10-12-27 Log Cabin Republicans V USA Et Al (10-56634 and 10-56813) in The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, DR Joseph Zernik's Motion To Intervene S

Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813
IN THE UNIED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
___________
Log Cabin Republicans,

a non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross Appellant,
vs
United States of America; Robert M Gates,

Secretary of Defense, in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross Appellees.
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No CV 04-8425, Honorable Virginia A Phillips, Judge
___________
1: [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S REQUEST TO

FILE, NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM THE COURT OF
UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND
VERIFIED MOTION TO INTERVENE *
Joseph Zernik, PhD Digitally signed by

Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert (NGO) DN: cn=Joseph
In Pro Se Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
2231 South Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301 arthlink.net, c=US
Telephone: (323) 521-6209, Facsimile (213) 261-9881 Date: 2010.12.27
15:50:07 +02'00'
jz12345@earthlink.net
*
Simultaneously filed with the Senate and House Judiciary, Armed Services, and Finance Committees,
UN Human Rights Council, and the Basel Accords Committee on International Banking
A. TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Table of Contents …i
B. List of Exhibits …i
C. List of Cases and Courts … iii
D. Table of Authorities … iii
E. Notice …1
F. Request to File, Notice to Inform, and Motion To Intervene …3
G. Point & Authorities in re: Notice to Reliably Inform the Court …4
H. Points & Authorities in re: Motion to Intervene …7
I. Points & Authorities in re: Intervention Per Se … 11
J. Claims … 12
K. Case Status … 13
L. Request For Intervention & Prayer for Relief … 14
M. Statement of Verification … 15
N. Certificate of Service
___________
TOC
B. LIST OF EXHIBITS
PAGE 1
1: Notice and Motion to Intervene
Exhibit 1:1: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425):

Notices to parties of intent to intervene and request to confer
PAGE 30
2: Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer
None
PAGE 35
3: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al
i
1: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO INTERVENE
Exhibit 3:1: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550):
a) March 5, 2009 Complaint (Dkt #001) (face page), and
b) The respective NEF, bearing the ‘electronic document stamp’, as required by
General Order 08-02 for valid electronic certificate of authentication/attestation
a) March 7, 2008 Order Returning Case for Reassignment (Dkt #009). and
b) The respective NEF, missing the ‘electronic document stamp’
a) April 24, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #107), and
a) Table form summary of NEFs’ validity, or lack thereof, and
b) Compiled NEFs of Judicial, and Clerical Records, as obtained from the office of
the Clerk on December 29, 2009.
4: Motion for an Order to Show Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al PAGE 87
Exhibit 4:1: Fine v Sheriff et al (2:09-cv-01914):

a) The March 19/20, 2009 Petition for Habeas Corpus (Dkt #01) (face page), and the
respective NEF, bearing the ‘electronic document stamp’, as required by General
Order 08-02 for valid electronic certificate of authentication/attestation;
b) The June 29, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #31). Upon inspection on December 29, 2009,
the respective NEF, was discovered to be missing the ‘electronic document
stamp’.
c) The February 18, 2010 Mandate (Dkt #59) as docketed in the US District Court –
with no certification by a Circuit Judge and with no NDA (Notice of Docket
Activity) from the US Court of Appeals, and the respective NEF, bearing no
‘electronic document stamp’.
December 6, 2010, request upon counsel of parties in the Appeals to provide copies
of the NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US District Court, and
confirmation of receipt by counsel for the USA.
December 9, 2010, request upon Clerk of the US District Court Terry Nafisi to
provide copies of the NEFs and certify the PACER docket.
5: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: The NEFs are Public Records PAGE 121
None
6: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: The NEFs as Currently Drafted PAGE 130
None
7: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: General Order 08-02 and CM/ECF PAGE 139
ii
Exhibit 7:1: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914):
Correspondence with the California Judicial Council regarding appearances by
Attorney Kevin McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court of California
8: Request for Incorporation by Reference PAGE 162
None
PAGE 167
9: Request for CM/ECF Password
None
___________
TOC
C. LIST OF CASES AND COURTS
1. Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), USDC, CACD
2. Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425), USDC, CACD
3. Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634 and 10-56813), USCA, 9th
4. Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (2:09-cv-01914), USDC, CACD
5. Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (09-56073), USCA, 9TH
___________
TOC
D. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Equal Protection Rights … 3:5; 4:8; 7:7
Access to the Courts Rights … 3:5; 4:8;7:3,6,9
First Amendment Rights … 3:5; 5:2,3,6; 7:3,4,5,6;
5:4
Federal Due Process Rights … 1:12; 3:5; 4:6,8; 5:4,6;
6:6,7; 7:3,4,5,6,8,9;
9:2
Code of Conduct of US Judge … 1:3
iii
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure … 1:1,2,5,6,8,9,10; 4:4,5
28 USC §1691 … 1:6
28 USC §2071-7, Rule Making Enabling Act … 5:4; 7:4
42 USC §1983, Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law … 5:6, 7:2,9
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) … 7:9
Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc 435 U.S. 589 (1978) … 5:4
Erickson v Pardus et al, 551 U.S. 89 (S. Ct., Jun. 4, 2007) … 2:2
Haddock v California Board of Dental Examiners, US Crt App 9th Circ, (Nov 26, 1985);
777 F.2d 462 … 2:2
iv
___________
TOC
E. [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S NOTICE OF REQUEST
TO FILE, NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM THE COURT, AND MOTION TO
INERVENE
TO THE COURT AND PARTIES OF RECORD, please notice Dr Joseph Zernik’s
Request for Leave to File, Notice to Reliably Inform the Court of Unprofessional
Conduct, and Verified Motion to Intervene, filed herein pursuant to FRCivP.
The papers, which are concomitantly filed under separate covers, should be deemed
integral part of this Request, including, but not limited to:
3: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al

