All of these critical features are missing from the "Docket" provided for public access online. Therefore, there is no way for the public (including parties and counsel) to tell what the state is of such strange and unusual record as the petition posted in case No 09-71692 Fine v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
Let's hope that the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, realize that allowing any such ambiguity to remain on such matters as whether a given record was filed and entered with the court, or not, amounts to compromised Due Process for Att Richard Fine, and that the state of such records must be disambiguated BEFORE any ruling is issued on the matter, not AFTER.
B) June 25, 2009 Email to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit: A Request for Disambiguation.
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:03:23 -0700
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Urgent: Re: Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
The matter is urgent, and time is of the essence.
Mr David Paris
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit.
Thanks for the note.
A couple of questions:
1) As the text of the paper I sent for filing in court itself states, the term "Received" is an ambiguous one.
I request to know whether the paper was stamped "Filed" by the court,
2) Will I get my conformed copy? I enclosed an extra copy and a stamped, self addressed envelope.
3) In case the paper was stamped: "Filed", I also request to know how I may be able to tell if it will ever be "Entered", since the online docket on display to the public seems to consistently avoid the proper use of the term "Enter" relative to the papers received by the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit.
4) In case it was "Filed" and "Entered", is there any idea when the request may be addressed? I would like to file a couple of other papers in this case, and I was hoping for a quick answer on the matter of leave to file.
5) Based on all the above, I must assume that the court has its own register system, where it clearly marks for internal use the status of each file. I cannot see how any court could work off the information the way it is displayed on the Pacer online. Assuming that such is the case, I believe that such register would be deemed court record, subject to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the right to access court records to inspect and to copy.
I therefore would like to know what it would cost and what method of payments are acceptable to copy the entire court register and all court papers listed as filed or as received in the following caption - - Fine v U.S. District Court, LA, 09-71692; Originating from: Fine v Sheriff Dept: CV 09-1914-JFW(CW)
I would be grateful for your response on the issues above.
At 06:12 23/06/2009, you wrote:
- Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
was received by:
- David Paris/CA02/02/USCOURTS
- 06/23/2009 09:12:54 AM EDT