2010-03-25 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: Visit to US Dist Crt, Los Angeles, and Opinion re: Integrity of Operations and access to records in Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914), and US vCity of Los Angeles et al (2:00-cv-11769)

1/77
Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthli
nk.net, c=US
Location: La Verne,
California
Date: 2010.03.25
15:17:16 -07'00'
Declaration of Joseph H Zernik

In re: March 24, 2010 Visit to US District Court, Central District of California, Los
Angeles, and
Review of Records, and Opinion of Joseph H Zernik
In re: Integrity of Records and Operations of PACER & CM/ECF at the US District
Court, 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 set
forth herein, which I know to be true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon
information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well. If called as
a 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 the
US 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 Nations
Office 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 the
Chief Judge of the US District Court, Central District of California, Audrey Collins, and the Clerk of the
Court – Terry Nafisi, relative to the case of a person – Richard I Fine, whose Liberty was deprived, and
relative to the people of Central District of California, whose Human Rights for competent tribunals and
fair hearings were deprived.
1. For about nine (9) months, I have been attempting to exercise my First Amendment right to access court
records – to inspect and to copy - at the US District Court, Los Angeles. My attempts were included, but
were 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 v
Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) – the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine, and US v
City of Los Angeles et al (2:00-cv-11769) – litigation that took place in the wake of the Rampart
corruption scandal (1998-2000).
2. In late December 2009 I gained access to some, but not all NEFs in my case - Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline
Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), described elsewhere. The findings in that case were essentially the same as
described 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 the
NEFs (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 access
to court records and the legal foundation for the operations of the court in CM/ECF. In such letter
the General Order 08-02 was included as an attachment, and was claimed to provide the legal
foundation 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
2/77
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 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.
6. The copy of the General Order 08-02, which was provided in the March 16, 2010 letter, was
unsigned.
7. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the March 24, 2010 AM email notice, which I addressed to
Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, and copied to the Chief Judge of the Court, the Hon Audrey
Collins, to Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock, and to the Public Intake Unit Supervisor Sharon
McGee. My March 24, 2010 email notice responded to Clerk Nafisi’s March 16, 2010 letter. In
such email notice, I again asked for the legal foundation of denial of access to court records, and
again expressed my concerns regarding dishonest handling of court records at the Office of the
Clerk, 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 to
records – 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 Richard
Fine – 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 the
Clerk of the Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles. The Duty Deputy Clerk identified
herself as Luz. I presented her with two copies of a March 24, 2010 letter (Exhibit 3) addressed to
Terry 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 that
was 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 the
copy 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 reason
for such request was that it was clear that the Court allowed online public access only to select
General 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, 2010
letter of Terry Nafisi (Exhibit 1) in a manner that was deemed by me dubious. Luz permitted me to
inspect 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 which
I obtained from Luz at the Public Department of the Office of the Clerk of the Court, US District
3/77
March 25, 2010
Court, Central District of California, on March 24, 2010. All three orders were hand signed by the
Hon Audrey Collins, Chief Judge of the Court. All three orders showed “FILED” stamps on their
face page, with endorsement by the hand of a Deputy Clerk, whose name neither Luz, nor I could
decipher. 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 would
be 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 habeas
corpus 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 was
hand delivered to her (Exhibit 3). Luz stated that she would be able to allow me to inspect the NEFs on
her computer screen, but that she was not authorized to permit the copying of such records. She advised
me 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 Angeles
County (2:09-cv-01914) prior to March 24, 2010, not even on the computer screen at the Office of the
Clerk.
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 NEF
included four distinct RSA-encrypted digital signature. The first was for the main document, and
the 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 NEF
included 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, with
combination lock door. I knocked, and was assisted by a Deputy Clerk, who took my request to
access 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 copy
of the General Order 08-02, which adjoined to it had a page of hand signatures of judges. In
contrast with the General Orders 10-01, 10-02 10-03, which included only the signature of the
Chief 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 General
Order 08-02, and others did not. The practice relative to the signatures on General Order 08-02 was
clearly 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 the
time 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, in
response 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.
4/77
March 25, 2010
B. Regarding Concerns that Prompted the March 24, 2010 Visit to the Court
24. The concerns in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) could be summed as
three fold:
a. That the US District Court deliberately created invalid, void, not voidable records in CM/ECF –
the Court’s case management/ electronic court filing system;
b. That the true nature of such records could not discerned in the public access system – PACER;
c. That the Court denied access to the Court records in CM/ECF – to inspect and to copy - which
would have allowed to discern the nature of such records.
25. Additional concerns pertained to the legal foundation for the operation of PACER and CM/ECF at the US
District Court, Central District of California, which enabled such conduct, and which allowed the creation
of duplicitous court records. In my opinion the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF amounted to a
sea change in the operations of the Court. Such change in the operations of the Court was not reflected in
the Local Rules of Courts. 1, 2, 3
C. Regarding General Order 10-01:
26. Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the PACER docket of James E Keener vc HSBC Mortgage
Services Inc et al (09-cv-06956). Indeed, under Dkt# 42, dated January 7, 2010, the following entry
was found, which matched the General Order 10-01 (Exhibit 4):
01/07/2010 42 ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE (#10−001) approved by Chief Judge Audrey B.
Collins. Pursuant to the recommended procedure adopted by the Court for the
CREATION OF CALENDAR of Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen and with the
concurrence of the Case Management and Assignment Committee, this case is
transferred from Judge Florence−Marie Cooper to the calendar of Judge Jacqueline
H. Nguyen for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials
of the transferee Judge CV 09−06956 JHN (JEMx). (rn) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
27. There was no way for the public to access the NEF of Dkt #42 in PACER.
D. Regarding two (2) NEFs, which were inspected with Deputy Clerk Luz on a
computer screen:
28. Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the March 25, 2010 PACER docket of Richard I Fine v Sheriff
of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914), which I later accessed in PACER.
29. The docket included the following entries for the commencing record, Dkt #1, March 20, 2009 Petition,
and the terminating record, Dkt #31 June 29, 2009 Judgment.
03/20/2009 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254)
Case assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson and referred to Magistrate Judge Carla
1
Copies of the Local Rules of Courts of the US District Court, Central District of California as downloaded on March 24,
2010 can be viewed at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28862438/10-03-24-Local-Rules-Chapters-1-4-of-the-US-District-Court-Central-District-of-
California-s
2
Copies of the General Orders of the US District Court, Central District of California as downloaded on March 24, 2010
can be viewed at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28861084/10-03-24-General-Orders-of-the-US-District-Court-Central-District-of-California-s
3
A copy of the “Unofficial” Anderson’s Manual for CM/ECF at the US District Court, Central District of California, can be
viewed at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28869533/10-03-24-US-District-Court-Central-District-of-California-CM-ECF-Unofficial-
Anderson-Manual-s
5/77
March 25, 2010
Woehrle. (Filing fee $ 5: FEE PAID.), filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.

(Attachments: # 1 Part 1 of Petitioner, # 2 Part 2 of Petitioner, # 3 Part 3 of
Petitioner)(ghap) Modified on 3/24/2009 (ghap). (Additional attachment(s) added
on 3/24/2009: # 1 Part 2 of Petition, # 2 Part 3 of Petition, # 3 Part 4 of Petition)
(ghap). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
06/29/2009 31 JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter: IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ
of habeas corpus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS−6,
Case Terminated). (pcl) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
30. The bracketed initials in such entries, “(ghap)” for Dkt #1, and “(pcl)” for Dkt #31, appear as initials of the
individuals who “Entered” such records. However, nowhere in the docket was there any certification that
such initials referred to individuals who held the authority of Deputy Clerks. Neither was there any HTML or
Java tag in the web page that allowed to identify such initials as part of digital signatures. Such initials were
merely text.
31. It is my opinion that such docketing text in PACER in both Dkt #1 and Dkt #31 would lead a reasonable
person to conclude that both of the records were indeed entered as honest, valid, and effectual records of
the US District Court, Central District of California. There was no way to access the NEFs of the
respective records in PACER.
E. Regarding Other Entries in the Dockets of the Court by “(dt)”.
32. Upon further review of the docket in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914), the
following fifteen records, most of which were Court minutes, orders, or opinions, were found to have been
“entered” by “(dt)”:
a. 04/07/2009 6 ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION;
b. 04/09/2009 7 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
c. 04/23/2009 13 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
d. 04/24/2009 14 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Or, In The
Alternative, Request That This Court Direct The Real Parties In Interest To Respond To Petitioner's Habeas
Corpus Petition;
e. 05/05/2009 17 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
f. 05/05/2009 18 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
g. 05/05/2009 19 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
h. 05/05/2009 20 ORDER STRIKING by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
i. 06/12/2009 25 NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
j. 06/12/2009 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
k. 06/12/2009 27 AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge
Carla Woehrle;
l. 06/26/2009 32 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
m. 07/09/2009 37 STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD − EX PARTE APPLICATION;
n. 07/21/2009 46 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle;
o. 07/21/2009 47 (DUPLICATE) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle:
6/77
March 25, 2010
33. Likewise, in docket of Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), many of the entries are
designated as “entered” by “(dt)”.
34. I am informed and believe that the designation “(dt)” referred to Ms Donna Thomas, who at the time that
she executed such transactions in the dockets of the two cases referenced above, was Courtroom Assistant,
but was NOT authorized as a Deputy Clerk.
35. In correspondence with Clerk Nafisi, I repeatedly requested that Clerk Nafisi state whether Donna
Thomas was authorized as a Deputy Clerk at the time that she executed such transactions. Clerk Nafisi
consistently refused to respond on such questions.
F. Regarding Security and Integrity of User Logins in CM/ECF
36. The fact that individual(s) at the courts, who were not authorized as Deputy Clerks were able to access the
dockets and to execute such docket transactions, raised great concerns regarding the security and integrity
of the dockets in general, and the dockets in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914) and in Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), in particular.
G. Regarding Integrity of the Dockets of the US District Court, Central District of
California in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and Joseph Zernik v
Jacqueline Connor et al.
37. The Office of the Clerk of the Court refused to certify any PACER dockets.
38. In correspondence with Clerk Nafisi, I repeatedly requested that Clerk Nafisi state whether she considered
the dockets in the cases named above, Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and Joseph Zernik
v Jacqueline Connor et al., as dockets that were honest, valid, and effectual dockets of the US District
Court, Central District of California, which had been constructed in compliance with the laws of the
United States. Clerk Nafisi consistently refused to respond on such questions.
39. It is my opinion that the PACER dockets in the two captions referenced above were false and deliberately
misleading court records.
H. Regarding Case Numbers Designations at the US District Court, Central
District of California.
40. Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the March 25, 2010 PACER case query under the Index
Judgment, which I later access online. Upon query for the case number “09-01914”, the following data
was retrieved:
Case 09-01914
Number Select a case:
2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (closed
06/29/2009)
2:09-mj-01914-DUTY USA v. Rodriguez (closed 09/18/2009)
5:09-cv-01914-RGK-DTB Kenton Hawkins v. Lennox Industries Inc et al (closed
12/29/2009)
41. Two entirely unrelated cases were listed under the same office - “2”, with the same case number -
“09-01914”. One was a civil case – “CV” – the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine, and the other
a magistrate case – “MJ” - typically of criminal nature – USA v Rodriguez.
42. Similar results were previously found relative to Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al (2:08-cv-
01550), upon query of the case number “08-01550”.
43. It was and is my opinion that such practice at the US District Court, Central District of California, of
linking unrelated civil cases, to magistrate criminal cases, was of great concern. Based on data
survey, I was and am of the opinion that the civil cases, which were handled this way were more
likely to be subjected to perversions of justice at the Court.
7/77
March 25, 2010
I. Regarding the PACER Judgment Index of the US District Court, Central District
of California
44. Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the March 25, 2010 Judgment Index for 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, which was retrieved in PACER upon selection of such
case from the table in Exhibit 7. The PACER data retrieved from the Judgment Index appeared as if
Judgment was indeed entered in the case.
Case _umber/Title Judgment Description Status