The Motion and its exhibits include a unique set of records, documenting litigation in
the US District Court, Central District of California, where all judicial and clerical
records were issued with invalid electronic certificates of authentication/attestation
(NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing) by the Clerk, with no name of the ‘Filer’ listed, and
with no ‘electronic document stamp’.
Such records included, but were not limited to, the Summonses, as issued by the
Clerk, the Assignment to a US Judge, the Referral to a US Magistrate, and the Judgment.
The Clerk of the US District Court has refused to certify the PACER (online public
access system) docket in the case.
The judicial and clerical records and the litigation as a whole should be deemed by
the Court null and void.
1/15
4: Motion for an Order to Show Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al
The Clerk of the US District has refused to permit access to the electronic certificates
of authentication/attestation by the Clerk (NEFs) in this case, including, but not limited
to, the certificate of the October 12, 2010 Judgment, from which the Appeals were taken.
The Clerk of the Court has also refused to certify the PACER docket in the case.
Regardless, sufficient evidence is provided from the PACER docket to conclude that
Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al, like Zernik v Connor et al, was litigation, was
litigation in the US District Court, where all judicial and clerical records, including but
not limited to the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment should be deemed by the Court
null and void.
The Motion for Order to Show Cause accordingly calls upon the parties to the
Appeals to answer why the Appeals, taken from the uncertified October 12, 2010
Judgment, should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, alternatively, for mootness.
5: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are Public Records
6: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs as Currently Drafted are invalid
as electronic certificates by the Clerk
7: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: Establishment of CM/ECF in the US District
Court through the General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Rights.
The three additional Motions, listed above, are concomitantly filed, requesting
remedies pertaining to underlying conditions at the US District Court, Central District of
California, which enabled the conduct of litigation in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al,
where the Clerk of the Court denies access to certification of the Judgment, and refuses to
certify the PACER docket.
2/15
The cases, which are subject of this filing, are of high public policy significance,
pertaining to Constitutional and Civil Rights, Banking Regulation, and management of
the Armed Services.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December 27th, 2010 Joseph Zernik
By: ______________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
[Proposed] Intervenor, In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
___________
TOC
F. [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S REQUEST TO FILE,
NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM THE COURT, AND VERIFIED MOTION TO
INTERVENE
TO THE COURT AND PARTIES OF RECORD, Intervenor Dr Joseph Zernik
(“Zernik”) herein files the Request to File, Notice to Reliably Inform the Court, and
Verified Motion to Intervene in the Appeals under Log Cabin Republicans v United
States of America et al (10-56634 and 10-56813), pursuant to FRCivP.
1. The following papers are concomitantly filed under separate covers, and should be
deemed integral parts of instant Request to File, Notice to Reliably Inform the Court,
and Motion to Intervene.
3/15
The papers are numbered as follows:
1: Request for Leave to File, Notice to Reliably Inform the Court, and Motion to
Intervene;
2: Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;
3: Motion for Declaratory Mandate in re: Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550) - The uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment in Zernik v Connor et
al was, is, and always will be void, not voidable;
4: Motion for an Order to Show Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al
(2:04-cv-08425) and the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment on USA and Log
Cabin Republicans - Why instant Appeals should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction and/or mootness;
5: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are court records subject to the
First Amendment rights;
6: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs, as currently drafted, are invalid as
electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk; the US District
Court shall immediately draft valid electronic certificates of authentication/
attestation by the Clerk;
7: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: Establishment of CM/ECF in the US District
Court through the General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Rights;
8: Request for Incorporation by Reference; and
9: Request for permission to obtain CM/ECF password.
___________
TOC
G. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RE: NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM
4/15
THE COURT OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT UNDER LOG CABIN
REPUBLICANS V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL (2:04-cv-8425) AND
ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL (2:08-cv-01550)
1. The Code of Conduct of US Judges calls upon US judges to initiate corrective
actions relative to reliable evidence of unprofessional conduct in the courts.
The Code of Conduct of US Judges, Canon 3, B (3) says:
A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of
reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge or
lawyer.
2. Instant Notice informs the Court of reliable evidence of unprofessional conduct
in litigation under Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al and
litigation under Zernik v Connor et al in the US District Court.
Instant Notice to Reliably Inform the Court and the concomitantly filed papers,
provide reliable evidence of conduct, which resulted in:
a) The construction of vague and ambiguous and/or void, not voidable electronic
dockets in PACER (the online public access system) under Log Cabins
Republicans v United States of America et al and under Zernik v Connor et al,
both in the US District Court, Central District of California,
b) Incorporation in the dockets of the two cases of vague and ambiguous and/or
void, not voidable uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment and Permanent
Injunction (Dkt #252) and uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #107),
respectively, and
c) Underlying conditions at the District Court, which enabled the conduct described
in a) and b), above.
3. Reliable evidence is provided in the Motion for Declaratory Mandate in re:
5/15
Zernik v Connor et al (3:) and the concomitantly filed papers for the Court to
rule that the April 24, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #107) under Zernik v Connor et al, is
void, not voidable.
In Zernik v Connor et al access was gained, after long delays, to the electronic
certificates of authentication/attestation (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing) pertaining
to judicial and clerical records. All the NEFs were found invalid. (See 3: Motion for
Declaratory Mandate in re: Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al.)
Accordingly, it is claimed that the evidence is conclusive that the litigation PACER
docket as a whole was and is null and void, and the judicial and clerical records, which
were published in it, including but not limited to the April 24, 2009 Judgment, are void,
not voidable ones.
4. Reliable evidence is provided in the Motion for an Order to Show Cause in re:
Log Cabins Republicans v United States of America et al (4:) and the
concomitantly filed papers that the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment is
void, not voidable.
Reliable evidence is provided in the Motion to Intervene and the concomitantly filed
papers that the PACER docket and the two contradictory Judgments Log Cabins
Republicans v United States of America et al are null and void.
In Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al the Clerk of the US District Court has denied
public access to the NEFs. Therefore, the October 12, 2010 Judgment, from which the
Appeals were taken, is uncertified.
In Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al the Clerk of the US District Court has denied
requests to certify the PACER docket.
6/15
Under such circumstances, the Court should grant the Motion for an Order to Show
Cause: Why the Appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, alternatively,
for mootness.
5. Additional reliable evidence is provided, and additional corrective actions are
proposed in the Motions for Declaratory Mandates in re: The NEFs are Public
Records (5:), in re: The NEFs are Invalid as Drafted (6:), and in re:
Establishment of CM/ECF through the General Order 08-02 (7:).
The three additional Motions, listed above, reliably inform the Court of circumstances
at the US District Court, which enabled the conduct of litigations under Zernik v Connor
et al and Log Cabin Republicans v the USA et al, as described above.
The three Motions, listed above (5:, 6:, 7:), also propose appropriate corrective
actions, through the Mandates on the US District Court to: a) Restore public access to the
NEFs, b) Redraft the NEFs as valid certificates of authentication/attestation under the
authority of the Clerk of the Court, and c) Rescind the General Order 08-02 in part or in
full.
6. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is respectfully requested to
accept the Notice, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges, and initiate the
appropriate and necessary corrective actions, including but not limited to
granting Zernik the Leave to File the Motion to Intervene and concomitantly
filed paper.
For the reasons listed in paragraphs1-5, above, and in the concomitantly filed papers,
the Court should initiate corrective actions regarding the Judgments in Zernik v Connor et
al and Log Cabin Republicans v the USA et al, and underlying condition in the US
7/15
District Court, including but not limited to granting Zernik’s the Leave to File.
___________
TOC
H. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RE: MOTION TO INTERVENE
1. Zernik claims Intervention of Right pursuant to FRCivP 24(a)
a) Zernik claims timely Intervention of Right:
Zernik is filing his Motion to Intervene as soon as possible after he discovered the
facts in the matters outlined below, and while the appeals are in their initial stage.
b) Zernik claims an interest that is the subject of the action, based on the facts outlined
in the Motion to Intervene and the concomitantly filed papers:
As outlined below, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the conduct
of the litigation in Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al and in
Zernik v Connor et al in the US District Court followed similar pattern.
Therefore, any ruling by the US Court of Appeals on the matters raised in the
Motion to Intervene and the concomitantly filed papers regarding validity, or lack
thereof, of the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment in Log Cabin Republicans v
United States of America et al, would directly affect Zernik’s interests.
c) Zernik further claims that no party adequately represents his interests:
Zernik’s claims, pertaining to invalidity of the uncertified October 12, 2010
Judgment in Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al, detailed in the
Motion to Intervene and the concomitantly filed papers, have not been raised by
either the Log Cabin Republicans, or the USA. Zernik therefore claims that he is so
situated that disposing of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his
ability to protect his interests and his ability to protect his Constitutional and Civil
8/15
Rights.
2. Alternatively, Zernik claims Permissive Intervention pursuant to FRCivP 24(b)
Zernik alternatively claims that the Court should allow Permissive Intervention, since
Zernik shares with both Log Cabin Republicans and the United States the main facts
pertaining to the conduct of the respective cases in the US District Court.
Therefore, there is commonality of law and of facts between the proposed
Intervention and the current Appeals under Los Cabin Republicans v United States of
America (10-56634 and 10-56813).
The commonality of law and facts between conduct of Log Cabin Republicans v
United States of America et al and Zernik v Connor et al in the US District Court is
outlined below, and further detailed in the Motion for Order to Show Cause in re: Log
Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (4:), in the Motion for Mandate in re:
Zernik v Connor et al(3:), and in the concomitantly filed papers (5:,6:,7:).
a) Litigation of Zernik v Connor et al:
The Clerk refused to issue valid summons; no valid summons was served,
and service was not waived; the March 7, 2008 Order Returning Case for
Reassignment (Dkt #009), was issued with invalid NEF, missing the ‘electronic
document stamp’; only invalid, void minutes and orders were issued and
published in the online PACER docket, all with invalid NEFs; an invalid April 24,
2009 Judgment was issued and published in the online PACER docket with
invalid NEF, and the Clerk of the US District Court refuses to certify the online
PACER docket of the case.
b) Litigation of Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al:
9/15
No record is available in the docket of the initial Complaint (Dkt #001) or of
the summons, as issued by clerk; no record is avaliable of execution/waiver of the
service of the summons; no valid Assignment Order for a Presiding Judge is
found in the docket; the two Judges issued two opposing judgments: The first
judgment, in favor of the United States of America, dismissed the Log Cabin
Republicans’ complaint, and was listed in the Judgment Index of the US District
Court; No appeal or other procedure overtunred the 2006 judgment; the second
judgment, in favor of the Log Cabin Republicas, was not listed in the Judgment
Index of the Court, and the Clerk of the US District Court refuses to certify the
docket of the case and also refuses to permit public access to electronic
certificates of authentication/attestation (NEFs) of the two judgments.
c) Commonality in remedies sought.
Due to the commonality in facts and law, the remedies sought in both Zernik v
Connor et al and Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al are also of the same nature,
seeking to establish the lack of validity and effect of the PACER dockets and of
the judicial and clerical records, including, but not limited to the respective
uncertified judgments.
3. Zernik fulfilled requirement for Notice and Service of instant Motion to
Intervene and the concomitantly filed papers, pursuant to FRCivP 24(c)
a. Zernik provided Notice of Intent to Intervene (Exhibit 1:1), and also attempted to
confer with the parties to the Appeals.
b. Zernik served instant Motion to Intervene and the concomitantly filed papers on
the parties pursuant to the Service List, below, and the Certificate of Service, is
10/15
provided herein (N, below).
c. Therefore, the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit should not refuse to
file instant Zernik’s papers, even if not in the form prescribed by FRCivP or by
Local Rules or practices.
4. The Proposed intervention is in the public interest
Beyond his individual interests, Zernik claims that his intervention is in the public
interest and in the interest of the furtherance of justice:
The Motion to Intervene and the concomitantly filed papers allege deprivation of the
Constitutional and Civil Rights of all who are similarly situated in the Central District of
California.
Rulings by the Court on the matters, raised in the Intervention are likely to exert
profound impact on the integrity of online dockets and judicial records of the US District
Courts in California and beyond.
grant Zernik the Motion to Intervene in the Appeals under Los Cabin
Republicans v United States of America (10-56634 and 10-56813).
For the reasons in paragraphs 1-4, above, and in the concomitantly filed papers, the
Court should grant the Motion to Intervene.
___________
TOC
I. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES – PERTAINING TO INTERVENTION PER SE
1. In Zernik v Connor et al, Zernik was denied the right for adjudication of his
complaint pursuant to the law of the United States and Due Process rights.
11/15
Based on the evidence, outlined in G and H, above, in the Motion for Mandate in re:
Zernik v Connor et al (3:), and the concomitantly filed papers, the Court should conclude
that the litigation in Zernik v Connor et al was conducted out of compliance with the
FRCivP, the Civil Litigation Management Manual of the Federal Judicial Council, First
Amendment and Due Process rights.
2. In Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al, Log Cabin Republicans and the USA were
denied the right to have the complaint adjudicated pursuant to the law of the
United States and Due Process rights.
Based on the evidence, outlined in G and H, above, in the Motion for Order to Show
Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (4:), and in the concomitantly filed
papers, the Court should conclude that the litigation in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et
al was conducted out of compliance with the FRCivP and the Civil Litigation
Management Manual of the Federal Judicial Council, First Amendment and Due Process
rights.
3. Conduct of the US District Court in Zernik v Connor et al and in Log Cabin
Republicans v the USA et al was enabled by conditions in the US District Court
related to implementation of CM/ECF.
Based on the evidence, outlined in G and H, above, and in the concomitantly filed
papers, the Court should conclude that the conduct of litigation in Zernik v Connor et al
and in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al was closely linked to conditions that were
enabled through implementation of CM/ECF, including, but not limited to employment
of the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing), as drafted, as the certificates of
authentication/attestation by the Clerk, and denial of public access to them.
12/15
grant Zernik the Motions and Requests, which are part of the Intervention.
For the reasons detailed in 1-3, above, the Court should grant just and equitable
remedies, pursuant to the law of the United States, as detailed below (L. PRAYER FOR
RELIEF), for Zernik, for Log Cabin Republicans, for the USA, and for all who are
similarly situated under the 9th Circuit.
___________
TOC
J. CLAIMS
Zernik’s claims pertaining to the litigation of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
and litigation of Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-8425) in the US District
Court, Central District of California, are:
1. As detailed in the 3: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al, it
is claimed that all clerical and judicial records in the PACER docket, including, but
not limited to, the uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment are null and void.
2. As detailed in 4: Motion for an Order to Show Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans v
USA et al, it is claimed that all clerical and judicial records in the PACER docket,
including, but not limited to, the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment are null and
void.
3. As detailed in 5: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: The NEFs are Public
Records, it is claimed that the NEFs are court records subject to the First Amendment
rights.
4. As detailed in 6: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: The NEFs, as Drafted are
Invalid Certificates, it is claimed that the NEFs, as currently drafted, are invalid as
13/15
electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk, which undermine
Due Process rights.
5. As detailed in 7: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: in re: CM/ECF and the General
Order 08-02, it is claimed that establishment of CM/ECF through the General Order
08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Rights.
___________
TOC
K. CASE STATUS
1. Zernik is not a party to any litigation in any US or state court.
2. Appeals by Log Cabin Republicans and the USA filed Appeals under Log Cabin
Republicans v USA et al (10-56634 and 10-56813) are now pending at the US Court
of Appeals.
___________
TOC
L. [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR ENTERS HIS REQUEST FOR
INTERVENTION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF.
WHEREFORE [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR PRAYS this honorable Court issue just
and equitable relief, pursuant to the law of the United States, as follows:
1. Declaratory relief in entering the Mandate in re: Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor
et al (2:08-cv-01550) - The uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment in Zernik v
Connor et al was, is, and always will be void, not voidable.
2. Declaratory relief in entering the Order to Show Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans
v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425) and the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment on USA
and Log Cabin Republicans - Why instant Appeals should not be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction and/or mootness;
14/15
3. Declaratory relief in entering the Mandate on the US District Court: The NEFs are
court records subject to the First Amendment rights;
4. Declaratory relief in entering Mandate: The NEFs, as currently drafted, are invalid as
electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk; the US District
Court shall immediately draft valid electronic certificates of authentication/
attestation by the Clerk;
5. Declaratory relief in entering the Mandate: Establishment of CM/ECF in the US
District Court through the General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully asks the Honorable Court to grant
him such declaratory, injunctive, mandate and other relief as it deems just and proper,
pursuant to the law of the United States.
December 27th, 2010, by:
Joseph Zernik
By: _______________________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
15/15
___________
TOC
M. STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
I, Joseph Zernik, read instant 1: Request for Leave to File, Notice to Reliably Inform
the Court and Motion to Intervene, and I know the content thereof to be true and
correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to those
matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I
believe them to be true and correct as well.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury
pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
Executed on December 27th, 2010.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
16/15
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1:1
December 12, 2010 Notice of Intent to Intervene and Request to Confer in
Appeals in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al, forwarded to parties in the
Appeals, and confirmations of receipt.
1) Notice and Request to Confer
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:59:07 +0200

