rules

Clerk of Court or Deputy Clerks – The electronic filing of any document by the
clerk or a deputy clerk of this court by use of that individual’s login and
password shall be deemed the filing of a signed original document for all
purposes.

9.1. The electronic transmission of a document, together with transmission of

the NDA from the court, in accordance with the policies, procedures, and rules
adopted by the court, constitutes the filing of the document under the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure and constitutes the entry of that document onto the
official docket of the court maintained by the clerk pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
45(b)(1). All orders, decrees, notices, opinions and judgments of the court will be
filed and maintained by the ECF system and constitute entry on the docket kept
by the clerk for purposes of Rules 36 and 45(b)(1) and (c) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.

9.2. The electronic version of filed documents, whether filed electronically in the
first instance or received by the clerk in paper format and subsequently scanned
into electronic format, constitutes the official record in the case. Later
modification of a filed document or docket entry is not permitted except as
authorized by the court. A document submitted electronically is deemed to have
been filed on the date and at the time indicated in the system-generated NDA.

Source: SIXTH CIRCUIT GUIDE TO ELECTRONIC FILING”

.
NBC surely knows fully well that “Guide to electronic filing” is by no means
equivalent to Local Rules of Court pursuant to Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC
§2071-7.
 Rate This
Reply
8. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 22:31
I apologize for confusing the rules with the training document outlining how the
system works. However, the latter helps understand how the rules have been
implemented. If you believe that the implementation is at odds with the rules
then please present your case.
So far, the information appears to be in support of my position but as I said, I
may be missing something.

Rate This
9. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 22:04
NBC: Formatted

- NBC writes:
“Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court
sits, but “miscellaneous” orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.
Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance,
while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day.”
1) NBC is yet to provide reference to show that the above quote was from official
Local Rules of the US Supreme Court.

2) Even if such quote was to be relied upon, please notice that neither the
purported denial by Justice Kennedy in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), nor in the
purported denial by Justice Thomas in Rhodes v McDonald () were the purported
orders listed in the log of orders of the US Supreme Court, neither were the
purported orders listed in the Journal of the US Supreme Court, as described in
the quote above.

Rate This
Reply
10. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 22:10
 1) NBC is yet to provide reference to show that the above quote was from official
Local Rules of the US Supreme Court.

2) Even if such quote was to be relied upon, please notice that neither the
purported denial by Justice Kennedy in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), nor in the
purported denial by Justice Thomas in Rhodes v McDonald () were the
purported orders listed in the log of orders of the US Supreme Court, neither
were the purported orders listed in the Journal of the US Supreme Court, as
described in the quote above.

It’s not a rule, it’s a practice. The orders were listed on their dockets, the log of
orders applies only to cases where the whole Court decides.

See for instance:

Orly v McDonald
Fine v Baca
Hope this clarifies.

Rate This
Reply
11. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 21:48
NBC: Edited for formatting

- NBC wrote:
per SCOTUS rules, these notices are unsigned.”
- Joseph Zernik wrote:
* There was no notice at all in Rhodes v McDonald.
* Could you please provide reference to the Local Rules of Court, where it states
that Notices are unsigned?
- NBC writes:
“The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of
summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition
for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued
on each Monday that the Court sits, but “miscellaneous” orders may be issued in
 individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on
the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of
issuance or the next day.”
- Joseph Zernik responds:
* Could NBC please identify the record from which this quote was made?
* Was it at all from the official Local Rules of the US Supreme Court?
Rate This
Reply
12. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 22:05
Could NBC please identify the record from which this quote was made?
Was it at all from the official Local Rules of the US Supreme Court?

The quote was made on the Supreme Court’s website

The official rules do not address whether or not a signature is required for denial
of stay.

It is not an order in the common sense of word so it seems appropriate that it can
be unsigned. The clerk however did return a signed statement informing the
parties of the decision.
All the rules show is

Rule 22: Application to individual justices

4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon.

6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means,
of the disposition made of an application.

Rate This
Reply
13. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 21:28
…
 As I said, I am interested in your claims about SCOTUS and the core issues in
Richard Fine’s case.

I am working from the simple and perhaps simplistic assumptions that:

1. The Electronic Docket represents the official court record

2. NEF’s are used to inform the parties of pending matters
3. NEF’s include a RSA code in case of matters filed by the parties
4. Documents filed in the electronic docket need not be signed to be considered to
be signed by the Judge. In fact, there appear to be several different ways for a
Judge to ‘sign’ a document, including the use of his electronic logon credentials.
Since these documents are filed by the Court, they are by default, official court
records once filed as such.

What am I missing here?

