Human Rights Alert

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-04-01 Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal
Cases Requesting Comments, Responses by US Administrative Office of the Courts.
United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Revised April 1, 2010
Comments:
1. Generally, the document resembles "Users Manuals", which were issued in some courts, but not others.
Review of such manuals from various US district courts was one of the main sources for my investigation
of PACER and CM/ECF, which led to the opinion that the systems is large scale fraud on the People.
2. In no way can Users Manuals, or in this case, the unsigned "Administrative Policies and Procedures for
Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases" substitute for laws enacted by the US congress or Rules of
Court, established pursuant to the Rules Making Enabling Act in creating new federal rules of electronic
courts. As one can readily figure out from this short document, it overhauled court procedures, which for
centuries were the core of Due Process, and which were enacted in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Federal Rules of Criminal procedure.
3. The most interesting parts in this document are the following three:
a) Page 9:
e. Traditionally Filed documents must be served in accordance with Rule 5, FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 49, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
and Local Court Rules CV-5(b)(2) and CR-49(a). (Note: Although a NEF will be
generated for Traditionally Filed documents that are scanned by the Clerk, the NEF
does not constitute service of Traditionally Filed documents.)

This passage makes it clear that records, which are submitted by pro se filers are subject to electronic
filing, with the clerk acting as mediator. NEF is issued for such records. Many pro se filers, not by
chance, are under the perception that their cases are conducted outside of the electronic filing procedures
of the US courts.
b) Page 11 [underline added-jz]:
b. The transmission of a NEF constitutes entry on the docket pursuant to Rules 58 and
79, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rules 49 and 55, FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

This is a unique paragraph, the like of it I have never seen anywhere else, although I always claimed the
same:
Under paper administration of the courts, the clerk had to stamp a paper record "ENTERED" and sign it
on its face, for the record to become part of the public records in a given court file (in contrast with the
"FILED" stamp, which only indicates that a record was received by the office of the clerk".

This paragraph explicitly states that today the "NEF constitutes entry". That means that if no NEF was
issued on a record, regarding of any stamps that may appear on a paper copy of the record, the record in
fact is not entered (and that includes orders and judgments). This is a major point, which the US Courts
managed to make vague and ambiguous.
z Page 2/2 February 7, 2011

c) Page 20
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1080075687 [Date=10/14/2005] [FileNumber=71428-0]
[40a012c27475ba6fb0d1a468a60f5962228243fbc57e1ff2c42e51ed9dfdf5a17bfc
c831fb5a747c4834dc51e8a5b7957a40e44746c31f9a05cb9aa2b07d0cd5]]

The sample NEF, which is provided in page 20, includes the section that is the Electronic Document
Stamp, an electronically encrypted alphanumeric string, which in fact is a "Checksum" algorithm
product.. Almost all Manuals,which I have examined, show only partial figure of the NEF, omitting the
section, which is the Electronic Document Stamp.
4. The most deceptive issue in this document is:

This document fails to explain that today, the US district courts deem the Electronic Document Stamp,
as the replacement of the ENTERED stamp with the hand signature of the clerk, as practiced under paper-
based administration of the court.

The only place where I found this issue defined, albeit, in a vague and ambiguous manner, is in the
General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California: In Users Manuals the issue
is often referenced in a more oblique manner, through warning to counsel to print out the NEFs and keep
them on file as an important records.
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) 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
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.

See a copy of the General Order 08-02:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28339822/

See discussion of the General Order 08-02 and the NEFs, both alleged as deprivation of rights under the
color of law, as part of Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al:
11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit -
Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/

The US Courts from coast to coast publish in PACER dockets records, where an NEF missing the
Electronic Document Stamp were issued for particular records. Such records are not deemed by the US
Courts themselves as "Entered". However, the People and pro se litigants, who have no access to
CM/ECF, are mislead to believe that such papers (including orders and judgments) are valid and effectual
court records.

In parallel, the clerks of the US courts, from coast to coast, deny pro se litigants and the People access to
the NEFs, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.