Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou,

Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US

Location: La Verne, California
Date: 2010.01.04 13:13:28 -08'00'

Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-
10-01-
01-04 RE: 1) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
2) US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
3) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
4) In re: Fine (2:09-mc-00129)
Requesting clarification re denial of access to court records.
The favor of a response within 10 business days was requested.

TO Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, United States Court, Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90012, by certified mail, and by email to <terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov> and
<Dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov>.
Dear Clerk Nakisi:
Thanks again to Ms Dawn Bullock for her help and her patience during my visit to the Clerk’s Records
Department on December 29, 2009. During that visit, I submitted a written request to access court records
pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). [1]
The vast majority of my requests to access court records, to inspect and to copy, were denied. I am writing to
request a written explanation for such denial of access:
1) My requests to access records from four different paper court files (referenced above), even my own
case, were denied. Deputy Clerk John initially claimed that the paper filings were destroyed
immediately upon scanning. When I suggested that it could not possibly be the case, he tracked
back. Nevertheless - I was denied access to any paper court file records.
2) My requests to access electronic court file records in CM/ECF - specifically - the Notices of
Electronic Filings (NEFs) of the same four court files, were likewise denied - even in my own case -
with no explanation at all.
3) My requests to access records, which documented the shredding of the claimed-to-be-shredded paper
court files, were likewise denied - with no explanation at all.
4) My requests to access (to obtain copies) paper printouts of electronic court file – the NEFs in the
same four cases, were likewise denied, with the exception of printouts of the NEFs in my own case,
Zernik v Connor et al, which I was provided by Ms Bullock, and for which I thanked her.
5) Ms Bullock and I had a detailed technical discussion in re:
a) The legal foundation, if any, for the operation of CM/ECF at the US Court for the Central
District of California;
b) The specific function of the NEFs in that system, and its legal foundation, if any;
c) Denial of public access to the NEFs, and its legal foundation, if any.
6) Ms Bullock stated that the foundation for the operation of CM/ECF at the California Central District
was in the General Order 08-02. From memory, I told her that such order was unusual among the
General Orders - since it had no name of a judge who authored it, let alone a signature, and likewise,
had no attestation by a clerk. Therefore, I questioned its validity and effect. Ms Bullock checked it

Page 2/2 January 4, 2010

up, apparently found my recollection to be correct, and then told me that she would get back to me
on the issue.
7) Ms Bullock likewise stated that the denial of access to NEFs, except in one's own case, was founded
in General Order 08-02. I challenged her from memory on that issue as well. I stated from memory
that NEFs were mentioned only in one or two paragraphs of the order, but no reference was made to
access, only to the NEFs function as certifying court records, and also as authenticating service and
entry of parties' papers, and of court orders and judgments. Again - Ms Bullock said that she would
research the matter.
8) Ms Bullock stated that the denial of access to NEFs resulted from the fact that personal information
was included in them. I challenged that answer, since the same information was also provided in the
Parties and Attorneys page – which was publicly accessible. Ms Bullock agreed with me on that
point.
9) I also asked about the rules pertaining to issuing or not issuing of a valid NEF for a given record
filed at court. The response was that an NEF was automatically issued any time a clerk scanned or
posted a record into the PACER docket. I challenged that notion. It would have to be researched as
well.
10) I also raised the question regarding the display of general orders of the Court online. It was always
the same exact 50 general orders that were available on display for public viewing and access, for at
least two years. However, it was obvious that in fact, the total number of general orders of the court
was much larger. Ms Bullock was not clear on that issue. However, in response to my request she
promised to provide me a printout of the index of standing orders covering the period from 2001-
2009. She stated that such period would cover all general orders pertaining to electronic filing at the
California Central District.
11) In general, although I was not an attorney, not even by a long shot, I believed that the issues
discussed above had to be founded in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in Rules of
Court, but not in General Orders, let alone “unofficial manual” of CM/ECF. I therefore also
requested clarification regarding the legal foundation for any of the specific rules of the operation of
electronic filing, as practiced in the Central District of California.

Ms Bullock told me that I could expect a written response soon after the beginning of the new years, and
I am writing to repeat my request for such written response on the matters listed above.

Respectfully,
Dated: January 04, 2010
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Fax: 801.998.0917
Email jz12345@earthlink.net

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681508/Zernik-v-Connor-CM-ECF-09-12-29-Request-and-Response-in-attempt-to-
gain-access-to-records-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-s