10-01-17 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - Requests for responses on requests in re: dockets integrity.

 
US District Court, Los Angeles

Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:59:57 -0800
To: Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the US District Court, Central District of California
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)  Request for responses on requests dated January 4, 2010 in re dockets integrity.
Cc: Dawn Bullock, Records Supervisor

January 16, 2010

Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the US Court
Central District of California

RE: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)  Requests for responses on requests dated January 4, 2010 in re dockets integrity.

Dear Clerk Nafisi:

Please accept this notice as a reminder of requests for information from your office, made in person to Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock on December 29, 2009, and also in writing, in letters dates January 4, 2010.[1] [2]

In a December 29, 2009 visit to the US District Court, LA, requests were made to access court records, to inspect and to copy. Most requests were denied, but access was allowed to several NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) . Such NEFs cemented concerns regarding honesty, validity, and effect of the PACER docket under such caption.

The US District Court would not certify its dockets. Moreover, no statements appear in the dockets in the name of the Clerk or any Clerk Deputy, as such.  Therefore requests were made, and requests are made herein, for statements by the Clerk of the US District Court, LA - Terry Nafisi, whether the dockets in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were honest, valid, and effectual dockets, in compliance with US law.  Please accept this request also as Custodian of Records of the US District Court, LA, pursuant to California Law, as a request for custodian of records declaration regarding the PACER dockets of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).

As a follow up to the December 29, 2009, visit to the United States District Court, Los Angeles, where access to almost all records requested was denied, request was made for written explanations of the legal foundation for such denials, and related questions regarding the legal foundation for the rules of operation of PACER & CM/ECF at the US District Court.

Ms Bullock indicated that some of my questions would require research.  However, it should be possible to provide without any further delay at least responses to two of the simpler questions:

a) Are the PACER docket in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) honest, valid, and effectual dockets, in compliance with US law?

b) Was Donna Thomas, Courtroom Assistant of Magistrate Carla Woehrle, who conducted various transactions in the dockets of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)  and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) a Deputy Clerk at that time, who was authorized to engage in such transactions, pursuant to your authority as Clerk of the US Court, Central District of California?

I look forward to your expedient responses on at least these two questions.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

Linked Records:
[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/24772496/10-01-04-Requesting-US-District-Court-LA-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-s-statements-re-docket-of-Zernik-v-Connor-et-al-is-it-honest-valid-and-effectual-in

[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/24776792/10-01-04-Request-Clarifications-by-US-District-Court-LA-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-in-re-PACER-CM-ECF-and-denial-of-access-to-records-s