To: anthony.steinmeyer@usdoj.gov, august.flentje@usdoj.gov,
henry.whitaker@usdoj.gov, dwoods@whitecase.com, emiller@whitecase.com,
aakahn@whitecase.com
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Timely Response Requested within 7 days. RE: Log Cabin Republicans
v USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - Notice of Intent to Intervene and Request to
Confer
December 12, 2010
Response within 7 days is requested
Log Cabin Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813)

a. Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants
Anthony J. Steinmeyer (anthony.steinmeyer@usdoj.gov)
(202) 514-3388
August E. Flentje (august.flentje@usdoj.gov)
(202) 514-3309
Henry Whitaker (henry.whitaker@usdoj.gov)
(202) 514-3180
Attorneys, Civil Division, Appellate Staff
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 7256
Washington, D.C. 20530
b. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Dan Woods (dwoods@whitecase.com)
(213) 620-7772
Earle Miller (emiller@whitecase.com)
(213) 620-7785
Aaron Kahn (aakahn@whitecase.com)
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-200
TO COUNSEL FOR LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS AND USA:
Please accept instant Notice of Intent to Intervene and Request to Confer by

Joseph Zernik,PhD, an Individual, on his own behalf, on behalf of Human Rights
Alert (NGO) and All Who Are Similarly Situated.
Dr Zernik has previously filed a request with Counsel for Log Cabin Republicans,
with Counsel for USA, and with Clerk Terry Nafisi, US District Court, Central
District for California, to access the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) in Log
Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425).
No response to the request has been received from any of those requestees.
Absent access to the NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425)

at the US District Court, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the
litigation involved no valid or effectual judicial records, only null and void ones.
Therefore, it is likely that upon review it would be determined that the US Court
of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has no jurisdiction in this matter and/or that the Appeals
in this matter are moot.
Dr Zernik requests to confer with Counsel for Log Cabin Republicans and USA in
this matter at their earliest convenience, so that he need not burden the US Court
of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
In order to expedite the resolution of this request, Dr Zernik will accept

communications by email from Counsel for Log Cabin Republicans and USA,
and is likewise requesting that the two parties accept email communications in
this matter.
Confirmation of receipt by return of email is kindly requested.
Dated: December 12, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD
BY: Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
TEL: (323) 521-6209
2) December 13, 2010 Confirmation of Receipt by Attorney Anthony
Steinmeyer (USDOJ)
Subject: Read: Timely Response Requested within 7 days. RE: Log Cabin
Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - Notice of Intent to Intervene and
Request to Confer
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:43:25 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Timely Response Requested within 7 days. RE: Log Cabin
Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - Notice of Intent to Intervene and
Request to Confer
Thread-Index: AcuZ2xUh2yn70GYxRme58utNN7b12gBCcd70
From: "Steinmeyer, Anthony (CIV)" <Anthony.Steinmeyer@usdoj.gov>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2010 16:44:20.0206 (UTC)
FILETIME=[FD3D38E0:01CB9AE4]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure
engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2010-12-13_07:2010-12-
13,2010-12-13,1970-01-01 signatures=0
13,2010-12-13,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
Your message
To: Steinmeyer, Anthony (CIV); Flentje, August (CIV); Whitaker,

Henry (CIV); dwoods@whitecase.com; emiller@whitecase.com;
Cc:
Subject: Timely Response Requested within 7 days. RE: Log Cabin
Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - Notice of Intent to
Intervene and Request to Confer
Sent: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 03:59:07 -0500
was read on Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:43:25 -0500
Final-Recipient: RFC822; asteinme@CIV.USDOJ.GOV

Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: mocaizoJmUuxV/xzy2Foqg==
3) December 12, 2010 Confirmation of Receipt by Attorney August Flentje
(USDOJ)
Subject: Read: Timely Response Requested within 7 days. RE: Log Cabin Republicans v
USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - Notice of Intent to Intervene and Request to Confer
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:25:54 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Topic: Timely Response Requested within 7 days. RE: Log Cabin Republicans v
USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - Notice of Intent to Intervene and Request to Confer
Thread-Index: AcuZ2xSLCp/Ni2vYQ4KcOaO5zqqsJQARozVr
From: "Flentje, August (CIV)" <August.Flentje@usdoj.gov>
To: "joseph zernik" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
FILETIME=[A13E3D00:01CB9A21]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000
definitions=2010-12-12_05:2010-12-10,2010-12-12,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000
definitions=2010-12-12_05:2010-12-10,2010-12-12,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message
To: Steinmeyer, Anthony (CIV); Flentje, August (CIV); Whitaker,

Henry (CIV); dwoods@whitecase.com; emiller@whitecase.com;
Subject: Timely Response Requested within 7 days. RE: Log Cabin
Republicans v USA (10-56634), (10-56813) - Notice of Intent to
Intervene and Request to Confer
Sent: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 03:59:07 -0500
was read on Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:25:54 -0500
Final-Recipient: RFC822; AFlentje@CIV.USDOJ.GOV

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: YrneZXEf1E2ybNZgHHS3pA==
Original-Message-ID: <E1PRhnW-0007fs-Ea@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
___________
TOC
N. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as 1: Request for
Leave to File, Notice to Reliably Inform the Court, and Notice of Motion and Motion
to Intervene on parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was
enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail,
addressed as follows:
a. Counsel for United States of America

(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3180
b. Counsel for Log Cabin Republicans

(213) 620-7751
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7772
White & Case LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90071
c. US District Court, Central District of California

Terry Nafisi, Clerk (terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov)
Dawn Bullock, Records Supervisor (dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov)
(213) 894-4727
US District Court, Central District of California
312 N. Spring Street
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on December 27th, 2010,
Joseph H Zernik
By: ______________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
Case No 10-56634 and 10-56813 TOC

___________

vs

___________

2: INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S REQUEST FOR LENIENCE AS

A PRO SE FILER
Joseph Zernik, PhD

In Pro Se
2231 South Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
2: INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S VERIFIED REQUEST FOR
LENIENCE AS A PRO SE FILER
TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO PARTIES: Intervenor Joseph Zernik
(“Zernik”) herein requests the Court for Lenience as a pro se filer.
1. United States law provides lenience for pro se filers.
Zernik requests the Court’s lenience for his "inartful pleading",[ 1 ] as accorded by US
law to pro se filers. In particular, Zernik is not qualified in assessing the validity of legal
theories. He therefore asks the Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory
that he might claim, and to take into consideration the facts themselves, as well as the
claims, if they can be supported by some other valid legal theory. [ 2 ]
2. Sections of the code were often left unspecified.
For such reasons, routine use has been made in the Motion to Intervene and adjoining
records of language implying violations of the law or claiming rights by law, while
specific sections of the code and case law were not cited.
///
///
///
///
///
///
1 Erickson v Pardus et al, 06–7317 (Sup. Ct., Jun. 4, 2007)