09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Richard I. In favor of: Sheriff of Los Angeles County No Payment
Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Against: Richard I. Fine 06/29/2009
County Amount: $ 0.00
Date: 06/29/2009
Document: 31
Interest: 0.00%
Court Cost: $ 0.00
45. There was no signature of an authorized Deputy Clerk, not even initials, in this online PACER
record.
46. It was and is my opinion that Judgment Index, or Book of Judgments, and related Due Process
procedures for entry of judgments, have evolved over centuries as key safeguards for integrity of
operations of the court. However, the manner that such procedures were implemented in PACER
stripped them of any integrity.
J. Regarding NEFs Received on March 24, 2010 from Chief Deputy Doty.
47. Later, upon review, the following two NEFs were discovered in the records, which were provided by
Ms Doty (Exhibit 6):
a. Dkt #1 – March 20, 2009 Petition – the NEF record indeed included four RSA-encrypted
digital signatures, as inspected on the screen with Deputy Clerk Luz.
b. Dkt #59 – February 18, 2010 Mandate of the 9th CCA – the NEF record included no RSA-
encrypted digital signature at all.
Instead of providing the NEF for the June 29, 2009 Judgment, as requested in my March 24, 2010 letter,
Ms Doty provided me with the NEF for Dkt #59, February 18, 2010 Mandate of the 9th CCA - the true
ultimate record in the docket of the case.
48. Later, I examined the PACER docket text for Dkt #59 – February 18, 2010 Mandate of the 9th
CCA (Exhibit 7)
02/18/2010 59 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Petition for Certificate of Appealability 34 , CCA
# 09−56073. The Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Mandate received
in this district on 2/18/2010. (lr) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
49. Upon inspection of the PACER docketing text for Dkt #59, a reasonable person would conclude that
a February 18, 2010 Mandate of 9th CCA, which was the outcome of the Richard I Fine appeal to
the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, was indeed entered as an honest, valid, and effectual court
record of the US District Court, Central District of California, in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los
Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914), and that such mandate indeed AFFIRMED the Decision of the District
Court in the June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter.
8/77
March 25, 2010
50. I am of the opinion that the docket entry in Dkt #59 was and is false and deliberately misleading. The
Mandate by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit was never entered as a valid records of the US
District Court, Central District of California.
51. I am also of the opinion that integrity of the appeal in its totality is dubious at best: The US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit had no jurisdiction to review an unentered June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge
John Walter, which in and of itself was a false and deliberately misleading court records as well.
K. Regarding the March 16, 2010 Letter by Clerk Nafisi
52. Upon reviewing the practices and the court records, which were documented herein, I am of the opinion
that serious doubts must be raised regarding integrity of the March 16, 2010 letter by Clerk of the Court
Terry Nafisi (Exhibit 3).
L. Regarding Integrity of Operations of PACER and CM/ECF at the US District
53. I am of the opinion that practices and the records, which were documented herein, were reason for major
concern regarding the integrity of operations of the US District Court, Central District of California,
relative to PACER and CM/ECF. Such concerns can be defined as based on the following material
deficiencies in integrity of the operation at the US District Court, Central District of California, relative to
PACER and CM/ECF:
a. The Court failed to establish the procedures for operations of PACER and CM/ECF in Local Rules of
Court, as required by law, pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §2071-7, following
reasonable opportunity for public comment and challenge. Instead, such a sea change in the
operations of the Court was defined in a General Order 08-02, with no legal authority at all.
The appearance of authority was created by obtaining multiple signatures on such General Order.
b. The Court failed to subject the systems of PACER and CM/ECF to publicly accountable validation
(certified, functional logic verification).
c. Key features in PACER and CM/ECF were deemed as false and deliberately misleading:
i. Nowhere in the PACER dockets was there any valid digital signature certifying the
dockets as Court records, to be inspected by the public.
ii. As seen in the examples above, the same elements (initials of the clerk in the docketing text)
that appeared in PACER as a signature of a Deputy Clerk designating Entry of a record, could
be handled in CM/ECF either as valid Entry (Dkt #1) or as an invalid entry (Dkt #31 and Dkt
#59).
iii. Nowhere in such implementations in the PACER dockets, or in the CM/ECF NEFs, were the
initials of the individual entering the records certified as belonging to one who was authorized
as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
iv. The listing of the judgments in the Judgment Index (Book of Judgments) in PACER, a
procedure, the like of which for centuries served as a safeguard for integrity of entry of
judgments, was implemented in a manner that was not accompanied by any authorized
signatures (digital or otherwise), and did not indicate any honest, valid, and effectual entry of
judgment either.
v. The practice of case numbers designation was allegedly subjected to dishonest tampering,
with linking of unrelated cases.
vi. Omission of the NEFs from PACER, and their inclusion only in CM/ECF, was inherently
dishonest.
d. The denial of public access to NEFs – to inspect and to copy - had no reasonable justification that
could be even remotely consistent with the furtherance of justice and honest conduct of the courts.
9/77
March 25, 2010
M. Regarding Integrity of the Review of the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard I Fine
at the US District Court, Central District of California.
54. The evidence regarding records in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914),
demonstrated that the proceedings related to the purported review of the habeas corpus petition of Richard
I Fine were in fact sham proceedings of the US District Court, Central District of California.
N. Regarding Integrity of Reviews at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit,
Originating from the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard I Fine at the US District
55. Evidence provided elsewhere, demonstrated that the Petition of Richard Fine, denied on June 30, 2009 by
the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692), was
likewise a sham proceeding of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
56. The evidence provided herein, documented that the US District Court never deemed the
appeal in the case to the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit as a valid court action either. One
must also wonder regarding the conduct of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit in engaging
in the appearance of an appeal, which was taken from a judgment of the US District Court,
which had never been entered.
O. Regarding the US District Court, Central District of California as
protector of Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights
57. The case at hand, and other cases as well, demonstrated that conduct of the US District Court, Central
District of California, in general, and the operations of PACER and CM/ECF, in particular, were
employed to deprive the people of the Central District of California of Human, Constitutional, and Civil
Rights.
58. The case at hand demonstrated that conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California, in
general, and the operations of PACER and CM/ECF, in particular, were employed to deprive Richard
Fine of Liberty.
P. List of Exhibits:
59. Attached to this declaration are the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1: March 16, 2010 Letter by Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court. - 11
Exhibit 2: March 24, 2010 AM Email notice addressed to Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi. - 41
Exhibit 3: March 24, 2010 Letter – request to access court records, addressed to Clerk of the
Court, Terry Nafisi, hand delivered at the Court. - 44
Exhibit 4: March 24, 2010 General Orders 10-01, 10-02, and 10-03, copies, which I obtained
from Luz, Deputy Clerk, at the Public Department of the Office of the Clerk of the
Court, US District Court, Central District of California. - 46
Exhibit 5: March 24, 2010 Business Card, which was provide to me by Ms Theresa Doty, Chief
Deputy Clerk- Operations. - 51
Exhibit 6: March 24, 2010 Two (2) NEFs, which were received from Ms Theresa Doty, Chief
Deputy Clerk- Operations - Dkt #1 – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Dkt #59 –
Mandate of the 9th CCA, in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914) - 53
Exhibit 7: March 25, 2010 PACER Docket of James E Keener vc HSBC Mortgage Services Inc et
al (09-cv-06956). - 57
10/77
March 25, 2010
Exhibit 8: March 25, 2010 PACER Docket of Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-
cv-01914) - 65.
Exhibit 9: March 25, 2010 PACER Case Query for 09-01914 in the Judgment Index. - 73
Exhibit 10: March 25, 2010 Judgment Index for 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff
of Los Angeles County, which was retrieved upon selection of such case from the table in
Exhibit 7 in PACER - 75.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 25th day in March, 2010, in Los Angeles county, California.
Joseph H Zernik
By_________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: (323) 515-4583
Fax:(323) 488-9697
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
11/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 1
12/77
.,,\!';tllS DIS1'~/('
",<:!iiIi ~ ('> UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
i~~~L\ CENTRAL DISTRJrCT OF CAL[FORNilA
WESTERN DIVISION SOUTHERN DIVISION

312 North Spring Street, Room G-8
"t.,~~~s
411 West Fourth Street, Suite 1053
\~~"~J~l
</: Jj 1-....
Los Angeles, CA 900 12 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516
~l'l/lCT ol! (,
TERJR.Y NAFISI EASTERN DIVISION

District Conrt Executive and 3470 Twelfth Street, Room 134
Clerk of Court Riverside, CA 92501
March 16, 2010
Joseph Zemik, Ph.D.
PO Box 526
La Verne, CaEfornia 91750
RE: Your e-mail dated January 4, 2010
Dear Mr. Zemik,
This is in response to your e-mail to me and Dawn Bullock dated January 4, 2010.
Please be aware- that under the Code ofConduct for Judicial Employees, neither the Clerk of
O::mrt nor clerk's office employees are pemritted to participate in any discussion regarding the merits
ofa particular litigant's case or to provide legal or procedural definitions, interpretations or advice.
I will respond to your specific inquiries that this office is pemritted to address.
Most ofyour questions can be answered by reading this court's General Order 08-02, Order
Authorizing Electronic Filing. This general order elm be accessed from the court's website located
at www.cacd.uscourts.gov. For your convenience, a copy of Geheral Order 08-02 is enclosed.
According to section V. B. of General Order 08-02, documents filed by pro se litigants are
filed and served in the traditional manner and are scanned (dectronically filed and served) by the
clerk's office into the CMlECF system. A request to access recorps £i.-om "paper court files" cannot
be accommodated because after the clerk's office scans the document filed by a pro se litigant, the
document is shredde,d. Once a pro se litigant's document is dectronically filed and served by the
clerk's office, a pape1' Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) is autom,atically generated and e-mailed to
the parties ofrecord in the case who are enrolled to receive electronic service. Since a pro se litigant
does not electronically file and serve documents, the JPro se litigant does not have access to the
electronically generated! NEF. If a pw se litigant should want a <kpy of an NEF that is related to a
particular document in ~ case in which the pro se litigant is a party, the clerk's office would have to
print the NEF for the pro se litigant.
The Court does not document the shredding ofdocuments after a document is electronically
scanned.
13/77
Jos4::ph Zemik, Ph.D.

March 16, 2010
Page 2
General Orders do bear the signature of a majority of the district judges. However, due to
security concerns, the signatures are not posted as part of a gener~l order.
Only current General Orders are posted on the court's website. General Orders that have
been superseded and are no longer in effect are not post,ed on the ,court's website.
Please visit the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov where there is on-line access to
valuable information for pro se litigants (see the section entitled Pro Se on the homepage). In
addition to the on-line information, you may also visit the clinic located at the U. S. Courthouse, 312
N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, Room 525.
Sincerely,
jjW\~.N~
T e:rry N afisi
end"
cc: Dawn Bullock, Records/Mail Supervisor (w/o enclosure)

14/77
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF,' CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF:

