(NEFs) from ECF/CM for all records on file in this matter; (2) To file statements on the
record explaining the conduct of the Court and the Clerk of the Court relative to
Plaintiffs papers, relative to Court papers, and relative to segregation of parties to
ECF/CM versus Pacer.
Plaintiff, a Pro Se Filer, recently received some papers by mail from the Court (Exhibits 1, 2, 3).
Such papers were inadequately verified by the Court, and entirely lacked any form of
authentication by the Clerk of the Court. Such papers could possibly be deemed as personal
communication by the Honorable Richard J Leon, U.S. Judge, but could not possibly be deemed
official service of paper by the U.S. Court, District of Columbia.
Plaintiff was and is denied access to ECF/CM with no explanation at all, and therefore, cannot
inspect Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) and digital signatures - the authentication of Court
records. Instead, the Court allows Plaintiff and other Pro Se Filers access only through Pacer,
where NEFs are omitted from all records. It is incomprehensible what rationale, which would
be even remotely related to the furtherance of justice, could possibly lead the U.S. Courts to
allocate substantial resources, to set up such duplicate, separate, and unequal systems, and to
segregate parties into one or the other. It is also incomprehensible how such duplicate, unequal
systems, and the segregation of parties could be founded in the law or the Rules of Court.
The requested orders, listed above, are meant to clarify Court conduct that otherwise remains
vague and ambiguous, but surely fails to appear as official service of Court papers by the Court.
Dated: July 30, 2009
Exhibit 4, a sample NEF from the U.S. Court at Louisiana, including digital signatures, can also be viewed in the same paper.