2
Haddock v California Board of Dental Examiners, US Crt App 9th Circ, Nov 26, 1985; 777 F.2d
462
2/5
2: REQUEST FOR LENIENCE AS A PRO SE FILER
3. Therefore, Zernik respectfully requests that the Court accord him lenience as a
pro se filer, pursuant to US law.
For all the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-2, above, the Court should accord Zernik
lenience as due to pro se filers, pursuant to the law of the United States.
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
Intervenor, In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
____________
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, read the Intervenor’s 2: Verified Request for
Lenience as a Pro Se Filer, and I know the content thereof to be true and correct, it is
true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein
stated as based upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be
true and correct as well.
pursuant to the laws of the United States.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
3/5
____________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as: 2: Request for
Lenience as a Pro Se Filer on parties in this action by a) emailing, and b) by mailing a
true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid,

(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3180

(213) 620-7751
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7772
White & Case LLP

(213) 894-4727
US District Court, Central District of California
///
///
///
///
///
///
4/5
correct.
Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
5/5
Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813 TOC


vs

___________

___________
3: INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S MOTION FOR A

DECLARATORY MANDATE IN RE: ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL -
THE UNCERTIFIED APRIL 24, 2009 JUDGMENT WAS, IS, AND
ALWAYS WILL BE VOID, NOT VOIDABLE.
Joseph Zernik, PhD

In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
3: MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY MANDATE: THE UNCERTIFIED
APRIL 24, 2009 JUDGMENT IN ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL WAS, IS, AND
ALWAYS WILL BE VOID, NOT VOIDABLE.
TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: Intervenor Dr Joseph Zernik (“Zernik”) herein
files his Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment In
Zernik V Connor et al was, is, and always will be void, not voidable.
1. The concomitantly filed papers should be deemed integral parts of instant motion.
The following papers are concomitantly filed under separate covers, as integral parts
of instant motion:
Intervene;
3: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment in
Zernik v Connor et al was, is, and always will be void, not voidable.
4: Motion for an Order to Show Cause on Log Cabin Republicans and the USA in
re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al - Why instant Appeals should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or mootness;
5: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs (Notices of Electronic Fling) are
court records subject to the First Amendment rights;
6: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are invalid as electronic certificates
of authentication/attestation by the Clerk, the US District Court shall immediately
draft valid electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk;
2/6
7: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The establishment of PACER and CM/ECF
through the General Order 08-02 of the US District Court amounts to Deprivation
of Rights;
2. The NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) of judicial and clerical records in Zernik
v Connor et al were discovered on December 29, 2009.
On December 29, 2009 (eight months after the issuance of the Judgment in Zernik v
Connor et al), following repeated efforts, Zernik did manage to access the electronic
certificates of authentication/ attestation by the Clerk (NEFs) (Exhibits 3:1-4).
The March 5, 2009 Complaint (Dkt #001) was apparently docketed with a valid NEF,
including a valid ‘electronic document stamp’ and ‘Filer’ name – ‘Joseph Zernik’.
(Exhibit 3:1)
3. The NEFs of all judicial and clerical records in Zernik v Connor et al, which were
discovered on December 29, 2009, were invalid without exception.
On December 29, 2009, a total of twenty-four (24) NEFs were discovered, sixteen
(16) of which pertained to judicial and clerical records. (Exhibit 3:2, 3, 4)
All sixteen (16) judicial and clerical records, whose NEFs were discovered, were
docketed with patently invalid NEFs: No 'electronic document stamp', which is required
in a valid NEF, pursuant to the General Order 08-02, [ 1 ] and no ‘Filer’ name is found in
any of the NEFs for the sixteen (16) judicial and clerical records.
1
For ease of reference, a copy of the General Order 08-02 was posted at:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/
3/6
The sixteen (16) judicial and clerical records, whose NEFs were discovered, and
which were ‘entered’ in the PACER docket, while patently invalid NEFs were issued by
the office of the Clerk are:
a) Dkt # Unnumbered – March 5, 2008 Issuance of Summonses;
b) Dkt #04 – March 5, 2008 Notice of Reference to a US Magistrate;
c) Dkt #09 – March 6, 2008 Reassignment to a US Judge (Exhibit 3:2);
d) Dkt #10 – March 7, 2008 Referral to a US Magistrate;
e) Dkt #14 – March 21, 2008 Minutes by US Judge, denying the Request for
Temporary Restraining Order;
f) Dkt #27 – March 31, 2008 Minutes by US Magistrate;
g) Dkt #33 – April 18, 2008 Minutes by US Magistrate;
h) Dkt #57 – May 15, 2008 Minutes by US Magistrate;
i) Dkt #63 – June 6, 2008 Minutes by US Magistrate;
j) Dkt #70 – June 6, 2008 Minutes by US Magistrate;
k) Dkt #77 – June 6, 2008 Minutes by US Magistrate;
l) Dkt #102 – March 18, 2009 Order by US Judge;
m) Dkt #103- March 31, 2009 Notice by US Magistrate;
n) Dkt #104 – March 31, 2009 Report & Recommendation by US Magistrate;
o) Dkt #106 – April 24, 2009 Order by US Judge;
p) Dkt #107 - April 24, 2009 Judgment by US Judge. (Exhibit 3:3)
4/6
4. The Clerk of the US District Court has refused to certify the PACER docket in
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).
Regardless of repeated requests, the Clerk of the US District Court has refused to
certify the online PACER docket.
5. The Court should deem conduct of the litigation in Zernik v Connor et al as
denial of Constitutional and Civil rights
Conduct of the litigation of Zernik v Connor et al in the US District Court, Central
District of California, should be deemed by the Court as denial of Access to the Courts,
Equal Protection, Due Process, and/or First Amendment rights.
enter a Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - The uncertified
April 24, 2009 Judgment in Zernik V Connor et al was, is, and always will be
void, not voidable.
For the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-5, above, the Court should enter the Mandate in
re: Zernik v Connor et al: The uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment in Zernik V Connor et
al was, is, and always will be void, not voidable.
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
5/6
____________
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Motion for a Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al.
Exhibit 3:1 - Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550):

a) March 5, 2009 Complaint (Dkt #001) (face page), and
b) The respective NEF, bearing the ‘electronic document stamp’, as required by
General Order 08-02 for valid electronic certificate of authentication/attestation
a) March 7, 2008 Order Returning Case for Reassignment (Dkt #009). and
a) April 24, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #107), and
a) Table form summary of NEFs’ validity, or lack thereof, and
b) Compiled NEFs of Judicial, and Clerical Records, as obtained from the office of
the Clerk on December 29, 2009.
____________
I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, read instant Intervenor’s 3: Verified Motion for a
Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al, and I know the content thereof to be true and
correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to those
matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I
believe them to be true and correct as well.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
6/6
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 3:1
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 1 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 23
f\L.E.D
Joseph Zernik
2 2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, California .
3 Tel: (310) 435 9107 1pO~ 1 t. ,f _ _ ~--.-
4 Fax: (801) 998 0917

Plaintiff
5 in pro per
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
DEMAND FOR JURy TRIAf\V ~ .
01:- 1 550· ~F0flJ'
10
11
l J
12 Joseph Zernik, Docket # _

Plaintiff VERIFIED COMPLAINT
13
vs. CIVIL RIGHTS
14
Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal,
15 Linda Hart-Cole, Patricia Collins, Terry Friedman,
16 and Gerald Rosenberg-
individually and in hislher official capacity as Judge of
17 the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West
18 District
and
19 Debbie Witts -
20 individually and in her official capacity as Court
Manager, Civil Unlimited, the Superior Court of Los
21 Angeles Country, West District
22 and
Vivian Jaime -
23
individually and in her official capacity as Courtroom
24 Clerk, Department I, the Superior Court of Los
25 Angeles Country, West District
and
26 Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien -
27 individually and in his capacity as Proposed Referee,
and
28 ADR Services, Inc -
-1-
ZERNIK v JUDGES OF THE LA SUPERIOR COURT ET AL
_ California Central District - Display Receipt https:llecf.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.p1?917419357S0S ...
MIME-version: 1.0
From: cacd ecfmai !@cacd.uscourts .gov
To: ecfnef@cacd. uscourts . gov
Message- Id: <5481 039@cacd. uscourts . gov>
Bee: CRD Feess@cacd.uscourts.gov, CRD Nagle@cacd.uscourts.gov
SUbject~Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550 ... GAF-MAN Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al Complaint - (Referred)
Content-Type: text/plain'*+*NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS V·SERg·..... YOu may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later chcu:ges, download
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIJFORNIA
I
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 3/7/2008 9: 55 AM PSl ar_d filed
on 3/5/2008
Case Name: Joseph Zernik v, Jacqueline Connor et al