Rate This
Reply
14. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 21:32
Some examples of rules

Clerk of Court or Deputy Clerks – The electronic filing of any document by the
clerk or a deputy clerk of this court by use of that individual’s login and
password shall be deemed the filing of a signed original document for all
purposes.

9.1. The electronic transmission of a document, together with transmission of the

NDA from the court, in accordance with the policies, procedures, and rules
adopted by the court, constitutes the filing of the document under the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure and constitutes the entry of that document onto the
official docket of the court maintained by the clerk pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
45(b)(1). All orders, decrees, notices, opinions and judgments of the court will be
filed and maintained by the ECF system and constitute entry on the docket kept
by the clerk for purposes of Rules 36 and 45(b)(1) and (c) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
 9.2. The electronic version of filed documents, whether filed electronically in the
first instance or received by the clerk in paper format and subsequently scanned
into electronic format, constitutes the official record in the case. Later
modification of a filed document or docket entry is not permitted except as
authorized by the court. A document submitted electronically is deemed to have
been filed on the date and at the time indicated in the system-generated NDA.

Source: SIXTH CIRCUIT GUIDE TO ELECTRONIC FILING

Rate This
Reply
15. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 21:38
CRC 2.257 reports

Documents signed under penalty of perjury

When a document to be filed electronically provides for a signature under

penalty of perjury, the following applies:

(1)The document is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the
declarant has signed a printed form of the document.

(2)By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer certifies that (1) has
been complied with and that the original, signed document is available for
inspection and copying at the request of the court or any other party.

(3)At any time after the document is filed, any other party may serve a demand
for production of the original signed document. The demand must be served on
all other parties but need not be filed with the court.

(4)Within five days of service of the demand under (3), the party on whom the
demand is made must make the original signed document available for
inspection and copying by all other parties.

(5)At any time after the document is filed, the court may order the filing party
to produce the original signed document in court for inspection and copying by
the court. The order must specify the date, time, and place for the production
and must be served on all parties.

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(b) Documents not signed under penalty of perjury

If a document does not require a signature under penalty of perjury,

the document is deemed signed by the party if the document is filed
electronically.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(c) Documents requiring signatures of opposing parties

When a document to be filed electronically, such as a stipulation, requires the

signatures of opposing parties, the following procedure applies:

(1)The party filing the document must obtain the signatures of all parties on a
printed form of the document.

(2)The party filing the document must maintain the original, signed document
and must make it available for inspection and copying as provided in (a)(2).
The court and any other party may demand production of the original signed
document in the manner provided in (a)(3)-(5).

(3)By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates that all
parties have signed the document and that the filer has the signed original in his
or her possession.

(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(d) Digital signature

A party is not required to use a digital signature on an electronically filed

document.
 (e) Judicial signatures
If a document requires a signature by a court or a judicial officer,
the document may be electronically signed in any manner permitted
by law.
Rate This
Reply
16. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 20:49
“Thomas’s denial was communicated through the appropriate channels”
What “appropriate channels”?
* In Rhode v McDonald, no notice and service was provided at all… The applicant
heard about the purported denial through email from persons unrelated to the
court at all…
“per SCOTUS rules, these notices are unsigned.”
* There was no notice at all in Rhodes v McDonald.
* Could you please provide reference to the Local Rules of Court, where it states
that Notices are unsigned?

Rate This
Reply
17. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 21:17
“Thomas’s denial was communicated through the appropriate channels”
What “appropriate channels”?

Both through the website’s docket system as well as a letter sent by Danny Bickell
to the respective counsels

* In Rhode v McDonald, no notice and service was provided at all… The

applicant heard about the purported denial through email from persons
unrelated to the court at all…

That is incorrect. Notice was provided in a letter Orly herself presented on her
site.
 “per SCOTUS rules, these notices are unsigned.”
* There was no notice at all in Rhodes v McDonald.
* Could you please provide reference to the Local Rules of Court, where it states
that Notices are unsigned?

The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily
by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for
certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on
each Monday that the Court sits, but “miscellaneous” orders may be issued in
individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on
the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of
issuance or the next day.

Rate This
Reply
18. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 20:36
It would be good to return to the original issue which is the denial of the stay by
Justice Thomas which was communicated to Orly by the Court through Danny
Bickell. I have yet to find any reasons, precedents, or arguments as to why such a
denial should be considered void?

Similarly, I would like to explore the issue of Richard Fine in more detail. Do you
at least agree with the core findings in the case? Ignoring for the moment any
claims of voidness of judgments and orders, and just focusing on what happened?
Do you or do you not agree with my observation that the issue of payments to the
Judges by the Counties has no relevance to the predicaments of Richard Fine?