)
) GENERAL ORDER No. 08-02
ORDER AUTHORIZING )
ELECTRONIC FILING ) (Supersedes General Order
) No. 07-08)
)
Table of Contents
I. Authorization " :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Applicability of Other Rules and Orders . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
B. Cas(;:s Subject to Electronic Filing 6
n. Definitions , '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
A. CM/ECF System 1 ••• " ••••••••••••••••••••••• 6
B. CM/ECF Website 6
C. CM/ECF Registration. , 7
D. CM/ECF User , , 7
E. Electronic Filing 7
1
15/77
General Order 08-02
F. Electronic Signature " ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
G. Consent to Electronic Service ... , .... , .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
H. E-Mail Address of Record .. , ,.................... 8
I. Electronic Post Office Box , . , .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
J. Notice of Electronic Flling 8
K. Electronic Service .. , , , . . . . . . . .. 8
L. Generic Chambers E-Mail Box , 8
M. Intake E-J\1ail Box 9
N. Hours , .. , .. , ',' 9
O. Calculation of Days 1. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 9
P. PACER , " : 9
Q. Procedures and Instructions , ,................. 9
R. PDF ,., , 9
S. Notice of CM/ECF Unavailab itl it}:· 10
T. Courtesy Paper Copy ,............................ 10
U. Traditional Filing 10
V. Traditional Service ... , ..... "........................... 10
HI. Maintenance of Personal Contact Infomlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
A. Obligation to Maintain Personal Contact Information " 10
2
16/77
General Order 08-02
B. Obligation to Notify Court of Change ofPersonal
Contact Infonnation 10
C. Obligation to Maintain Electronic Post Office Box , 11
IV. Electronic Filing ,.......................... 11
A. Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
B. Authorizin.g Use of Login and Password by Others
to Electronically File Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
C. FOl1l1lat ,.. ~ 12
D. Courtesy Paper Copies ,............................. 12
E. Obligation to Protect Sensitive and Private Information 12
1. Social Security Numbers 13
2. Taxpayer Identification Numbers , 13
3. Names of Minor Children ',' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
4. Dates of Birth 1........................... 13
5. Financial Account Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
6. Home Address 13
7. Additional Information .. , , 13
F. Exemptions From the Redaction Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
G. Filing Documents With Sensitive' and Private Information 14
17/77
General Order 08-02
H. Waiver of Protection of Personal Data Identifiers 15
I. Hyperlinks , : , , .. 15
J. Deadlines " 15
K. Notice of Discrepancies For Elect~onically Filed Documents. . . .. 16
L. Correcting Errors in E.. Filed Documents .:................... 16
M. Technical Failures , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
N. Docket." " 17
O. Certificatilon of Electronic Documents : , 17
V. Exclusions From Electronic Filing 18
A. Generally , .. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
B. Pro Se Litigants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
C. Case Initiating Documents , " " 19
1. Civil Case Initiating Documents , 19
2. Cri.minal Case Initiating Documents 19
B. Under Seal Documents , , 20
E. Records for Bankruptcy Appeals land Administrative
Review Cases " " "" "".".,,........... 20
F. Voluminous Exhibits ; "." 20
G. Criminal Duty Matters 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20
18/77
General Order. 08-02
VI. Proposed Orders, Proposed Judgments, or Other Proposed
Documents That Require a Judge's Signature 21
A. Electronically Filed Proposed Doc]Llments 21
B. WordPerfect or Microsoft Word Copy of Proposed Documents .. , 21
VII. Service of Electronically Filed Documents ..... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
A. Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
B. Service of the Court's Orders or Other Court I
Generated Documents " ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
VIII. Signatures " " .. "................................ 23
A. CM/ECF Users ..... "................................... 23
B. Documents Requiring ~v1ultiple CMiECF User Signatures 24
C. Documents Requiring Signatures Other Than
CMlECFUsers 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24
IX. Limitations on Remote Access to Electronic Social
Security Appeals and Immigration Cases , 25
X. Access to Rules ,'........................... 25
19/77
General Order No. 08-02
I. Authorization.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civili Procedure 5(d)(2)(3) and 83, the court
hereby authorizes and establishes operating rules for the. electronic filing of
pleadings and papers.
A. Applicability of Other ROiles and Orders. Unless modified by the
assigned judge, all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, Local Rules, and Orders of the court shall continue to apply to cases that
are subject to electronic filing.
B. Cases Subject to Electronic Fili~lg. Except as specifically provided
for in this General Order, all civil and criminal cases an? subject to electronic filing.
n. Definitions.
The following dlefinitions shall apply to these lUles regarding electronic
filing:
A. "CM/ECJF System" refers to the automated Case
Management/Electronic Case Filing system implemented by the court. The
CM/ECF system stores case files in a database, and documents are filed
electronically, to llhe extent possible. The CMlECF sys~em is available at
https:llecf.cacd.lUsCOllJrts.gov.
B. "CM/ECF Website" refers to the court's CMlECF website that
6
20/77
General Order No. 08-0.2

provides pertinent infonnation regarding the CMlECF system. The CM/ECF
website is available at www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.
C. "CNUECF Registration" refers to Iregistering with the United States
District Court, Central District of California, to tile documents electronically
through the CM/ECF system. Registration is c:ompleted on-line through the
CM/ECF website. Upon the completion of CM/ECF Registration, a CM/ECF login
and password is provided.
D. "Clvl/ECF User" is a person who lis registered to file in the CM/ECF
system.
E. "Electronic Filing" refers to the p'rocess of logging on the CM/ECF
system and completing a transaction that includes the uploading of the document(s)
to be filed. Sending a document bye-mail does not constitute an electronic filing.
F. "Electronic Signature" refi~rs to the signature of an electronically filed
document based on: (Il) the CM/ECF User's login and password and (2) the
person's representative signature, "lSI -- Name," or a digitized personalized
signature or facsimile signature on the signature line of the document.
G. "Consent to Electronic Service" ii, the authorization by an attorney to
accept service by electronic means pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil and
Criminal Procedure. Attorneys may consent to electronic service as part of the on
21/77
Hne CM/ECF Registration.
H. "E-·Mail Address of Record" refers to the primary e-mail address for
each CM/ECF lJ ser as indicated on the docket, and is used for electronic service.
I. "Electronic Post Office Box" identifies a storage area in the CM/ECF
User's computer system.
J. "Notice of Electronic Filing" (NEF) is a notice automatically
generated by the CMlECF system at the time a,document is electronically filed.
The NEF will set forth the time of filing, the n~Lme of the parties and attomey(s)
filing the document, the type of document, the text of the docket entry, the name of
the parties and/or attomey(s) receiving the NEF, and a hyperlink to the filed
document that allows recipients to retrieve the document automatically. The NEF
also includes the name of any attorney(s) who did not consent to electronic service.
K. "Electronic Service" refers to transmission of the NEF. Service by
this electronic NEF constitutes service pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil and
Criminal Procedure for all CM/ECF Users who have consented to electronic
serVIce.
L. "Generic Chambers E.-Mail Box" refers to the e-mail box assigned to
each judicial officer to be used exclusively for transmission of proposed documents
vis e-mail. The generic chambers e-·mail box addresses are available on the
22/77
CM/ECF system.
M. "Intake E.-Mail Box" refers to the e-mail box assigned to the intake
department of the Clerk's Office in the Southem, Western, and Eastern Divisions of
the court to be used exclusively for transmission of e-mailed documents as specified
in this General Order. The intake e··mail box addresses are available on the
CM/ECF website.
N. All hours stated shall be Pacific Standard Time or Pacific Daylight
Time, whichever is in effect at the time"
O. All days are calculated according to the provisions of the Federal
Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure.
P. "PACER" is the Federal Judiciary's system for Public Access to
Court Electronic Records. A PACER account is necessary for retrieving documents
from the CM/ECF system. An attorney may register for a PACER account by
visiting the PACER Service Center's website at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.
Q. Proc(~dures and instructions for using the court's CM/ECF system to
implement these rules may be found on the C~1/ECF website along with other
important information.
R. "PDF" refers to Portable Docum~nt Format, a specific computer file
23/77
format that is the only fonnat in which a document may be electronically filed.
Infonnation about PDF may be found on the Cl\1/ECF website.
S. "Notice of CM/ECF Unavailability" refers to a Public Notice from the
Clerk regarding scheduled maintenance or other issues that make the CM/ECF
system unavailable to the CMlECF Users. Such Notices are placed on the CM/ECF
website.
T. "Courtesy Paper Copy" refers to '1n exact duplicate of an electronically
tiled document submitted in paper fonnat, toge:ther with an attached NEF.
u. "Traditional Filing" refers to the filing of a document in paper fonnat.
V. "Traditional Service" refers to service other than electronic service as
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure.
HI. Maintenance of Personal Contact Information.
A. Obligation to Maintain Person~l Contact Information. CMlECF
Users are required to maintain and update their personal contact account
information, including name, law finn or agency, firm address, telephone number,
facsimile number, and e-mail address(es) in the CMlECF system.
B. Obligation to Notify Court of Change of Personal Contact
Illlformation. In accordance with Local Rule 83-2.7, attorneys must notify the
Clerk within five (5) days of any change in th~ir name, law finn or agency, firm
10
24/77
address, telephone: number, facsimile number or e-mail address. In any pending
action in which an attorney has not consented to electronic service, that attorney
shall file and serv(~ a copy of the notice upon all parties.
c. Obli~~ation to Maintain Electrolllic Post Office Box. CM/ECF Users

I
who have consented to electronic service shall be responsible for ensuring their
electronic post office boxes are adequate to hmldle all documents that will be sent
electronically by making certain that: (l) their e·-mail service provider does not limit
the size of attachments, and (2) the comt's NEJF transmissions are not blocked.
uv. Electronic Filing.
A. Gent~rany. In all cases subject to electronic filing, all documents
n:quired to be filed with the Clerk shall be filed electro~ically in the CM/ECF
system.
B. Authorizing Use of Login and Password by Others to
Electronkally Fille Documents. A CIvllECF User may authorize another person to
file a document using his or her logim and password. However, the CMIECF User
shall be responsible for any document so filed.. If, at any time, a CM/ECF User
believes that the security of his or her password has been compromised, the
CM/ECF User shall immediately notify the COUlt's CM/ECF Help Desk bye-mail
or telephone as posted on the CM/JEeF websit~:.
11
25/77
C. Format. Documents filed electronically must be submitted in PDF
format to permit text slearches and to facilitate transmission and retrieval. Before
any documents an~ electronically filed, the CM/ECF User shall convert the
documents to PDF format. Electronically filled documents may not be scanned,
except as provided in this General Order.
D. Courtesy Paper Copies. Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned
judge, courtesy paper ~:;opies of all electronicailly filed documents must be delivered
to the chambers of the assigned judge no later than 12:00 noon the following
business day. The courtesy paper copies must comply with Local Rule 11-3, i.e.,
bllue backed, font size" page numbering, tabbedl exhibits~ etc., or as otherwise
directed by the assigned judge. The courtesy paper copy must be prominently
labeled COURTESY COpy on the face page. The courtesy copy must include the
NEF as the last page of the document. The court's CM/ECF website contains
additional instructions by judges for delivery of courtesy copies.
E. Oblil~ation to Protect Sensitive and Priva~:e Information. The
parties shall refrain from including, and/or shall redact where inclusion is necessary,
the following personal data identifiers from all documents filed with the Clerk.
1. SOiC~ial Security Numbers: If an individual's Social Security
Number must be included in a document, only the last four digits
12
26/77
of that number should be used.
2. Taxpayer Identification Numbers: If a taxpayer identification
nurnber must be included in a document, only the last four digits
of that number should be used.
3. N ames of Minor Children:: If the involvement of a minor child
must be mentioned, only the initials of that child should be used.
4. Dates of Birth: If an indiviidual's date of birth must be included
in a document, only the year should be used.
5. Financial Account Numb~:rs: If financial account numbers are
relevant, identifY the name lOr type of account and the financial
institution where maintained, and only indicate the last four
digits of the account numb~:r.
6. Home Address: If a home, address must bt: included, only the
city and state should be used.
7. Additional Information: For good cause, the assigned judge
may require redaction of additional information.
F. Exemptions From the Redaction Req[uirement. The redaction
n:quirement shall not apply to the following:
1. A jfinancial account number that identifies the property
13
27/77
General Order No._ 08-02
allegedly subject to forfeiture in a forfeiture proceeding.
2. The record of an administrative or agency proceeding.
3. The; official record of a state: court proceeding.
4. The record ofa court or tribunal, if that record was not subject to
the redaction requirement when originally filed.
5. A pro se filing in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241,
2254 or 2255.
G. Filin~~ Documents With Slellsitive and Private Information. An
attorney who files a document referring to personal data identifiers as listed in
Section E above shall: (l) file a redacted version of the document excluding the
personal data identifiers; or (2) file a redacted version of the document with unique
identifiers (e.g., 1, 2, 3 or A, B, C) used in place of the personal data identifiers,
along with a reference list, filed under seal, indicating the complete personal data
identifiers and unique identifiers used in their place.
Attorneys shall carefully examine the documents, exhibits or attachments to
be electronically filed in order to protect the clients' sensitive and private
information. The responsibility for redacting or placing under seal these personal
data identifiers rests ~)lely with counsel. The Clerk will not review any pleadings
or documents for compliance with this Section of this General Order.
14
28/77