Case Number: 2: 08 - cv-1550 ht tps: I I ecf ,cacd, uscourts, gov Icgi -hi r./DktRpt, pI?? 09918
Filer: Joseph zernlk
Document Number: 1
Copy the URL address from the ll.ne below into the Iocq-tion bal ot your web
browser to view the document: https: I leef ,cacd, uscourt.s, gov /,:~·i ·bin/show_c'tse_doc? 1,409918, , MAGIC f f , ]7
Docket Text:
COMPLAINT filed against DefendantsLinda Hart-Cole(her offieia] capacity as
Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, we~t Dist:r:i.ctJ. Patricia
Collins (individually), Patricia collins (his/her Officl'al capacity as Judge
of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West Dis ,rict), ']'erry Friedman (ind~vidually),
Terry Friedman{his/her official capacity as Judge of ,he SupeI'ior Court of
Los Angeles County, West District), Gerald Rosenberg qndivid·.lCllly), Gerald
R.osenberg (his/her official capacity as Judge of the S\lperior Court of Los
Angeles. cc;>unty, West District), Debbie Wi~t~ (indi~i~u~lly), Debb:.e Witts (in
her offl.cl.al capacity as Court Manager, Cl.vl.I Unll.ml.t~d, the EJuperior Court
of Los Angeles country, West District), Vivian JaimeCindividLJcllly), Vivian
~~~~~ (~~ ~~~ ~~;~~:lc~~~~~~~yW::t C~~~~~~~~)~l~~~gO~;~~~~~~~~1~~t~~:dsuperior

Judge, individually), Gregory O'Brlen(Retired Judge i* his C3.paclty
as proposed Referrel f ADR Services, Inc, (as a corpora~ion), A.DR ;3ervices,
Inc. (and its capacity as neutral provider that employ~d Retired O'Brien),
David pasternaJdindividually), David P3sternak(in his officiaJ. capacity as
Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400», Angelo Mozi16 (individually). Angelo
Mozilo (in their capacities as Officers of Countrywide Financial Corporation),
sandor Samuels (individually), Sandor Samuels (in their capacit:.es as Officers
of countrywide Financial Corporation), Countrywide Hoq,e Loans Inc" Mara
Escrow Company, DOE, Jacqueline ConnorCindividually) .!Jacquel:.ne Connor(he:r
official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of LepS Angeles County, West
Dlstrict), Allan Goodman (individually), Allan Goodman (his off:lciiil capacity
as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West Di:;tr.Lct), John
Segal (individually), John Segal (his official capacity as Judg(! of the Superior
Court of, Los Angeles County, West District), Linda Hatt-~ole (individually)
Case assl.gned to Judge Gary A, Feess and referred to ~aglstra!:e ,Judge Margaret
A. Nagle (Filing fee$350 PAID.), filed by Plaintiff Joseph z(~rn.ik
(et)
2:08 cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2:08~cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class u. S. Ma,i1 or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
2415 Saint George Street
The following document (s) are associated with this tr?nsaction:

Document description: Main Document
Original fi lename: M: \CV Case Opg\LA08CV1550GAF-MAN"-1983, pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date:;;] /7/2008) (Pi leNumber= 5-18103 8- OJ [36b7e2 521 7b9 35cdcbcl 7 4 8d6 587 5 f fc9 3 8e96df 4cb916ba5a·15babOO.o3caf 53e4 8e2claO
1 of] 12129/2009 3:57 ~M

EXHIBIT 3:2
EXHIBIT 3:3
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 107 Filed 04/24/2009 Page 1 of 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, ) No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW)
)
13 Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT
)
14 v. )
)
15 JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al., )
)
16 Defendants. )
)
17
18 IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice as to
19 Plaintiff’s damages claims under federal law and without prejudice as
20 to his state law damages claims and his claims for equitable relief.
21
22 DATED: April 24, 2009
23
24
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
25 United States District Judge
26
27
28
1
- California Central District - Display Receipt https:/1ec~.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pi?552355744138...
MINE-Version: 1.0
From: cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To: ecfnef@cacd. us courts . gOY
Message- Id: < 76 75612@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com • ikdicarlo@cmda-law.com , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn
, jwp@paslaw.com, mwachtell@buchalter.com, sovertOI\@cmda-law.com, crdyhillips@cacd.uscourts.gov, crd_phillips@cacd uscourts .gov_sumry, crd_....
Joseph zemik
Los Angeles CA 90027
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Josep,h zernik v. J'a,cqueline Connor e~ a~ t1ud9~eJ?t
Content-Type: text/pl.:\in*,uNOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS U!:!ERSl·*'~ The:::-·a is no charge for vl-ew~n9 op~n~ons.
UN'ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The following transac-tion was entered on 4/24/200~ 4:123 PM PJ)'r a.."'1d filed
on 4/24/2009
Case Name: Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al

Case Number: 2:08· cv-1550 https://ecf.cacd.uscourt.s gov/cgi-b3.U/D!:(tRpt.pl?4099lS
Piler:
WARNING; CASE CLOSED on 04/2412009
Document Number: 107 https : I leef. cacd uscourts. gov/doCl!0310'J91 73S7?magic_num=M.llGIC&de_se'!-num=394 &caseid=409918
, I
Copy the URL address f.rom the line below into the liocation bar of your Web
browser to view the document; 107
Docket Text:
JUDGMENT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: IT IS ADJUD:GED that th:.s -action is
dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs damages claims under federal law
and without prejudice as t.o his state law damages claims and his claims for
equitable relief. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated) _ (pc 1'>
2:0B-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
John W Patton jwp@paslaw.com
David J Pasternak cljp@paslaw.com
Michael L wachtel) mwachtell@buchalter.com
Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com
Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-law.com
2:0S-cv-1550 Notice ha.s been delivered by First Class U. S. M;!li.l or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:07 PM
EXHIBIT 3:4
.
.
.
09-12-29 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550): Table Form Summary of NEFs

(Notices of Electronic Filing) as received from the US District Court
Complaint was filed on March 5, 2008 against some 10 judges of the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law - 42 USC §1983. It was
further alleged that conduct of such judges and others, in collusion with Countrywide and Bank of
America Corporation amounted to Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) pursuant
to 18 USC § 1961–1968.
Access to NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) was permitted only on Dec 29, 2009.
EDS - 'Electronic Doucment Stamp' as required by General Order 08-02 for a valid NEF.
Dkt # of the NEF Filer EDS Parties & Counsel Notes
. . listed as recipients of
Listed Found NEF by email
[Y/N]
[Y/N]
[Y/N] [Y/N]
1. Dkt #01- March 6, 2008 Y Y

Y None 1. EDS – incomplete
Verified Complaint 2. Requesting clarification
by office of the clerk
2. Dkt # Unnumbered – N N None 1. Therefore – no valid and
March 5, 2008 Issuance effectual summonses
of Summonses were issued in this case
3. Dkt #04 – March 5, 2008 Y N N None 1. Therefore – No
Notice of Reference to Magistrate had honest,
magistrate valid and effectual
authority in the case
4. Dkt #05 – March 6, 2008 Y Y
Y None 1. RSA Sig – incomplete
Plaintiff Ex pate 2. Requesting clarification
Application for TRO by office of the clerk
5. Dkt #09 – March 6, 2008 Y N N None 1. Therefore – recusal of
Reassignment to Judge Judge Letts was invalid
Virginia Phillips and ineffectual
6. Dkt #10 – March 7, 2008 Y N N None 1. Therefore- Recusal of
Referral to Magistrate Magistrate Nagle was
Carla Woehrle invalid and ineffectual
7. Dkt #14 – March 21, Y N N 1. John W Patton - 1. March 21, 2008 Minutes
2008 Minutes by Judge jwp@paslaw.com by Judge Virginia
Virginia Phillips, denying Phillips – denying the
Request for TRO TRO were dishonest,
invalid and ineffectual.
8. Dkt #27 – March 31, Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. March 31, 2008 Minutes
2008 Minutes by jwp@paslaw,com by Magistrate Carla
2. Michael L Wachtell
Magistrate Carla mwachtel!@buchalter.com
Woehrle, ordering
Woehrle 3. Sarah L Overton Plaintiff to execute
Summonses were
Page 2/5
soverton@cmda-law.com Summonses were

dishonest, invalid, and
ineffectual
9. Dkt #33 – April 18, 2008 Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. April 18, 2008 Minutes
Minutes by Magistrate jwp@paslaw,com by Magistrate Carla
Carla Woehrle mwachtell@buchalter.com
Woehrle, in re: Motion
3. Sarah L Overton to Dismiss were
soverton@cmda-law.com dishonest, invalid, and
ineffectual.
10. Dkt #43 – POS for Y Y
Y 1. John W Patton 1. EDS – incomplete
Summonses Returned jwp@paslaw,com
2. Michael L Wachtell 2. Requesting clarification
Executed mwachtell@buchalter.com by office of the clerk
3. Sarah L Overton
soverton@cmda-law.com 3. Notice that such entry
was in re: Summonses
that were never
effectually issued.
4. Notice that such entry
was in re: Summonses
that were adulterated by
Pro Se Clerk Chris
Sawyer.
11. Dkt #57 – May 15, 2008 Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. May 15, 2008 Minutes
Minutes by Magistrate jwp@paslaw,com by Magistrate Carla
Woehrle, in re: Ordering
3. Sarah L Overton Plaintiff not to file
soverton@cmda-law.com anything in court were
ineffectual.
12. Dkt #59 – May 22, 2008 Y YY 1. John W Patton 1. RSA Sig – incomplete
Reply on Motion to jwp@paslaw,com
2. Michael L Wachtell 2. Requesting clarification
Dismiss mwachtell@buchalter.com by office of the clerk
3. Sarah L Overton
soverton@cmda-law.com
13. Dkt #62 – First Y YY 1. John W Patton 1. RSA Sig – incomplete
Amended Complaint jwp@paslaw,com
2. Requesting clarification
mwachtell@buchalter.com by office of the clerk
3. Sarah L Overton
14. Dkt #63 – June 6, 2008 Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. June 6, 2008 Minutes by
Minutes by Magistrate jwp@paslaw,com Magistrate Carla
Woehrle, in re: Finding
3. Sarah L Overton Moot Plaintiff’s Ex
soverton@cmda-law.com Parte Application for
Reconsideration of June
6, 2008 Order not to file
anything in court were
ineffectual.
Page 3/5
15. Dkt #68 – Motion to Y YY 1. Kathryn E DiCarlo 1. RSA Sig – incomplete

dismiss First Amended kdicarlo@cmda-law.com
2. Sarah L Overton 2. Requesting clarification
Complaint. SQverton@cmda-law.com by office of the clerk
3. John W Patton Jr
jwp@paslaw.com
4. Michael L wachtell
mwaGhtell@buchalter.com
16. Dkt #69 – Motion to Y Y
Y 1. Kathryn E DiCarlo 1. RSA Sig – incomplete
dismiss kdicarlo@cmda-law.com
2. Sarah L Overton 2. Requesting clarification
SQverton@cmda-law.com by office of the clerk
3. John W Patton Jr
jwp@paslaw.com
17. Dkt #70 – June 6, 2008 Y N N 1. Kathryn E DiCarlo 1. June 6, 2008 Minutes by
Minutes by Magistrate kdicarlo@cmda-law.com Magistrate Carla
2. Sarah L Overton
Carla Woehrle SQverton@cmda-law.com
Woehrle, in re: Motions
3. John W Patton Jr to Dismiss were
jwp@paslaw.com dishonest, invalid, and
4. Michael L wachtell ineffectual.
18. Dkt #77 – June 6, 2008 Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. June 6, 2008 Minutes by
Minutes by Magistrate jwp@paslaw.com Magistrate Carla
Woehrle, in re: Motions
3. Sarah L Overton to Dismiss were
soverton@cmda-law.com dishonest, invalid, and
4. Jenna Moldawsky ineffectual.
Jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
5. Kathryn E DiCarlo
kcticarlo@cmda-law.com
19. Dkt #102 – March 18, Y N N 1. John W Pat ton 1. March 18, 2009 Order by
2009 Order by Judge jwp@pa.slaw.com Judge Virginia Phillips,
2. David J Pasternak
Virginia Phillips djp@paslaw.com
denying Plaintiff’s
3. Michael L wachtell Request to Disqualify
mwachtell@buchalter.com Magistrate Carla
4. Sarah L Overton Woehrle for a cause was
soverton@Cmda-law.com dishonest, invalid, and
5. Jenna Moldawsky j enna.
moldawsky@bryancave com
ineffectual.
kdicarlo@cmda-law.com
20. Dkt #103- March 31, Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. March 31, 2009 Notice
2009 Notice by jwp@paslaw.com by Magistrate Carla
Magistrate Carla djp@paslaw.com
Woehrle of Filing R & R
Woehrle 3. Michael L wachtel] was dishonest, invalid,
mwachtell@buchalter.com and ineffectual.
4. Sarah L Overton
5. Jenna Moldawsky
jemna.moidawsky@bryancave.com
21. Dkt #104 – March 31, Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. March 31, 2009 R & R
2009 R & R by jwp@paslaw.com by Magistrate Carla
Magistrate Carla djp@paslaw.com
Woehrle to Grant
Woehrle 3. Michael L Wachtell Motions to Dismiss was
mwachtel@buchalter.com dishonest, invalid, and
Page 4/5
4. Sarah L Overton ineffectual.

5. Jenna Moldawsky jenna.
moldawsky@bryancave.com
22. Dkt #105 – April 9, 2009 Y YY 7. David J Pasternak 1. April 9, 2009 Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s Requests djp@paslaw.com Requests for Judicial
8. Jenna Moldawsky
jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
Notice of Perverted
9. John W Patton Jr Discrepancy Procedures.
jwp@paslaw.com
kdicarlo@cmda·law.com
mwachtell@buchalter.com
12. Sarah L Overton
soverton@cmda-Iaw.com
23. Dkt #106 – April 24, Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. April 24, 2009 Order by
2009 Order by Judge jwp@paslaw.com Judge Virginia Phillips,
Virginia Phillips cljp@paslaw.com
Adopting R & R was
3. Michael L wachtell dishonest, invalid, and
mwachtell@buchalter.com ineffectual.
Sarah L Overton
soverton@cmda-Iaw.com
4. Jeru1a Moldawsky
kdicarlo@cmda-Iaw.com
24. Dkt #107 - April 24, Y N N 1. John W Patton 1. April 24, 2009 Judgment
2009 Judgment by Judge jwp@paslaw.com by Judge Virginia
Virginia Phillips cljp@paslaw.com
Phillips, was dishonest,
3. Michael L wachtel) invalid, and ineffectual.
mwachtell@buchalter.com
Sarah L Overton
4. Jenna Moldawsky
Notes:
1. On December 29, 2009, upon appearance in person at the Office of the Clerk, Records Department,
request was filed for access to 24 out of over 100 records in Zernik v Connor et al.
2. On December 29, 2009, upon appearance in person at the Office of the Clerk, Records Department,
Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock provided printouts for 24 out of 24 NEFs, which were requested
on that date.
3. None of the NEFs for 16 Judicial and clerical records contained the 'electronic document stamp' (EDS).
4. NEFs for the following critical records included no Electronic Document Stamp (EDS):
a. Issuance of Summonses
Page 5/5
b. Assignments and Reassignments to Judges

c. Assignments and Reassignments to Magistrates
d. All Minutes which were examined.
e. Order Denying Disqualification for a Cause
f. Notice and Report and Recommendation by Magistrate.
g. Order Adopting Report and Recommendation by Judge
h. Judgment by Judge.
5. All 16 NEFs of judicial and clerical records in the table, included no "Filer" name.
('Q~.",JQ.~.d 1!1 1/!9
• f
jZ/Z
w~p!t£e
I
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik. DMD, PhD

-" ).~
Ol"I""s1~~byjg;;f,phHlH'l1/k
ON:mooJoJJllhtiZen.:;oOi,tl.i,l.
",,;otl"jz}2~'sf-elWlt-Mnk.n~I.".US
EQ_f30X 5 2§'-l"-Y~Ln"'-~IUJl5Q;J.af:-r~~~Q2JlL_ef!1_.allilll2J_i~@,,".a.®l~ loatkiti: La Veme. Ulifomh,

OOe;4009.12.29 H~I:U-£l8'llO'
TO Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court, US Court, Central District of <California, Los Angeles
By hand delivery to Deputy-Clerk, at the public access department bf the court.
RE: (1) Zernik v Connor' (2:08·ev-01550), (2) Fine v Sheriff (2,19-ev.01914), (3) In re: Fine 2:09-
mc-0012I~, (4) US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-1l7'69) reqllleststo laccess court records
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
Please accept this note as a kindly request to access court n~cords, tb inspect and to copy, pursuant to
Nixon v )¥am_~r Comrr!unications, Inc (1978). I
1) Request is to access the PAPER COURT I"ILES in the cases referenced above, to inspect and
to copy. I
2) Request is to access the ELECTRONIC COURT F'ILES ,n CM/ECF, to inspect and to copy
the NEFs.
3) In case no access is provided to the paper court file" under qlaim of shredding, request is for
access to respective SHREDDING RECORDS.
4) In case no access is provided to electronic court files in CM/ECF, request is for TRUE and
CORRECT COPIES OF NEFs ONJLY (two exceptions, 41early marked) of the following
records (no need for the records themselves):
a. Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-015:5(JJ)- I

Dkt #01- complaint
Dkt # unnum~ered - issuance of summonses
I
Dkt #04 -- nottce of reference to magistrate
Dkt #05 -- ex pate application for TRO
Dkt #09 -- rea$signment
I
Dkt # L0 -- reassignment
Dkt #L4 _.. minutes
Dkt #27 -- miJutes
I
Dkt #33·- minutes

I
Dkt #43 - PO~ for summonses
Dkt #57 .- mil~utes
Dkt #59- rep~
Dkt #62- am~nded complaint
Dkt #63- miJutes
,
Dkt #68-· mahan
I
to dismiss
Page 2/3 December 29, 2009
Dkt #69 -- motion to dismiss

Dkt #70 -- minutes
Dkt #77 -- minht~s
Dkt #102 - order
Dkt #103·· notice ofR & R
Dkt #104 - R& R
I '
I.
Dkt #105 - notlc y
Dkt #106 - R & Radopting
Dkt # 107 - judgtl}.ent
b. Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Dkt #01 -- peti~ion

Dkt #02 -- nodce of reference
Dkt #03 --- not~ce of clerical error
Dkt #04 ._- not~ce of clerical error
Dkt #05 ._. min'utes
Dkt #06- order
Dkt #16 - declaration
Dkt #17- notice and order
Dkt #18 - notite
Dkt #19 -. ordJr
I
Dkt #25 -- noqce & R n R
Dkt #26 -- notice & R n R
Dkt #27 .. not~ce & R n R
Dkt #29 _.?
Dkt #30·· judgment
c. In re: Fine 2:09-mc-00129

Dkt #01 - order
Dkt #02 .. ? BOTH RECORD & NEF
Dkt #03 .- order'
Dkt #07 .. ord~r
Dkt #12·- ord~r
Dkt #14 -- order
1
Dkt # 15 .- ord~r
d. US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv··l1769)
Dkt #01 - complaint
Dkt #? '- SUMMONS - BOTH RECORD & NEF
Dkt #07 - minutes
Dkt #25 - minutes
Dkt #38 - mi6utes
Dkt #52 - order,
Dkt #122 - or~er
Dkt #123 - consent decree
Page 3/3 December 29, 2009
5) If possible, written responses are requested, with reasonablel explanations, in any case(s) where
access was denied, if any.
6) Please liet me know the total sum required in pay, so that I may provide the payment on the spot.
Respectfully,
Dated: December 29,2009
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, Califorpia Joseph H Zernik )
By:)i7k~L I
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
I I
POBox 52,6. La Verne, CA 91750
!
Fax: 80 I 9980917
Email <jZI~345@earthlink.net>
_ California Central District - Display Receipt https:llecf.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.p1?917419357S0S ...
MIME-version: 1.0
From: cacd ecfmai !@cacd.uscourts .gov
Message- Id: <5481 039@cacd. uscourts . gov>
Bee: CRD Feess@cacd.uscourts.gov, CRD Nagle@cacd.uscourts.gov
SUbject~Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550 ... GAF-MAN Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al Complaint - (Referred)
Content-Type: text/plain'*+*NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS V·SERg·..... YOu may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later chcu:ges, download
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIJFORNIA
I

The following transaction was entered on 3/7/2008 9: 55 AM PSl ar_d filed
on 3/5/2008
Case Name: Joseph Zernik v, Jacqueline Connor et al

Case Number: 2: 08 - cv-1550 ht tps: I I ecf ,cacd, uscourts, gov Icgi -hi r./DktRpt, pI?? 09918
Filer: Joseph zernlk
Document Number: 1
Copy the URL address from the ll.ne below into the Iocq-tion bal ot your web
browser to view the document: https: I leef ,cacd, uscourt.s, gov /,:~·i ·bin/show_c'tse_doc? 1,409918, , MAGIC f f , ]7
Docket Text:
COMPLAINT filed against DefendantsLinda Hart-Cole(her offieia] capacity as
Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, we~t Dist:r:i.ctJ. Patricia
Collins (individually), Patricia collins (his/her Officl'al capacity as Judge
of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West Dis ,rict), ']'erry Friedman (ind~vidually),
Terry Friedman{his/her official capacity as Judge of ,he SupeI'ior Court of
Los Angeles County, West District), Gerald Rosenberg qndivid·.lCllly), Gerald
R.osenberg (his/her official capacity as Judge of the S\lperior Court of Los
Angeles. cc;>unty, West District), Debbie Wi~t~ (indi~i~u~lly), Debb:.e Witts (in
her offl.cl.al capacity as Court Manager, Cl.vl.I Unll.ml.t~d, the EJuperior Court
of Los Angeles country, West District), Vivian JaimeCindividLJcllly), Vivian
~~~~~ (~~ ~~~ ~~;~~:lc~~~~~~~yW::t C~~~~~~~~)~l~~~gO~;~~~~~~~~1~~t~~:dsuperior