So far I have found the arguments raised to support the claim that Fine is held a
political prisoner to be underwhelming.
So what am I missing?
The Rampart FIP again has no relevance here as to the extent that it has little to
do with the courts but rather with the behavior of the LAPD. While certainly
deserving resolution, they have no relevance as far as I can tell to the Fine case.

Rate This
Reply
19. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 16:52
The consistent refusal to publish honest, valid, and effectual Rule of Court, the
consequent insistence on issuing vague and ambiguous court records, and the
insistence on denying access to court records were alleged as serious abuse of the
Human Rights of the people of the United States by its own government in the
April 2010 report filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) with the United Nations.
Responses by the US State Department are due in August 2010.
Review and report by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations is
scheduled for November 2010 – the first ever external review of the US justice
system.
It would surely be a spectacle worth watching.

Rate This
Reply
20. Joseph Zernik says:
July 24, 2010 at 01:32
NBC is in error. Human Rights Alert never filed a Petition with the United
Nations. Human Rights Alert filed on April 19, 2010 a UPR (Universal Periodic
Review) report with the United Nations, as part of the first ever review of Human
Rights in the United States by the United Nations.
Responses by the US State Department are due in August 2010.
Review session and report by the United Nations Human Rights Council are due
in November 2010.

Rate This
Reply
21. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 17:23
Indeed….
Human Rights Alert (NGO) appears to be your own organization, I am correct?

After careful consideration of the contents of your complaint dated 12 July 2010,
we sincerely regret having to inform you that the Petitions Unit of the United
Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not in a position
 to assist you in the matter you raise.
The Human Rights Committee cannot examine petitions alleging violations of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) unless the
State is also a party to the Optional Protocol (OP). United States of America is
not a State party to the Optional Protocol.

Source: Correspondence with the UN

The UN’s Human Rights Council website
Enjoy

Rate This
Reply
22. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 12:37
“· bob says:
July 23, 2010 at 03:51
Do you believe that the order never existed? (Is it a conspiracy of clerks?)
Or that the order does exist, but can’t acted up due to these asserted violations?”
What I am saying is that court records must not be vague and ambiguous.
- The docket shows an entry, unsigned, that the application was denied…
- No denial order was ever served and noticed, in and of itself alleged violation of
Due Process rights…
- The log of SCOTUS rulings shows no listing of such denial…
- The Journal of SCOTUS shows no listing of such denial either…
- The denial record itself is nowhere to be seen…
Court records must not be a game of hide and seek.

Rate This
Reply
23. bob says:
July 23, 2010 at 13:38
Wow; you can’t answer even a simple question plainly.

You’ve failed to demonstrate the records are “vague and ambiguous”: The actual
paper judgment in Fine’s case is in the file; there’s nothing vague and ambiguous
 about that. Everything else is just you making problems where none actually
exist.

With respect to SCOTUS’s docket, a denial by a single justice is not journaled (or
logged on its orders page). (The full court denial in Fine’s No. 09A827
application, for example, was journaled on page 779.) Fine’s most
recent applications were referred to the full court. The eventual denial of these
latest filings will be duly journaled (and logged on the orders page), but that
won’t satisfy you, now will it?
The denials (even the single-justice ones) are docketed (and are available online),
so the public does know what happened in the case.

The letter Fine received from Bickell is adequate notice of the court’s actions. Due
process does require actual notice of the court’s actions, but not notice in a
manner that tickles your fancy.

Rate This
Reply
24. NBC says:
July 23, 2010 at 19:58
Failure to understand rules and procedures may give one the impression that the
denial notice is somehow illegal.

Of course, common sense, and some research shows otherwise but why the claim
as it appears to deny cert one way or the other.

Note however, that the reply by Justice Thomas, communicated by Danny

Bickell, is not an ‘order’ in the traditional sense.

Thomas’s denial was communicated through the appropriate channels and per
SCOTUS rules, these notices are unsigned.

Rate This
Reply
25. Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 11:44
NBC is still skirting the issues:
1) NBC is making up Rules of Court as he goes, but still fails to provide any valid
reference where he pulls them out of. Publish Rule of Court, which are NOT
vague and ambiguous are a fundamental of Due Process rights.
2) In the Habeas Corpus of Richard Fine, 15 NEFs were issued not by a party, but
by Court, albeit by a person who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the
Court.
3) In the Habeas Corpus, the Clerk of the Court, denied numerous requests to
certify the PACER docket of the Habeas Corpus as a docket that was constructed
pursuant to US Law, on behalf of the Clerk of the Court.
Please notice, that in contrast with the older Certificate of Service by Clerk, there
is no mention of the name of the person issuing the NEF in CM/ECF, no mention
of his/her authority as Deputy Clerk, and no mention of the authority of the Clerk
of the Court anywhere either in the NEF or in the PACER docket.