Counsel are cautioned that failure to redact or place under seal these personal
data identifiers may subject them to the full disciplinary power of the court. If a
redacted version of the document is filed, counsel shall maintain the unredacted
document in their office pending further order of the assigned judge or resolution of
the action (including the appeal, if any) and shall, at the request of opposing counsel
or parties, provide a copy of the complete document.
H. Waiver of Protection of P'ersonal Data Identifiers. A party waives
his or her right to the protection of Sections IV.E and G by filing documents that
include his or her own personal data identifiers without redaction.
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 pemlitted.
J. Deadlines. Filing documents electronically does not alter any filing
deadlines. Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned judge, all electronic
transmissions of documents must be completed (i.e., received completely by the
Clerk's Office) prior to midnight Pacific Standard Time or Pacific Daylight Time,
whichever is in effect at the time, in order to be considered timely filed on that day.
Where a specific time of day deadline is set by court order or stipulation, the
ellectronic filing shall be completed by that time.
15
29/77
K. Noticl~ of Discrepancies F'or EleC1tronically 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.
L. Corn~ctil1lg Errors nn E-Filed Documents. After a document is
electronically filed, only the Clerk's Office can make any necessary corrections. If
an error is discovered, the CMIECF User should notify the CM/ECF Help Desk of
the error bye-mail or telephone as posted on the CMlECF website. The Clerk's
Office will notify the filing party if the document needs to be refiled.
M. Technical F'ailures. If a CM/ECF User is unable to electronically
fille a document, the Clv1IECF User must immediately contact the CM/ECF Help
Desk bye-mail or telephone as posted on the CMlECF website if a "Notice of
CM/ECF Unavailabililty" has not been posted on the CM/ECF website. The
CM/ECF User shall then attempt to file the document electronically at least two
times, separated by at least one hour. If, after at least two attempts, the CM/ECF
User cannot electronically file the document, the document will be accepted for
traditional filing that same day, if time pemlits, or it will be accepted for electronic
filing the next business day. Such delayed filing shall be accompanied by a
16
30/77
declaration or affidavit setting forth the facts of the CMIECF User's failed attempts
to file electronically. A. history of technical failures lasting longer than one hour
will be posted on the CM/ECF website.
N. Dod~et. Except as otherwise provided in this General Order, the
acceptance by the Clerk of a document electronically filed shall constitute entry of
that pleading or other paper on the docket maintained by the Clerk under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 58, 77 and 79 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
55.
O. CertiificaUon of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(l) 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
I
States District Court for the Central District of Califomia 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. \Vhen a document has been electronically filed into CMlECF,
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)
17
31/77
is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.
V. Excllusions From Electronic Fililng.
A. Genle~rally. CM/ECF Users otherwise participating in the CM/ECF
system may be excused from filing a particular document or component
electronically if it is not available in electronic format and it is not possible for the
CM/ECF User to convert it to PDF format by scanning or if the document or
component is being filed under seaL Such document or component shall not be
filed electronically, but instead shall be traditionally filed, in duplicate, with the
Clerk and served upon the parties in accordance with the applicable Federal Rules
of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Attorneys traditionally filing a document or
component under this provision shall first file electronically a Notice of Manual
Filing setting forth the: reason(s) why the document or component cannot be filed
electronically.
B. Pro Se Litigants. Documlents 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 CIVlIECF system.
18
32/77
C. Case Initiating Doc11lments.
1. Ciivil Case IulitiattinJ~ Documents. Complaints (such as
third-party complaints;, amended complaints, complaint~ in intervention,

I
counterclaims and cross-claims) and other civil case initiating documents shall be
filled, in duplicate, fees paid, and summons issued and served in the traditional
manner rather than electronically. Documents filed simultaneously with civil
initiating documents that request emergency relief shall also be filed in the
traditional manner. An traditionally fikd civil case init;ating documents and

i
simultaneously filed emergency relief documents shall be submitted in electronic
form (PDF format only) by close of business the following business day.
Submission of these documents must be: made bye-mail to the intake e-mail box for
the appropriate court division (the division to which the case is assigned). The
intake e-mail box addness for each division is indicated on the court's CMlECF
website. Attorneys who fail to timely e,-mail PDF copies of these documents shall
be subject to such sanctions as may be imposed by the court.
2. Criminal Case Initiating Documents. Complaints,
indictments, infonmations, and other initiating documents in criminal cases shall be
filed in the traditional manner rather than electronically. All traditionally filed
documents shall be submitted to the appropriate court division (the division to
19
33/77
which the case is assigned).
D. Und4~r Seal Documents. Applications and Orders to Seal, along with
the document to be placed under seal, shall NOT be electronically filed but shall be
filed traditionally in the manner prescribed by Local Rule 79-5. Attorneys
traditionally filing a document under this provision shall first file electronically a
Notice of Manual Filing.
E. Records for Bankruptcy Appeals and Administrative Review
Cases. In Bankruptcy appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and administrative
review cases such as Social Security appeals, ERISA and IDEA cases, the record
shall not be submitted electronically but shall be submitted in the traditional
manner. A Notice of Manual Filing or Notice of Filing or Lodging Administrative
Record shall first be electronically filed.
F. Voluminous Exhibits. Exhibits for which the electronic original is
not available to the CM/ECF User and must therefore be scanned to PDF should be
filed electronically only when the size of the document does not exceed the limit
specified on the CM/ECF website. Attorneys traditionally filing exhibits because
they are too large to scan shall first file electronically a Notice of Manual Filing.
G. Criminalll Duty MatteJrS. The following documents filed in criminal
duty matters, before a case is assigned to a district judge, shall be filed in the
20
34/77
traditional manner:
• Applications for Pen Registers, Search Warrants, Seizure
WalTants, Arrest Warrants, Wire Taps, Cell Site Information,
Tracking Service:s, and other such precharging documents.
• Bond Related Documen1ts.
• Under Seal and In-Camera Documents.
VI. Proposed Orde~rs, Proposed Judgments, or Other Proposed Documents
That Require a Judge's Signature.
A. Electronically Filedll)roposed Documents. When a proposed
order or other proposed document accompanies a filing, the proposed order or other
proposed document shall be in PDF fonnat 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 Notic,e of Lodging and shall be linked to
the order or minute order directing the preparation of the proposed document.
B. WordPell;ect or Miclrosoft Word Copy of Proposed Documents.
After the documents have been electronically filed, a WordPerfect or Microsoft
'Word copy of the proposed document, along with a copy of the PDP electronically
21
35/77
tiled main document, shall be e-mailed to the assigned judge's generic chambers e-
mail address listed in the CM/ECF system. The subject line of the e-mail shall be in
the following format: court's divisional office:, year, cast~ type, case number,
document control number assigned to the main document at the time of filing,
judge's initials and filer (party) name.
For criminal cases, the defendant's last name and first initial of first name
shall be included as the filer (e.g., for Los Ang,eles, LA08CR00123-6-ABC-Doe J;
for Santa Ana, SA08CR00124-8-DEF-Smith A; for Riverside, ED08CR00125-10-
GHI-Jones B).
For civil cases, the party's name shall be included as the filer (e.g., for Los
Angeles, LA08CV00123-6-ABC-Corp. A; for Santa Ana, SA08CV00124-8-DEF-
Corp. B); for Riverside, ED08CV00125-10-GHI-Corp. C).
VII. Service of Electronically Filed ][)ocnments.
A. Gem~rally. Upon the electronic filing of a document, a NEF is
automatically generated by the CM/ECF system and sent bye-mail to all attorneys
in the case who are registered CM/ECF Users and have consented to electronic
service. Service of an electronically filed document upon a CMIECF User who has
consented to electronic service is deemt~d complete upon the transmission of the
NEF.
22
36/77
For pro se litigants, attorneys who are not a CM/ECF user and CM/ECF
Users who have not consented to electronic service, traditional service is deemed
complete in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure.
B. Service of the Court's Orders 01' Other Court Generated
Documents. Orders or other documents generated by the court will be served
electronically unless: (1) an attorney is not a registered CMlECF User, (2) an
attorney is a CM/ECF User but has not consented to electronic service, or (3) a
party is appearing pro se. If any of these situations exist, traditional service will be
made by the court on that party(s) only.
VIII. Signatures.
An electronically filed document shall be deemed to be signed by the person
(the "Signatory") when the document identifies the person as a Signatory and the
filing complies with elither subparagraph (A) or (B) of this Section. Any filing in
accordance with any of these methods shall bind the Signatory as if the document
was physically signed and filed, and shall function as the Signatory's signature,
whether for purposes of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to attest to
I
the truthfulness of an affidavit or declaration, or for any other purpose.
A. CM/ECF' Users. In the case of a Signatory who is a CM/ECF
User, such document shall be deemed silgne:d, regardless of the existence of a
23
37/77
physical signature on the document, provided that such document is filed using the
Login and Password of the Signatory.
B. Documents Requiring Multiple CMlECF User Signatures. In the
case of documents requiring multiple signatures, such as stipulations, the CM/ECF
User shall scan the signed document in PDF fonnat and electronically file the
document. The CM/ECF User shall maintain the original, signed documents, for
subsequent production to the assigned judge if so ordered for inspection upon
request by a party or the judge's own motion, until one year after final resolution of
the action (including the appeal, if any). The CM/ECF User may attach a scanned
image of the signature page(s) of the document being electronically filed in lieu of
maintaining the paper record for subsequent production if required.
c. Documents Requiring Sig~natun:s Other Than CM/ECF Users. In
the case of documents requiring signatures other than the attorneys of record, the
CM/ECF User shall scan the document in PDF format and electronically file the
document. The CM/ECF User shaH maintain the original, signed document, for
subsequent production to the assigned judge if so ordered for inspection upon
request by a party or the judge's own motion, until one year after final resolution of
the action (including the appeal, if any).
24
38/77
General Order No. _08-02
IX. Limitationi~ on Remote Access to Social Security Appeals and
Immigration Cases.
In an action for benefits under the Social Security Act, and in an action or
proceeding relating to an order of removal, to relief from removal, or to
immigration benefits or detention, access to the entire electronic file is authorized to
the parties and th{:ir attorneys.
Any other person may have electronic access to the full record at the
courthouse, but may have remote electronic access only to the docket maintained by
the Clerk; and an opiniion, order, judgment, or other disposition of the assigned
judge, but not any other part of the case file or the administrative record.
X. Access to Rules:.
This General Order, as well as operational guidelines and instructions, shall
be posted on the CM/ECF website and may be published in official legal
newspapers in this district. Any amendments to CM/ECF procedures shall be
similarly published.
Amendments to this order may b(~ entered from time to time in keeping with
the needs of the court.
Dated:_-,Eebru~LL..2.00_8 _
25
39/77
40/77
'0
'..J'
-
-.
-2
-::
-.
---
-
-
N
o
o
-- :ll:
It: III -
01
et
III l/l Z
-- .J :J 0:
U 0 0
bJ 1: lI.
~
"iiiz
1: ~ .J :l
~ 0: et ID
II. :J U -'
!
o 0 • u
.;;:
41/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 2
42/77
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO 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
10-03-24 Richard Fine: Repeat Request for Clarifications by Clerk Nafisi, US District Court, Los
Angeles, Regarding Integrity of Records in the Habeas Corpus Petition.
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:59:35 -0700

To: "Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court" <terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: March 16, 2010 Clerk Nafisi response, re: Clerk's procedures at US District Court, Central
District of California, and integrity of court records
Cc: "Attention Hon Audrey Collins, Chief Judge" <Angela_Bridges@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Dawn
Bullock, Records Supervisor" <dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Sharon McGee, Intake Unit
Supervisor"<Sharon_McGee@cacd.uscourts.gov>
March 24, 2010
Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court

US District Court, Central District of California
The favor of a response within 10 days was requested.
RE: March 16, 2010 Clerk Nafisi response, re: Clerk's procedures at US District Court, Central
District of California, and integrity of court records
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
Thank you for your March 16, 2010 response, [1] which clarified the current practices relative to
General Orders and NEFs at the US District Court, Central District of California. Whereas your letter
addressed some of my questions, filed with your office starting August 2009, [2][3][4] it still left some
key questions unanswered:
1) In general, what was the legal foundation for denial of public access to the NEFs (Notices of
Electronic Filings), which according to the General Order 08-02, incorporated as part of your March 16,
2010 response, today served as both the authentication and certification of court records?
2) In particular, why was I denied access to the NEFs in the habeas corpus of Richard Fine: Richard I
Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914)?
3) Was Donna Thomas authorized as Deputy Clerk when she executed transactions in the docket of
the habeas corpus of Richard Fine: Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914)?
4) Was the docket of Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) an honest, valid
and effectual docket of the US District Court, Central District of California, in compliance with the laws
of the United States?
5) What was the reason that minutes, orders, and judgments, which were listed in dockets of the Court
as "entered", were served with NEFs, which were missing the RSA-encrypted digital signatures, which
were defined in General Order 08-02 as the governing signature, serving as verification of such NEFs?
6) Were complaints, alleging tampering with the records of the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine,
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914), at the Office of the Clerk, which had
been filed with your office, ever reviewed by your office?
43/77
Page 2/2 March 25, 2010
The favor of expedient responses on the questions above would be greatly appreciated. Such
questions pertained to the integrity of court records at the US District Court, Central District of
California, in general, and to the Liberty of a person in the matter at hand, in particular.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
CC:
1) "Attention Hon Audrey Collins, Chief Judge" <Angela_Bridges@cacd.uscourts.gov>