Judge, individually), Gregory O'Brlen(Retired Judge i* his C3.paclty
as proposed Referrel f ADR Services, Inc, (as a corpora~ion), A.DR ;3ervices,
Inc. (and its capacity as neutral provider that employ~d Retired O'Brien),
David pasternaJdindividually), David P3sternak(in his officiaJ. capacity as
Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400», Angelo Mozi16 (individually). Angelo
Mozilo (in their capacities as Officers of Countrywide Financial Corporation),
sandor Samuels (individually), Sandor Samuels (in their capacit:.es as Officers
of countrywide Financial Corporation), Countrywide Hoq,e Loans Inc" Mara
Escrow Company, DOE, Jacqueline ConnorCindividually) .!Jacquel:.ne Connor(he:r
official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of LepS Angeles County, West
Dlstrict), Allan Goodman (individually), Allan Goodman (his off:lciiil capacity
as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West Di:;tr.Lct), John
Segal (individually), John Segal (his official capacity as Judg(! of the Superior
Court of, Los Angeles County, West District), Linda Hatt-~ole (individually)
Case assl.gned to Judge Gary A, Feess and referred to ~aglstra!:e ,Judge Margaret
A. Nagle (Filing fee$350 PAID.), filed by Plaintiff Joseph z(~rn.ik
(et)
2:08 cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2:08~cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class u. S. Ma,i1 or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
The following document (s) are associated with this tr?nsaction:

Original fi lename: M: \CV Case Opg\LA08CV1550GAF-MAN"-1983, pdf
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date:;;] /7/2008) (Pi leNumber= 5-18103 8- OJ [36b7e2 521 7b9 35cdcbcl 7 4 8d6 587 5 f fc9 3 8e96df 4cb916ba5a·15babOO.o3caf 53e4 8e2claO
1 of] 12129/2009 3:57 ~M

- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ecf.cacd.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl?342248352884...
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: cacd_ecfrnai l@cacd.uscourts . gOY
'fO: eCfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
Message- Id: <54 81063@cacd. uscourts. gOY>
Bee: eRD Feess@cacd. uscourts. gOY I CRD Nagle@cacd.uscoul1ts.gov
Subject7Activity in Case 2:0S-cv-01550-GAF-MAN Joseph Izernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al Summons Issued
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS·"''''' YO\.I may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid lat_er charges, download
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALI!FORNIA

The following transaction was entered on 3/7/2008 9:5(7 ~l\M PST and filed
on 3/5/2008

Case Number: 2: 08-ev-1550 https:lleef.cacd.useourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt .pl ?409918
Filer:
Documen t Number:
No document at tached
Docket Text:
20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Referred [lJ as to Detendants Linda
Hart-Cole (her official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, west District), Patrie ia Collins (indi vidually), Pat.ricia Collins (hi s/her
official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West.
Dist.rict), Terry Friedman (individually) , Terry Friedman(his/her official
capacity as Judge of t.he Superior Court Of Los Angeles. county, West District),
Gerald Rosenberg (individually), Gerald Rosenberg (his/h;er offi.cial capacit.y
as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West District), Debbie
Witts(individually), Debbie Witts(in her official capacity a!i Court Manager,
Civil Unlimited, the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, West District),
Vivian Jaime (individually) , Vivian Jaill;le(in her official capacity as Courtroom
Clerk, Department I, the Superior COurt of Los Angeles Countr.y, Kest District),
Gregory 0 I Brien (Retired Judge, individually), Gregory 10 I Brien {Retir.ed
Judge in his capacity as proposed Referre), ADR ServiCjes, Inc. (as a corpora.tion),
ADR Services, Inc. (and its capacity as neutral providEir that employed Retired
O'Brien), David Pasternak (individually) , David Pasternak(in his official
capacity as Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC0874QO». kgelo Mozilo(individually),
Angelo Mozilo(in their capacities as Officers of Counbrywide Financial Corporation),
Sandor Samuels (individually), Sandor Samuels (in their ,capacities as Officers
of Countrywide Financial Corporation), Countrywide Ho~e Loans, Inc .• Mara
Escrow Company, DOE, Jacqueline Connor (individually) , IJacqueline Connor(her
official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Lds Angeles County, West
District), Allan Goodman (individually), Allan Goodman (his official capacity
as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West Dj.strict), JOM
Segal (individually), John Segal (his official capacity las Judue of the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, West District), Linda Ha:ut-Cole(individually).
let)
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2:0B-cv-1550 Notice h.as been delivered by First Cla.ss .U. S. Mail or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
I of 1 12/29/20093:58 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https:llecf.cacd.circ9 .dcnlcgi-biniDisplayReceipt.pl?213391 09613 8...
MIME-Version: 1 0
From: cacd ecfmail@cacd. uscourts. gOY
To: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
Message- Id: <5481114@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee: nef@cacd.circ9.den
Joseph Zernik
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01SSO-GAF-MAN Joseph 'Ze:rnik v. Jacqueline Connor et al Notice of Reference to a U S Magistt'ate Judge (CV-2S)
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS·** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICf OF CALIFORNIA

The following tra.nsaction was entered on 3/7/2008 10 :100 AM PST and filed
on 3/5/2008
Case Name: Joseph Zernik v. Jacquel ine Connor et al

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 ht tps: I IeeE. cacd. uscourts. govhttps: I lecf . cacd. uscourts. gOY Icg'i -bin/oktRpt. pl?4 09918
Filer;
Documen t Number: 4
Copy the URL address from the line below into the loca,tion bilr of your Web
browser to view the document: 4
Docket Text:
NOTICE: OF REFERENCE to United States Magistrate Judge ,Macgaret A. Nagle.
(et)
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class 'U. S. Mail or by

fax to:
Joseph zernik
US
I of 1 12129/20094:00 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ecf.cacd.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl?54730 1281 089...
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: cacd eCfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To; ecfnef@cacd.uscourts . gOY
Message- Id: <54 8118S@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee: eRD Feess@cacd.uscourts.gov, eRD Nagle@cacd.uscourts.gov
SUbject~Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-GAF-MAN Joseph ze:rnik v. Jacqueline Connor et al Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge To avoid later charges, download
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The following transaction was entered on 3/7/2008 10:,10 AM PST and filed
on 3/6/2008
Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 ht tps: / leef . cacd. uscourts. gov/cgi -bin/DktRpt. pI?4 09918
Filer: Joseph zernik
Document Number: 5
Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web !
browser to view the document: bttps; / leet . cacd. uscourts . gov/cgi -bin/show_case_doC?5, 409'918, •MAGIC, 148
I
Docket Text:
VERIFIED EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order AND for Order
to Show Cause and EXHIBITS filed by Plaintiff Joseph Zernik. Lodged Proposed
Order. (et)
2: Og-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2:09-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by l~irst Class u. S. ;,orail or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
The following document (s) are associated with this transaction:

Original filename: M:\CV Case Opg\LA08CV01550MAN-EX PARTE.pdf
[STAMP cacdStamp _IO=1020290914 (Oate=3/7/200BJ [FileN\.lmber=54 81184 -OJ [bd2C7fc08a55aec j6 744e340e504 940ad544dbe564 733fb329'783a664 64el 792c9d22aa 7bd
1 of 1 12129/20094:00 PM
- Califomia Central District - Display Receipt https://ecflcacd.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl7202529264018 ...
r"IME-version: 1 . 0
From: cacd ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts . goy
Message- Id: <54 81528@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee caseasgn courtdocs@cacd USCourts. gov, nef@cacd.circ9.den , nef@cacd.circ9 den crd letts@cacd uscourts .gov
Joseph Zernik
US
SUbject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-MAN Joseph Zer.nik v. Jacqueline Connor et a1 224 Returning Case for Reassignment w/i division (CV 89)
Content-Type: text/plain .... "'*NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFO:RNIA
The following transaction was entered on 3/7/2008 10:,41 AM PST and filed
on 3/7/2008
Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https: I lecf . cacd. uscourts . govht tps: I lecf. cacd. uscourts. gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt. pl?4 09918
Filer:
Document Number: 9
Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web
browser to view the document:
Docket Text:
ORDER RETURNING C.A.SE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge J Spence:r Letts ORDER case
returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 07-02.
Case randomly reassigned from Judge J. Spencer Letts to Judge Virginia A.