2) "Dawn Bullock, Records Supervisor" <dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov>
3) "Sharon McGee, Intake Unit Supervisor"<Sharon_McGee@cacd.uscourts.gov>
LINKS:
[1] March 16, 2010 Response by Clerk Terry Nafisi, US District Court, Central District of California.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28866417/10-03-16-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-
Response-to-Zernik-s-Request-for-Clarifications-re-NEFs-and-Complaints-re-Tampering-wit
[2] August 1, 2009 Complaint and request for investigation re: tampering with court records at the
Office of the Clerk, US District Court, Central District of California
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340585/09-08-01-Complaint-and-Request-for-Investigation-Filed-with-
Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-Court-Regarding-Dishonest-Manipulation-of-Records-of-the-Hab
[3] January 17, 2010 Requests for clarification regarding integrity of records of the US District Court,
Central District of California.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25329054/10-01-17-Req-Responses-by-Clerk-of-Us-Court-Terry-Nafisi-Re-
Integrity-of-Dockets-in-Zernik-v-Connor-and-Fine-v-Sheriff-s
[4] March 14, 2010 Repeat Complaint filed with the Clerk of the Court, alleging tampering with the
records of the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28342152/10-03-14-Richard-Fine-Repeat-Complaint-Filed-With-Terry-
Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-US-Court-Los-Angeles-re-Alleged-Fraud-and-Abuse-in-Records-of-Fine-v-S
44/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 3
45/77
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO 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
10-03-24 Request to Access Court Records at the US District Court, Los Angeles
To Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, US District Court, Los Angeles

By Hand Delivery to Duty Clerk at the Public Department of the Clerk’s Office
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
Please accept this letter as a request to access court records, to inspect and to copy, at the US District Court,
Central District of California, pursuant to First Amendment rights and Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc
(1978), where the US Supreme Court re-affirmed such rights.
In Clerk Nafisi’s letter to Dr Joseph Zernik, dated March 16, 2010, the General Order 08-02 was incorporated.
However, the copy of the record incorporated in that letter, included no verification by a judge, neither did it
include any attestation by a clerk. In response to my questions in that regard, the same letter explained that the
signed copy was held by the Clerk of the Court:
1) I therefore request to inspect (not to copy – since it was stated that there was a security concern in
providing copies of the signed record) the copy of the General Order 08-02, as signed by judge(s),
together with its respective attestation by the Clerk, if any.
In the same letter, Clerk Nafisi failed to provide any reason why access would be denied to the NEFs (Notices
of Electronic Filings) of court records in general, and in the case of the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine
in particular:
2) I therefore request to inspect and to copy the NEFs of the following two records in Richard I Fine v
Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914):
a. The NEF of the commencing Record – the March 20, 2009 Petition by Richard I Fine.
b. The NEF for the termination Record – the June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter.
Your help in exercising my First Amendment rights at the US District Court, Central District of California,
would be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Dated: March 24, 2010
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
46/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 4
47/77
FILED
CLERK. US. DISTRICT COURT
r
JAN - 1 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ICENTR
BY
In the Matter of the Creation of the )

Calendar ) ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE
)
of )
)
Judge JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN ) 10-001.
)
IT IS ORDERED, with the conCWTence of the Case Management and Assignment
Committee, t.hat the following case be reassigned from the calendar ofJudge Florence-Marie
Cooper to the calendar of Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen for all further proceedings:
CV 09 06956 FMC(JEMx) James E. K.eener v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. et al
CLA-j-k3.~
DA TED: January _L, 2010
Chief Judge Audr,ey B. Collins
48/77
FILED
CLERK, US, DISTRICT COURT
r
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN - 7 2010

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OF CAUFORNIA
L:~ DEPUTY'
In the Matter of the Transfer of Cases )

from the Calendar ) ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE
)
)
of )
)
Judge Sttephen G. Larson ) 10-002
)
IT IS ORDER£D, with the conc:unence of the Case Management and Assignment
Committee, that the followj~ng cases be reassigned from the calendar of Judge Stephen G.
Larson to the calendar of Judge Marvin J. Garbis for all further proceedings:
- ED
ED
07
08
00192 SGL(UPx) Innovatiive Office Products Inc v. Ole Smed et al
01795 SGL(AGRx) Optimal Pets Inc v. Nutri-Vet LLC et al
ED 09 00023 SGL(OPx) Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Aventis Phanna SA et
al
ED 09 01553 SGL(OJPx) Dana Benjamin v. Shelby Supercars LLC et al
ED 09 01653 SGL(OJPx) Robl~rt Alan Schechter v. Elden L. Smith et al
eLy 13. ~
DATED: January ~_, 2010
Chief Judge Audrey B. Collins
49/77
FILED
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
r
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN - 7 2010

CENTR BIC'! OF CALIFORNIA
BY f n;t/'~
\/\("\1"- DEPUTY
In the Matter of the Transfer of Cases )

from the Calendar ) ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE
)
)
of )
) 10'-003
Judge Stephen G. Larson )
-----_._)
IT IS ORDERED, with the concurrence of the Case Management and Assignment
Committee, that the following cases b(~ re:assigned from the calendar of Judge Stephen G.
Larson to the calendar of Judge Joseph R. Goodwin for all further proceedings:
~ ED 08 00162 SGL(JCRx) Maryland Casualty Company v. Mission Grove Plaza LP

et al
E~D 09 00353 SGL(OPx) Aguilar v. l\1itsubishi Cement Corporation et al
ED 09 00411 SGL(PLAx) A.L. et al v. Target Corporation et al
ED 09 00645 SGL(OPx) Great American Insurance Company v. American
Housing Group Inc et al
ED 09 00680 SGL(OPx) Surctee Insurance Company v. F & F LLC et al
ED 09 00695 SGL(SHx) Jacqueline James v. Cardinal Health 200 Inc et al
ED 09 00741 SGL(AGRx) GregOly Harvey et al v. Home Depot et al
ED 09 00743 SGL(Ex) Jean Belodeau-Leet v. Target Corporation, et al
ED 09 00781 SGL(CTx) Cecilia Garcia et al v. Hartford Life and Accident
Insurance Company et al
ED 09 00825 SGL(PJWx) Deanne DeGrandpre v.USAA Casualty Insurance
Company et al
ED 09 00913 SGL(FFMx) DClmis Vedra et al v. Cummins Inc et al
ED 09 00945 SGL(SSx) MolliCoolz LLC et al v. Frozen North Trading Ltd
ED 09 00978 SGL(Ex) Tillie M Padilla v. lAP World Services Inc et al
50/77
Ordler of the Chief Judge Page 2

In the Matter of the Transfer of Cases
from the Calendar of
Judge Stephen G. Larson
ED 09 01028 SGL(OPx) Lyons &: Co USA Incorporated v. Lawai Cannery Row

LLC et al
ED 09 01065 SGL(OPx) Randy Dev,aughn Howie v. The Schwan Food Company et
al
ED 09 01189 SGL(VBKx) Karen Amerson v. Lemans Corporation et al
ED 09 01199 SGL(PJWx) April Cad-.yell v. BNSF Railway Company et al
ED 09 01229 SGL(RCx) Terry L Carver et al v. Metrocities Mortgage Corp LLC
et al
ED 09 01237 SGL(OPx) Gamal Hussein v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance
Company
ED 09 01253 SGL(OPx) Suretec Insurance Company v. SRG Properties LLC et al
ED 09 01271 SGL(DTBx) Jeremy D. Reeves v. Hobart Corporation et al
ED 09 01311 SGL(DTBx) ADP Inc v. Donco Enterprises Inc et al
~ 01352 SGL(SSx) Leopolda Lopez et al v. Ford Motor Company et al
ED 09
ED 09 01387 SGL(FFMx) Mark Bryant v. ADP Inc et al
ED 09 01407 SGL(Ex) Coutinho & Ferrostaal Incorporated et al v. CAG
Industries Inc et al
ED 09 01478 SGL(OPx) Tommy Searle v. KTM Motorsports Inc et al
ED 09 01529 SGL(DTBx) Ginger Dollorhide v. Target Corporation et al
ED 09 01559 SGL(DTJ3x) Javier Garda v. Life Insurance Company of North
America et al
ED 09 01694 SGL(OPx) Artemlo Melendez v. Allstate Insurance Co et al
ED 09 01735 SGL(OPx) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Haier America
Trading LLC et al
c~ k3. ~
DATED: January L 2010
Chief Judge Audrey B. Collins
~
I
51/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 5
·
,
52/77
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

THERESA L. DOTY
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK· OPERATIONS
U.S. COURTHOUSE
312 N. SPRING ST., RM. G-8 TEL: (213) 894-1565
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 FAX: (213) 894-5968
E-Mail: theresa_doty@cacd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court Home Page:http:;;www.cacd.uscourts.gov
53/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1. Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 3/24/2009 at 8:32 AM PDT and filed on 311912009
Case Name: Richard 1. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
Case Number: 2:09-cv-1914
Filer: Richard 1. Fine
Document Number: 1
Docket Text:
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case
assigned to Judge Deall1 D. Pregerson and referred to Magistrate Judge Carla
(Attachments: # (1) Part 1 of Petitioner, # (2) Part 2 of Petitioner, # (3) Part 3 of
Petitioner)(ghap)
2:09-cv-1914 Notice has been electronic31Uy mailed to:
2:09-cv-1914 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by fax to: :
Richard 1. Fine
BK# 1824367
Twin Towers Correctional Facility
450 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original fLlename:M:\CY Case Opg\LA09CYOI914CW-2254-1.pdf
Eh~ctronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=3124/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-0]
[bal e4c9adce56e6928dOecfa53c4bOc81 0443abc5deee0572f9a7b6bbda4fa2e964b
b0508f249c09cc40ibdf0936e6483e4a54078340270 13ddd6569207b4d9a]]
Document description: Part 1 of Petitioner
Original fLlename:M:\CY Case Opg\LA09CYOI914CW-2254-2.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=3124/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-1]
[b5178e40dclb3d164887a5416571dd26cbfa9da5a6aff62bd7c7de078d36a50c4601
I6706c9b7fec55bgefOei41 6b7bb3I ebOtb73e62222dc6ffc3bdd8280187]]
54/77
"
Original filename:M:\CY Case Opg\LA09CY01914CW-2254-3.pdf
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=3/24/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-2]
[48ge1 b 101209abage55154c2000c6c375dc8ecb578c32cfa9a4287ce4f4902bO3012
15a6d8c15f736cO1ca465d060f9a3 20cbcat978bd5f2bc7a8aa05884c483 5]]
Original filename:M:\CY Case Opg\LA09CY01914CW-2254.pdf
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID= 1020290914 [Date=3/24/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-3]
[6b8f6b48200132bOc8e7f66779bc4196a4de5ec4e8598310a6aeab9884762e28e4a4
Ofb75e37052ae8f383d597f2c7da70ebdb70ce552fcOfbdb1fe783f1816c]]
55/77
This is an a~tomatic:e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT
RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS US]~RS*** Judicial Conference of the United States
policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to
receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by
law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later
charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the
referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/2312010 at 3:15 PM PST and filed on 2/1812010
Case Name: Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
Case Number: 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
Filer:
WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 06/29/2009
Document Number: 59
Docket Text:
MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Petition for Certificate of Appealability[34], CCA #
09-56073. The Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Mandate received in
this district on 2/18/2010. (Ir)
2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Kevin M McConnick kmcconnick@bentonorr.com
Aaron Mitchell Fontana afontana@lbac1aw.com, bmoyer@lbac1aw.com
Joshua Lee Rosenjrosenlaw@ca.rr.com
2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by fax to: :
Richard I. Fine
BK# 1824367
450 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles CA 90012
US
56/77
57/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 7
Case: 2:09-cv-06956-JHN-JEM As of: 03/25/2010 03:02 AM PDT 1 of 7
58/77
(JEMx), DISCOVERY, MANADR, REOPENED

(Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−06956−JHN−JEM
James E. Keener v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. et al Date Filed: 09/24/2009

Assigned to: Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen Jury Demand: Defendant
Referred to: Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott Nature of Suit: 480 Consumer Credit
Demand: $10,000 Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Cause: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff
James S. Keener represented by James S. Keener
40485 D Murrieta Hot Springs Road 402
Murrieta, CA 92563
760−275−2243
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. represented by Gregory S Korman
TERMINATED: 12/04/2009 Katten Muchin Rosenman
2029 Century Park East
Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067−3012
310−788−4400
Fax: 310−788−4471
Email: gregory.korman@kattenlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah R Balch
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
310−788−4400
Email: noah.balch@kattenlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Stuart M Richter
Katten Muchin Rosenman
2029 Century Pk East Suite 2600
310−788−4400
Fax: 310−788−4471
Email: stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Tiffany Hofeldt
Katten Muchin Rosenman
2029 Century Pk E, Suite 2600
310−788−4469
Email: tiffany.hofeldt@kattenlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
59/77
JPMorgan Chase Bank represented by S Christopher Yoo
Adorno Yoss Alvarado and Smith
1 MacArthur Place Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714−852−6800
Fax: 714−852−6899
Email: cyoo@adorno.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Equifax Information Services LLC represented by Thomas P Quinn , Jr
TERMINATED: 12/04/2009 Nokes &Quinn APC
410 Broadway Suite 200
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949−376−3500
Fax: 949 376 3070
Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Transunion LLC represented by Donald E Bradley
TERMINATED: 12/04/2009 Musick Peeler and Garrett LLP
650 Town Center Drive Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714−668−2447
Fax: 714−668−2490
Email: d.bradley@mpglaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Experian Information Solutions Inc. represented by Xiaoyi Yao
Jones Day
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
949−851−3939
Fax: 949−553−7539
Email: syao@jonesday.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
HSBC Mortgage Services Inc represented by Noah R Balch
TERMINATED: 01/04/2010 (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Equifax Information Services LLC
TERMINATED: 12/04/2009
Defendant
Trans Union LLC represented by Donald E Bradley
TERMINATED: 01/19/2010 (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Date Filed # Docket Text

60/77
09/24/2009 1 COMPLAINT against Defendants HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., JPMorgan Chase
Bank, Equifax Information Services LLC, Transunion LLC, Experian Information
Solutions Inc. (Filing fee $ 350 PAID.), filed by Plaintiff James S. Keener. (et)
(Entered: 09/29/2009)
09/24/2009 20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants HSBC
Mortgage Services Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, Equifax Information Services
LLC, Transunion LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc. (et) (Entered:
09/29/2009)
09/24/2009 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff James S.
Keener. (et) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
09/24/2009 3 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered:
09/29/2009)
09/30/2009 4 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS STANDARD NEW CASE ORDER by Judge
Florence−Marie Cooper: A MANDATORY PAPER COPY of all e−filed
documents shall be delivered to the drop box outside the clerk's office in the
Roybal Federal Building (first floor, suite 181−L) no later than 12:00 noon the
business day following any electronic filing or on the same day, if priority
processing is being requested. They must comply with Local Rule 11−3 and be
blue−backed, proper font size, page numbering, tabbing, etc. Each document must
be prominently labeled, "CHAMBERS COPY" on the front page. All copies
delivered to the courtesy bin shall have the notice of E−filing attached to the back
of the document. DO NOT PLACE THESE COPIES IN ENVELOPES.Counsel are
reminded to observe Judge Coopers motion briefing schedule when filing civil
motions. The schedule is available on her website profile @
www.cacd.uscourts.gov. (ama) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
10/16/2009 5 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant
Equifax Information Services LLC Equifax Information Services LLC.(Quinn,
Thomas) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
10/16/2009 6 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Equifax Information Services
LLC Equifax Information Services LLC, identifying Equifax, Inc.. (Quinn,
Thomas) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
10/19/2009 7 ORDER by Judge Florence−Marie Cooper,( Scheduling Conference set for
12/14/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Florence−Marie Cooper.) Trial counsel are
ordered to be present. (sce) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
10/19/2009 8 ANSWER filed by Defendant Experian Information Solutions Inc..(Yao, Xiaoyi)
(Entered: 10/19/2009)
10/19/2009 9 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Experian
Information Solutions Inc. identifying Experian PLC. as Corporate Parent. (Yao,
Xiaoyi) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
10/19/2009 10 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 And Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's
Complaint for Damages filed by Defendant Transunion LLC.(Bradley, Donald)
(Entered: 10/19/2009)
10/19/2009 11 Defendant Trans Union LLC'S Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant
Transunion LLC, (Bradley, Donald) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
10/19/2009 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State
a Claim filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank. Motion set for hearing on
11/30/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Florence−Marie Cooper. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order)(Yoo, S) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
10/19/2009 13 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for
Failure to State a Claim 12 filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank. (Yoo, S)
(Entered: 10/19/2009)
10/20/2009 14 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The
following error(s) was found: Re document #9 − Corporate Disclosure − Incorrect
event selected. Correct event to be used is: Notice − Certificate/Notice of Interested
Parties. Case number is incorrect or missing re documents 10 and 11. RE:
61/77
Corporate Disclosure Statement 9 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties 11 ,
Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 10 . In response to this notice the court may
order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or
(3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (shb) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
10/21/2009 15 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's
Complaint for Damages filed by Defendant Transunion LLC.(Bradley, Donald)
(Entered: 10/21/2009)
10/21/2009 16 Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Transunion LLC,
(Bradley, Donald) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
10/21/2009 17 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.,
identifying HSBC Finance Corporation (f/k/a Household International, Inc.);
HSBC Holdings plc, a United Kingdom corporation. (Balch, Noah) (Entered:
10/21/2009)
10/21/2009 18 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to HSBC
Mortgage Services Inc. answer now due 11/3/2009, filed by Defendant HSBC
Mortgage Services Inc..(Balch, Noah) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
10/26/2009 19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James S. Keener, upon Transunion
LLC; served on 9/29/2009, answer due 10/19/2009. The Summons and Complaint
were served by personal service, by (statute not cited), c/o CSC − Lawyers
Incorporating Servie, upon Bradley Ellison, Person authorized to accept service of
process. Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons Returned.
(mg) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
11/10/2009 20 [STRICKEN] MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING MOTION
TO DISMISS 12 by Judge Florence−Marie Cooper: The Court, sua sponte, hereby
continues the hearing date for the pending Motion to Dismiss Case [docket no. 12]
from November 30, 2009, to December 14, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. The Court also
amends the briefing schedule as follows: (See minute order for further details) (yl)
Modified on 11/10/2009 (yl). (Entered: 11/10/2009)
11/10/2009 21 OPPOSITION TO MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim 12
filed by Plaintiff James S. Keener. (yl) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
11/10/2009 22 NOTICE of Change of Address changing address to 40485 D Murrieta Hot Springs
Road 402, Murrieta CA 92563. Filed by Plaintiff James E. Keener (yl) (Entered:
11/10/2009)
11/10/2009 23 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RESTORING DEFENDANTS MOTION
TO DISMISS 12 TO THECOURTS CALENDAR 12 by Judge Florence−Marie
Cooper: The Court has just learned that, due to an administrative error, Plaintiff's
Opposition toDefendant's Motion to Dismiss was not added to the Court's docket.
Accordingly, The Minute Order issued earlier today, November 10, 2009 (docket
no. 20), continuing the briefing deadlines and hearing date on Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss, is STRICKEN. The November 30, 2009 hearing on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Case (docket no. 12) is RESTORED to the Court's calendar,
andDefendant's Reply, if any, is to be filed not later than November 16, 2009. IT IS
SO ORDERED re: 20 . (yl) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
11/11/2009 24 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by defendant HSBC Mortgage
Services Inc..(Balch, Noah) (Entered: 11/11/2009)
11/16/2009 25 REPLY support MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim 12
filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank. (Yoo, S) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
11/25/2009 26 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Florence−Marie
Cooper: The Court, on its own motion, hereby takes defendant JPMorgan Chase
Banks Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (docket no. 12)
UNDER SUBMISSION. The hearing set for November 30, 2009 is hereby vacated
and the motion taken off calendar. The motion will be deemed submitted on the
vacated hearing date, and the clerk will notify the parties when the Court has
reached its decision. (sce) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
62/77
11/25/2009 27 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum
of points and authorities filed by Plaintiff James S. Keener. Motion set for hearing
on 12/28/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Florence−Marie Cooper. Lodged
proposed order. (shb) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
11/25/2009 28 DECLARATION of James E Keener in support of MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction 27 filed by Plaintiff James S. Keener. (shb) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
12/02/2009 29 ORDER GRANTING IN PART JPMORGAN CHASE BANKS MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Judge Florence−Marie
Cooper: granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Dismiss. This matter is
before the Court on Defendant JPMorgan Chase Banks Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim (docket no. 12), filed October 19, 2009. The Court has
considered the moving, opposition, and reply documents submitted in connection
with this motion. The Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7−15. Accordingly, the hearing set
for November 30, 2009, is removed from the Courts calendar. For the reasons and
in the manner set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART Defendants
Motion. Plaintiffs second count against Chase is dismissed with 30 days leave to
amend. (ama) (ama). (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/04/2009 30 NOTICE of Tentative Settlement filed by Plaintiff James E. Keener. (ama)
(Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/04/2009 31 ORDER by Judge Florence−Marie Cooper, ACKNOWLEDGING NOTICE OF
SETTLEMENT 30 . IT IS ORDERED that the Court retains complete jurisdiction
for 60 days for the filing of a dismissal or to vacate this order and to reopen the
action upon a good faith showing that the settlement has not been completed and
further litigation is necessary. (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) (shb) (Entered:
12/04/2009)
12/07/2009 32 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Florence−Marie Cooper: Case should not
have been closed with Order 31 . Re−open as to Defendants JP Morgan Chase
Bank, and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., only. (Made JS−5, Case reopened)
(mg) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/10/2009 33 STIPULATION to Vacate MOTION for Preliminary Injunction 27 filed by
defendant Experian Information Solutions Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order
VACATING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)(Yao,
Xiaoyi) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
12/16/2009 34 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant HSBC Mortgage Services
Inc, Equifax Information Services LLC, Trans Union LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
Experian Information Solutions Inc. amending Complaint − (Discovery) 1 ,filed by
Plaintiff James S. Keener (shb) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
12/18/2009 35 STIPULATION to Dismiss Defendant Trans Union LLC filed by Defendant Trans
Union LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Dismissal with Prejudice of
Defendant Trans Union LLC)(Bradley, Donald) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
12/22/2009 36 ORDER by Judge Florence−Marie Cooper. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Vacated 33 . (es) Modified on
12/23/2009 (ir). (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 37 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 34 filed by defendant Experian Information
Solutions Inc..(Yao, Xiaoyi) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/29/2009 38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by defendant
JPMorgan Chase Bank. Motion set for hearing on 2/1/2010 at 10:00 AM before
Judge Florence−Marie Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT)(Yoo, S) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
12/29/2009 39 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss Case 38 filed by
defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank. (Yoo, S) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
12/29/2009 40 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages and
Attorneys' Fees filed by defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank. Motion set for hearing
63/77
on 2/1/2010 at 10:00 AM before Judge Florence−Marie Cooper. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT)(Yoo, S) (Entered:
12/29/2009)
12/31/2009 41 STIPULATION to Dismiss defendant HSBC Mortgage Services Inc filed by
defendant HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.(Balch, Noah) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
01/07/2010 42 ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE (#10−001) approved by Chief Judge Audrey B.
Collins. Pursuant to the recommended procedure adopted by the Court for the
CREATION OF CALENDAR of Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen and with the
concurrence of the Case Management and Assignment Committee, this case is
transferred from Judge Florence−Marie Cooper to the calendar of Judge Jacqueline
H. Nguyen for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials
of the transferee Judge CV 09−06956 JHN (JEMx). (rn) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/14/2010 43 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER ON TRANSFER OF CASE TO JUDGE
NGUYEN and ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS by Judge Jacqueline H.
Nguyen: re Transferred Case, 42 , MOTION to Dismiss Case 38 , MOTION to
Strike 40 . This action has been reassigned to the HONORABLE JACQUELINE
H. NGUYEN, United States District Judge. Please substitute the initials JHN in
place of the initials FMC. The case number will now read:
2:09−cv−06956−JHN−JEMx. Henceforth, it is imperative that the initials JHN be
used on all documents to prevent any delays in processing of documents. Judge
Nguyen's courtroom deputy clerk is Alicia Mamer and can be reached at (213)
894−2554. Judge Nguyen's courtroom is located on the 16th floor of the Spring
Steet Courthouse, Courtroom # 1600. Additional information about Judge
Nguyen's procedures is available on her website profile ( at
www.cacd.uscourts.gov). The Motions to Dismiss 38 and Strike 40 remain on
calendar with Judge Nguyen on February 1, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. (ama) (Entered:
01/14/2010)
01/19/2010 44 IT IS ORDERED that the claims and causes of action asserted herein by Plaintiff
against Trans Union are in all respects dismissed with prejudice to the re−filing of
same, with court costs to be paid by the party incurring same by Judge Jacqueline
H. Nguyen (bp) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
01/21/2010 45 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING
DATE by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen: re MOTION to Dismiss Case 38 ,
MOTION to Strike 40 . Motions reset for hearing on 2/22/2010 at 09:30 AM
before Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen. The Court amends the briefing
schedule:opposition: February 1, 2010;reply (if any):February 8, 2010. (ama)
(Entered: 01/21/2010)
01/25/2010 46 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK'S MOTION TO
MOTION to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages and Attorneys' Fees 40 filed by
Plaintiff James S. Keener. (bp) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/25/2010 48 DECLARATION of James E Keener In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to
JPMorgan Chase Bank's Motion to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss Case 38 filed by
Plaintiff James S. Keener. (ama) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
01/25/2010 49 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK'S
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed
by Plaintiff James S. Keener to MOTION to Dismiss Case 38 . (ama) (Entered:
02/16/2010)
02/08/2010 47 REPLY to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint MOTION
to Dismiss Case 38 filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank. (Yoo, S) (Entered:
02/08/2010)
02/17/2010 50 OPPOSITION To Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank's Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint For Failure To State A Claim 38 filed by Plaintiff James E.
Keener. (csi) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
64/77
02/18/2010 51 ORDER TAKING MOTION(S) UNDER SUBMISSION by Judge Jacqueline H.
Nguyen: re MOTION to Dismiss Case 38 , MOTION to Strike 40 . The following
motion(s) was/were set for hearing on the Court's February 22, 2010 calendar:
MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by defendant 38 ; MOTION to Strike filed by
defendant 40 . The Court finds the matter(s) appropriate for submission on the
papers without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and Local Rule 7−15 (the
Court may dispense with oral argument on any matter unless otherwise required).
The matter(s) is/are, therefore, removed from the Court's calendar subject to
resetting should the Court deem oral argument is needed. (ama) (Entered:
02/18/2010)
02/24/2010 52 ORDER DENYING JPMORGAN CHASE BANKS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND DENYING JPMORGAN CHASE
BANKS MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen: denying 38
Motion to Dismiss Case ; denying 40 Motion to Strike. This matter is before the
Court on Defendant JPMorgan Chase Banks Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim (docket no.38), and Motion to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages and
Attorneys Fees (docket no. 40). The Court has considered the moving, opposition,
and reply documents submitted in connection with these motions. The Court
deemed the matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7−15. Accordingly, the hearing set for February 22, 2010,
was previously removed from the Courts calendar. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court hereby DENIES Defendants Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Defendants
Motion to Strike. (ama) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
03/23/2010 53 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 34 filed by Defendant, JPMorgan Chase
Bank.(Yoo, S) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
03/24/2010 54 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Jacqueline H.
Nguyen: Scheduling Conference set for 5/24/2010 09:00 AM before Judge
Jacqueline H. Nguyen. (ama) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
65/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 8
Case: 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW As of: 03/25/2010 03:48 AM PDT 1 of 7
66/77
194, CLOSED, RELATED−DDJ

(Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−01914−JFW−CW
Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County Date Filed: 03/20/2009

Assigned to: Judge John F. Walter Date Terminated: 06/29/2009
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle Jury Demand: None
Related Case: 2:08−cv−02906−JFW−CW Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus
Case in other court: 9th CCA, 09−56073 (General)
Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Petitioner
Richard I. Fine represented by Richard I. Fine
BK# 1824367
450 Bauchet Street
PRO SE
V.
Respondent
Sheriff of Los Angeles County represented by Aaron Mitchell Fontana
Lawrence Beach Allen &Choi PC
100 West Broadway Suite 1200
Glendale, CA 91210
818−545−1925
Fax: 818−545−1937
Email: afontana@lbaclaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Respondent
Judge David P Yaffe represented by Kevin M McCormick
Hon. David P. Jaffe Benton Orr Duval &Buckingham
39 North California Street
P O Box 1178
Ventura, CA 93002−1178
805−648−5111
Email: kmccormick@bentonorr.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Respondent
Superior Court of California, County represented by Kevin M McCormick
of Los Angeles (See above for address)
Superior Couirt of Califoria, County of LEAD ATTORNEY
Los Angeles ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Intervenor Defendant
Del Rey Shores Joint Venture represented by Joshua Lee Rosen
Joshua L Rosen Law Offices
5905 Sherbourne Drive
310−649−0063
67/77
Fax: 310−410−7227
Email: jrosenlaw@ca.rr.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Intervenor Defendant
Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North represented by Joshua Lee Rosen
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Date Filed # Docket Text

03/20/2009 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254)
Case assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson and referred to Magistrate Judge Carla
(Attachments: # 1 Part 1 of Petitioner, # 2 Part 2 of Petitioner, # 3 Part 3 of
Petitioner)(ghap) Modified on 3/24/2009 (ghap). (Additional attachment(s) added
on 3/24/2009: # 1 Part 2 of Petition, # 2 Part 3 of Petition, # 3 Part 4 of Petition)
(ghap). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
03/20/2009 2 NOTICE OF REFERENCE TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Pursuant to the
provisions of the Local Rules, the within action has been assigned to the calendar
of Judge Dean D. Pregerson and referred to Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle to
consider preliminary matters and conduct all further matters as appropriate. The
Court must be notified within 15 days of any change of address. (ghap) (Entered:
03/24/2009)
03/24/2009 3 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: On the petition the date was March 19, 2009,
which is incorrect. The correct date is March 20, 2009. (rn) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
03/25/2009 4 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error the Case has been
reassigned from Judge Dean D. Pregerson to Judge George H Wu for all further
proceedings. The case will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV
09−01914 GW (CW). (rn) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
03/27/2009 5 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: This case has
been referred to Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. Petitioner is advised of the
following requirements for preparing and submitting documents in this case: 1.
Documents sent to the court in this case should be addressed to: "Clerk, U.S.
District Court, 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012." (pcl) (Entered:
03/30/2009)
04/07/2009 6 ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION. ORDER by
Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle that Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County
file answer to the petition not later than 4/21/2009. Motions to Dismiss shall be
filed by 4/21/2009. **SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered:
04/07/2009)
04/09/2009 7 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle: On April 9, 2009, the court received a copy of Petitioner's ex parte
application for immediate release filed today. It is ORDERED as follows: The
clerk shall serve copies of the ex parte application and this minute order on
Respondent. On or before April 17, 2009, Respondent shall serve and file a
response to the ex parte application. **SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS**
(dt) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
04/09/2009 9 EX PARTE APPLICATION and Memorandum for Order for Immediate Release
of Petitioner from Custody Pending Decision on Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Appeal; Declaration of Richard I. Fine filed by petitioner Richard I.
Fine.(pcl) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
04/10/2009 8 ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE due to self−recusal pursuant to General Order
08−05 by Judge George H Wu. Case transferred to the calendar of Judge John F.
Walter for all further proceedings. Case number now reads as CV 09−01914 JFW
(CW). (rn) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
68/77
04/10/2009 10 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Richard I. Fine, Re
Application for Habeas Corpus and related papers, served on April 10, 2009. (pcl)
(Entered: 04/13/2009)
04/21/2009 11 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County,
(Fontana, Aaron) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
04/21/2009 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For Writ
Of Habeas Corpus Or, In The Alternative, Request That This Court Direct The
Real Parties In Interest To Respond To Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition filed by
Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Motion set for hearing on 5/19/2009 at
10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. (Fontana, Aaron) (Entered:
04/21/2009)
Woehrle: Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 20, 2009,
naming the Sheriff as Respondent, and filed an ex parte application for immediate
release on April 9, 2009. Sheriff Baca's motion to dismiss was filed April 21, 2009,
and noticed for hearing on May 19, 2009. IT IS ORDERED: 1) The noticed
hearing date if VACATED; 2) Plaintiff's opposition, or notice of non−opposition,to
the motion shall be served and filed on or before May 1, 2009. **SEE ORDER
FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
04/24/2009 14 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas
Corpus Or, In The Alternative, Request That This Court Direct The Real Parties In
Interest To Respond To Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition 12 filed by Petitioner
Richard I. Fine. (dt) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
05/01/2009 15 ANSWER to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 Response filed by Respondent David P Yaffe, Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles.(McCormick, Kevin) (Entered:
05/01/2009)
05/01/2009 16 DECLARATION of Kevin M. McCormick re Answer to Complaint 15 In Support
of Response filed by Respondents David P Yaffe, Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Response to
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Response to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Response to Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to Response to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus)(McCormick, Kevin) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
05/05/2009 17 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle,
ORDERING Supplement to Opposition to Motion and Supplement to Opposition
Dismissal submitted by Petitioner Richard I. Fine received on April 28, 2009 is not
to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Documents were not signed by
attorney of record or pro se litigant as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(a); see also
Local Rule 11−1, 83−2.10.2, and 83−2.10.3. (dt) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
05/05/2009 18 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.
**SEE ATTACHMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
Woehrle: A response to the petition on behalf of Superior Court of CA, LA
County, and the Hon. David P. Yaffe, Judge of the Superior Court was filed onMay
1, 2009, along with the Declaration of Kevin M.McCormack. Petitioner's reply
shall, if any, be served and filed on or before May 22, 2009. Unless otherwise
ordered, this matter will then be taken under submission, without oral argument,
and the parties will be notified of all furthe proceedings. **SEE ORDER FOR
FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
05/05/2009 20 ORDER STRIKING by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle, STRIKING Response in
Opposition to Motion, 14 . **SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS**
(dt) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
05/08/2009 21 First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Intervene filed by intervener defendant Del
Rey Shores Joint Venture, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North. (Attachments: # 1
Response to Petition for Habeas Corpus, # 2 Declaration Declaration in support of
response to petition, # 3 Proposed Order Order granting leave to intervene, # 4
69/77
Certificate of Interested Parties)(Rosen, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
05/08/2009 22 RESPONSE in Support of Petition and Request for Immediate Release from
Custody filed by Petitioner Richard I. Fine (pcl) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
05/14/2009 23 REQUEST and Demand for Immediate Release, Granting of Writ of Habeas
Corpus, and Striking of Declarations of Rosen and McCormick, and the Response
of Del Rey Shoes Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North filed by
petitioner Richard I. Fine. (pcl) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
05/14/2009 24 RESPONSE in Support of Petition and Request for Immediate Release from
Custody filed by Petitioner Richard I. Fine (pcl) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
06/12/2009 25 NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge
Carla Woehrle . Objections to RRdue by 7/6/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Report and
Recommendation) (dt) Modified on 6/12/2009 (dt). (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle. Re MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
12 Objections to RRdue by 7/6/2009. *SEE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 27 AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by
Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. Objections to RRdue by 7/6/2009 (dt) (Entered:
06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 28 NOTICE of the United States Supreme Court Decision of Caperton et al. v. A.T.
Massey Coal Co., Inc., et al., Dated June 8, 2009 filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.
(pcl) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/25/2009 29 OBJECTIONS, Including Memorandum in Support of Objections, to Magistrate
Judge's Report; Demand for Immediate Release filed by petitioner Richard I.
Fine.(pcl) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/26/2009 32 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle,
ORDERING proposed supplemental petition submitted by Petitioner Richard I.
Fine received on 5/26/09 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on:
Not signed by attorney or pro se litigent; Improperly names judges in this case as
respondents. **SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered:
06/29/2009)
06/29/2009 30 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of United States
Magistrate Judge by Judge John F. Walter: IT IS ORDERED: (1) that the Report
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge be accepted; (2) that
judgment be entered denying the petition and dismissing this action with prejudice;
and (3) that the following motions be dismissed as moot in light of this order:
Petitioner's ex parte application for order for immediate release (docket no. 9 ),
Respondent Sheriff Bacas motion to dismiss (docket no. 12 ), the Del Rey Parties'
ex parte application to intervene (docket no. 21 ), and Petitioner's request for order
for immediate release, etc. ( 23 ). (pcl) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
06/29/2009 31 JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter: IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ
of habeas corpus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS−6,
Case Terminated). (pcl) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
06/30/2009 33 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 09−71692. The court is in receipt of
petitioner's original petiton for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254. An application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the district court.
See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); see also 28 U.S.C. 2241(b). Petitioner has an application
for a writ of habeas corpus pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, case No. 09−1914. To the extent petitioner requests
that this court order the district court to act on or grant his pettiion for writ of
habass corpus, petitoner's filing is construed as a petition for writ of mandamus.
We note that on June 12, 2009, the district court issued its findings and
recommendations in petitioner's case. Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated
that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary
remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F. 2d 650(9th
Cir. 1977). The petition is denied. Order received in this district on 6/30/09. (lr)
70/77
(Entered: 07/06/2009)
07/01/2009 34 PETITION for Certificate of Appealability to USDC by petitioner Richard I. Fine;
Filed as Notice of Appeal to 9th CCA from district court judgment, 31 filed
06/29/2009. cc: Richard I. Fine; Attorney General. (car) Modified on 7/6/2009
(car). (Entered: 07/06/2009)
07/09/2009 35 REQUEST Under FRCP Rules 60(b)(2), (4) and (6) to Recuse Magistrate Judge
Woehrle for Bias for Failure to Disclose That She Was a Criminal Defense
Attorney Prior to Becoming a Magistrate Judge, and is Subject to Malpractice
Claims if She Rules that It is a Denial of Due Process for L.A. Superior Court
Judges to Take Payments From L.A. County When She Did Not Raise Such Issue
on Behalf of Her Own Clients When They Were Prosecuted by the L.A. County
District Attorney filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine. (pcl) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/09/2009 36 REQUEST UNDER FRCP Rules 60(b)(2),(4) and (6) to Recuse Judge Walter for
Bias for Failure to Disclose That He Was a Criminal Defense Attorney Prior to
Becoming a Judge, and is subject to Malpractice Claims If He Rules That It Is A
Denial of Due Process for L.A. Superior Court Judges to Take Payments from L.A.
County When He Did Not Raise Such Issue Of Behalf of His Own Clients When
They Were Prosecuted by the L.A. County District Attorney filed by petitioner
Richard I. Fine. (pcl) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/09/2009 37 STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD − EX PARTE APPLICATION Under FRCP
Rule 60(b)(6) to Release Petitioner From Jail Pending Decision From Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.(pcl) Modified on 7/21/2009
(dt). (Entered: 07/10/2009)
07/10/2009 38 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 09−56073, 9th
CCA regarding Petition for Certificate of Appealability 34 as to petitioner Richard
I. Fine. (lra) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 39 REFERRAL OF MOTION to Disqualify Judge/Magistrate Judge has been filed.
Pursuant to GO 08.05 and Local Rule 72−5 REQUEST for Recusal of Judge
Walter 36 is referred to Judge George H. King for determination. (rn) (Entered:
07/13/2009)
07/13/2009 40 REFERRAL OF MOTION to Disqualify Judge/Magistrate Judge has been filed.
Pursuant to GO 08.05 and Local Rule 72−5 REQUEST for Recusal of Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle 35 is referred to Judge George H. King for determination.
(rn) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/15/2009 43 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In Support Of Recusals Of Magistrate Judge
Whoehrle And Judge Walter filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine. (pcl) (Entered:
07/20/2009)
07/16/2009 41 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge George H. King: Proceedings: Order Re:
Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify Judge Woehrle 35 . Petitioner has raised no
sufficient basis for disqualifying Judge Woehrle under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion is hereby DENIED. (mg) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
07/16/2009 42 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge George H. King: Proceedings: Order Re:
Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify Judge Walter 36 . Petitioner has raised no
sufficient basis for disqualifying Judge Walter under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion is hereby DENIED. (mg) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
07/17/2009 44 Order by Judge John F. Walter The Certificate of Appealability is DENIED for the
following reason(s): There has been no substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. Petition for Certificate of Appealability 34 . (lr) Modified on
7/21/2009 (lr). (Entered: 07/21/2009)
07/21/2009 45 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD Transmitted to USCA re Petition for Certificate of
Appealability 34 filed by Richard I. Fine ; Court of Appeals Case Number:
09−56073; Transcripts: None Requested. (lr) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
07/21/2009 46 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: the documents listed below were
improperly filed for the following reasons: Application does not state claim
amounting to claim for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P, Rul 60(b)(6).
71/77
Petitioner could move for release under Fed.R.App.P.Rule 23(b), in either district
court or appeals court, but has not stated claim under Rule 23(b) so as to justify
construing this application as a Rule 23(b) motion.; therefore, the following
document(s) shall be stricken from the record and shall not be considered by the
Court: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for to Release Petition From Jail
Pending Discion From 9CCA 37 . (dt) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
07/21/2009 47 (DUPLICATE) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: striking 37 Ex Parte
Application for Order (dt) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
07/21/2009 48 Order by Judge John F. Walter DENYING Request for Certificate of
Appealability. (se) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
08/12/2009 49 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Petition for Certificate of Appealability 34 as to Petitioner
Richard I. Fine; Receipt Number: 121320, Paid in the amount of $455. (lr)
(Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/26/2009 50 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Petition for Certificate of Appealability 34 filed by
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. Appellant's motion for reconsideration of this
court's order denying his request for immediate release pending appeal is denied.
Order received in this district on 8/26/09. (lr) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
09/03/2009 51 Request that the entire Record be sent to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re Petition
for Certificate of Appealability, 34 . (dmap) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. Appellant's second motion for immediate
release is denied. No further motions for immediate relese pending appeal shall be
filed or entertained. No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification
of this order shall be filed or entertained. The opening brief has been filed; the
answering brief is due October 9, 2009; and the optional reply brief is due within
14 days after service of the answering brief. Order received in this district on
9/15/09. (lr) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration of
Denial of Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED. Order received in
this district on 12/09/09. (lr) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. Dr. Daniel Gottlieb's motion for amicus curiae
status and submission of an amicus curiae brief is DENIED. Order received in this
district on 12/11/09. (lr) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. Appellant's Motion to Reconsider Clerk's
Denial of Requests for Judicial Notice is DENIED. As to the request for judicial
notice of California Government Code 68220 − 68222, however, we note that the
request is denied only because is unncessary to request judicial notice of a statue.
The panel will consult the parties' cited legal authorities in its consideration of this
appeal. Order received in this district on 12/15/09. (lr) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. Appellant's Request for Judicial Notice of
Monterey County Judges' Public Statements is DENIED. Order received in this
district on 12/24/09. (lr) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. The order received in this district on 2/10/2010.
The petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. No further motions shall be
entertained in this appeal. (lra) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
Richard I. Fine, CCA # 09−56073. Order received in this district on 2/12/10.
Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify Judges and to Void the Memorandum Disposition
and Other Orders is DENIED. (cbr) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
72/77
02/18/2010 59 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Petition for Certificate of Appealability 34 , CCA
# 09−56073. The Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Mandate received
in this district on 2/18/2010. (lr) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
73/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 9
3/25/2010 CM/ECF - California Central District-Jud…
74/77
Judgment Index Report
Warning: This report is not subject to the 30 page billing cap.

You will be billed for the total number of pages. If you want to run a report for a single case, you can
use the Query Menu or the Docket Report.
Case 09-01914 Hide Case List

&umber Select a case:
2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (closed 06/29/2009)
2:09-mj-01914-DUTY USA v. Rodriguez (closed 09/18/2009)
5:09-cv-01914-RGK-DTB Kenton Hawkins v. Lennox Industries Inc et al (closed 12/29/2009)
Last name First name Middle name
Judgment
1/2/1990 to 3/25/2010
date range
Sort by: Case number
Run Report Clear
ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/…/JdgIdxRpt.pl 1/1
75/77
March 25, 2010
EXHIBIT 10
76/77
Judgment Index Report
- - UITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CETRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORIA
Report Period: 01/02/1990 - 03/25/2010

Case umber/Title Judgment Description Status
2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Richard I. In favor of: Sheriff of Los Angeles No Payment
Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County County 06/29/2009
Against: Richard I. Fine
Amount: $ 0.00
Date: 06/29/2009
Document: 31
Interest: 0.00%
Court Cost: $ 0.00
In favor of: Superior Court of No Payment
California, County of Los Angeles 06/29/2009
Against: Richard I. Fine
Amount: $ 0.00
Date: 06/29/2009
Document: 31
Interest: 0.00%
Court Cost: $ 0.00
In favor of: David P Yaffe No Payment
Against: Richard I. Fine 06/29/2009
Amount: $ 0.00
Date: 06/29/2009
Document: 31
Interest: 0.00%
Court Cost: $ 0.00
Judgment Index Report Selection Criteria

Case number 2:09-cv-1914
Sort by Case Number
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
03/25/2010 04:16:36
PACER Client
dr2600
Login: Code:
Judgment
Search 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Filed From:
Description: Index
ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/…/JdgIdxRpt.pl?97… 1/2
77/77 Description: Index
Criteria: 1/2/1990 Filed To: 3/25/2010
Report
Billable
1 Cost: 0.08
Pages:
ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/…/JdgIdxRpt.pl?97… 2/2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/77

Declaration of Joseph H Zernik

I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows:

March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

Woehrle. (Filing fee $ 5: FEE PAID.), filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.

March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

Case _umber/Title Judgment Description Status

March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

",<:!iiIi ~ ('> UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

i~~~L\ CENTRAL DISTRJrCT OF CAL[FORNilA

WESTERN DIVISION SOUTHERN DIVISION

Los Angeles, CA 900 12 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

TERJR.Y NAFISI EASTERN DIVISION

March 16, 2010

Joseph Zemik, Ph.D.

La Verne, CaEfornia 91750

RE: Your e-mail dated January 4, 2010

Dear Mr. Zemik,

Jos4::ph Zemik, Ph.D.

cc: Dawn Bullock, Records/Mail Supervisor (w/o enclosure)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF,' CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

A. Applicability of Other Rules and Orders . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

B. Cas(;:s Subject to Electronic Filing 6

A. CM/ECF System 1 ••• " ••••••••••••••••••••••• 6

General Order 08-02

F. Electronic Signature " ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

G. Consent to Electronic Service ... , .... , .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

H. E-Mail Address of Record .. , ,.................... 8

I. Electronic Post Office Box , . , .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

J. Notice of Electronic Flling 8

L. Generic Chambers E-Mail Box , 8

M. Intake E-J\1ail Box 9

Q. Procedures and Instructions , ,................. 9

S. Notice of CM/ECF Unavailab itl it}:· 10

T. Courtesy Paper Copy ,............................ 10

V. Traditional Service ... , ..... "........................... 10

HI. Maintenance of Personal Contact Infomlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

A. Obligation to Maintain Personal Contact Information " 10

General Order 08-02

B. Obligation to Notify Court of Change ofPersonal

C. Obligation to Maintain Electronic Post Office Box , 11

IV. Electronic Filing ,.......................... 11

B. Authorizin.g Use of Login and Password by Others

to Electronically File Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

D. Courtesy Paper Copies ,............................. 12

E. Obligation to Protect Sensitive and Private Information 12

1. Social Security Numbers 13

2. Taxpayer Identification Numbers , 13

3. Names of Minor Children ',' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

4. Dates of Birth 1........................... 13

5. Financial Account Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

F. Exemptions From the Redaction Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

G. Filing Documents With Sensitive' and Private Information 14

General Order 08-02

H. Waiver of Protection of Personal Data Identifiers 15

K. Notice of Discrepancies For Elect~onically Filed Documents. . . .. 16

L. Correcting Errors in E.. Filed Documents .:................... 16