Phillips for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the
initials of the transferee Judge CV 08-1550 VAP (MANx), (rn)
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by P'irst Class U. S. Mail or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:01 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://eC£.cacd.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl?396747083396...
MIME- version: 1.0

To: ecfnef@cacd. uscQurts. gOY
Message- Id: <5515712@cacd. uscourts. gOY>
Bee: caseasgn.~courtdocs@cacd. uscourts. gov, nef@cacd.circ9.den , nef@cacd.circ9.den , crd_nagle@cacd. uscot.:,rts . goy
Joseph Zernik
US
Subject :Activity In Case 2 OS·cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernlk v Jacqueline Connor et al IReasslgn Case upon Recusal of Magistrat(~ Judge (CV-110l
Content-Type: text/plaln**"NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS"'** You may Vle\o\T the filed documents once wi.thout chay"ge. To avoid later charges, deownload

The following transaction was entered on 3/13/2008 3 ;"39 PM PDT and filed
on 3/13/2008
Case Number; 2: OB-cv-15 50 https;1 lecf . cacd. uscourts. govhttps: I lee f . cacd. uscourts. gov/c~i -bin/OktRpt .pl ?40991 B
Filer:
Documen t Number: 10
Docket Text:
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT UPON RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge Margaret
A. Nagle. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reass ignment General
Order 05-07 Referral pursuant to General Order 05-07 a.nd Gen~~ral Order 07-02.
Case randomly reassigned from Judge Margaret A. Nagle· to Judge Carla Woehrle
for all further proceedings The case number will now rl~flect the initials
of the transferee Judge CV OB-1550 VAP (CW). (rn)
2: 08~cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2:08~cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:01 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ecf.cacd.circ9.dcnlcgi-binlDisplayReceipt.pl?854429840025...
MIME-Version: 1.0
From; cacd eCfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To:ecfnef0cacd. USCQUl:'ts. gOY
Message- Id: <55723 3S@cacd.uscourts.gov:>
Bee: nef@cacd.cire9.den
Joseph zernik
Los Angeles CA. 90027
US
Subject :Activity 1.n Case 2 08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zern~k v Jacquellne Connor et al IMJ.nutes of In Chambers Order!D:Lrect:Lve - nc praceecl.ng hel
Content-Type: text/plaln···NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS·** YOu may view the fl.led documents once wl.thout cha.rge To avol.d later charges, download
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALEFORNIA

The following transaction was entered on 3/25/2006 10:25 AM PDT and filed
on 3/21/2008
Case Name: Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et ai

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https:/ leet . cacd. uscourte. gqvhttps: I leef. cacd. useourts. gov/cg'i-bin/DktRpt. pi 740991 B
Filer:
Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your web
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge virgini:a A. Phillips DENYING
plaintiff's EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary RestrailllL19 Order and
EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause [5]. (mrgo)
2:0B-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed,to:
2: 08-cv-1SS0 Notice has been delivered by ll'irst Class u. S. Mail or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29120094:01 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ec(.cacd.circ9.dcn/cgi-biniDisplayReceipLpl?331966058217...
MIME- Version: 1.0

From: cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscQurts.gov
Message- Id; <561 766S@cacd.uSCOurts . gOY>
Bee: nef@cacd . eire 9 . den
Joseph Zernik
US
Subject: Activity in Case 2: OB-CV-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v, Jacqueline COlUlor et al iMinutes of In Chamber's Order/Directi ve - no proceeC'.ing hel
Content-Type: text!plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed ctocumdnts once wi.thout charge To avoid. later charges, dO'*ffiload
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CAL~FORNIA

The following transaction was entered on 4/2/2008 9.11 /).M PDT and filed
on 3/31/2008

Case Number: 2: OB-cv-1550 ht tps: I lecf . cacd uscourt~, gavhttps: I leef . cacd. uscourts . gov/cg,i-bin/DktRpt. pI ?409 918
Filer:
Document Number: 27
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Carla W.oeilrle : Plaintiff
is responsible for complying with the requirements of IRule 4 of the Federal
Rules of Ci vi 1 Procedures. A copy of Fed, R. Ci v. P. RUI.e 4. is attached and
plaintiff is advised to study it carefully. ··SEE 'ORD,ER FOR FURTHER DETAILS··
Idt)
2: 08-cv-1SSO Notice has been electronically mailed to:
John W Patton jwp@paslaw,com
Michael L Wachtell mwachtel!@buchalter com
2:0B-cv-15S0 Notice has been delivered by First Class 0. S. !/laU or by

fax to: :
Joseph zernik
24.15 Saint George Street
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:02 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ecf.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-binIDisplayReceipt.pI? 620952273 25 2...
MIME- version: 1. 0
TO: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
Message- Id: <561 766S@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee; nef@cacd.circ9 . den
Joseph Zernik
US
Subject :Activity in Case 2: 08-cv- 01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al IMinutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - TIC proceeciing hel
~~~~~t;~~~~ ~~~~i~;i~~~~~T~E:~B~i~T~~~~S~FU~~i~;Ni~u
may view the filed docum~ts once without cha!'ge. '1'0 avoid later charges, download
Notice of Electr'onie Filing

The following transaction was entered on 1/2/2008 9: 11 P.M PDT and filed
on 3/31/2008
Case Name: Joseph zernik v. Jacque1 ine Connor et a1

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https:/ lecf. cacd uscourts. govhttps: I lecf . cacd. uscourts. gov /cgi-bin/OktRpt. pI ?409918
Filer:
Document Number: 27
Copy the URL address from the line below into the loca,tion bar of your Web
Docket Text: :
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Carla W;oehr1e Plaintiff
is responsible for complying with the requirements lof 'Rule 4 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedures A copy of Fed.R. Civ. P. Rulc~ 4 is attached and
plaintiff is advised to study it carefully _ ··SEE ORDER FOR F'JR.THER DETAILS·'"
(dt)
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed ,to;
John W Patton jwp@pas1aw.com
Michael L wachtell mwachtell@buchalter com
2; 08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by P'irst Class O. S. Ka.ll ,or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
I of I 12/29/20094:02 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ec~.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl? 106607153849...
MIME-Version: 1. 0
From: cacd ecfmai l@cacd.uscourts.gov
To: eCfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
Message- Id: <S710984@cacd.uscourts . gOY>
Bee: nef@cacd.circ9.dcn
Joseph Zernik
US
Subject;Activity ~n Case 2.0S-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernlk v JacquelJ.ne CannOl: et al Mlnutes of In Chambe:rs Order/DLrectl.Ve - no proceedl0g hel
Content-Type: text/plaln***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may Vlew the flIed docum~nts once wlthout char.ge To avol.d later charges, dC\offiload

The following transaction was entered on 4/18/200~ 10: 16 AM PDT and filed
on 4/18/2008

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-15S0 https:/ lecf. cacd. uscourts. go,vht tps : I IeeE. cacd. uscourts. gov ICg~-bin/DktRPt.pI ?409918
Filer:
Document Number: 33
Copy the URL address from the line below into the ~ocation bar of your Web
Docket Tex t :
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Carla Woehrle re: Amendment
(Motion related) [lS), Final MOTION to Dismiss Case 'and' P~~oposed O-rder[13] ,
MOTION to Dismiss Case (19], MOTION to Dismiss Case (23), MOTION to Dismiss
Complaint Joinder[16]. All of these noticed hearings an: ORDERED
OFF CALENDAR. That is, there will be no proceedings in court on any of these
dates. Plaintiff may serve and file his opposition, or notice of non-opposition,
to the motions to dismiss on or before May 9, 2008.' Defendant.' 5 :~eply
if any, shall be nerved and filed on or before May '23, 2U08. ~{"he motions
will then be taken under submission and a decision will issue ~IB soon as
possible. The following are DENIED AS MOOT: plaint'iff's motion fDr
continuance DO] I and ex parte request to continue. ""SEE ORDER I?OR FURTHER
DETAILS·· (dt)
2: 08-cv-lSSO Notice has been electronically mailed 'to:
John W Pat.ton jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L wachtell mwachtell@buchalter com
Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-Iaw.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice hus been delivered by First Class U. S. Mall ()r by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
2415 Saint George StrElet
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:02 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https:llec~.cacd.circ9.dcnlcgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl? 104362257558...
MIME- Vers ion: 1.0

From: cacd ecfmai l@cac:d. uscourts. gov
Message· Id: <571875s@cacd. uscourts. gOY>
Bee: eRD Phill ips@cacd. uscourts. gov, eRD Woehrle@cacd uscourts gov, Tina Naghshineh@caccl.uscourts.gov, jwp@paslaw. COni, mwachtell@buchalter com, so
Subject~Activity in Case 2:0a-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph zernik v Jacqueline Connor et allProof of Service (subsequent documents)
Content-Type: text/pJain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documJnts once without charge To a~voi.:J. later che.rges, download
UNITED STATBS DISTRICT COURT I CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

on 4/17/2008
Case Name: Joseph zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al

Case Number: 2:08-cv-1550 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts gov/cgi-lJin/OktRpt.pl?'l.09918
Filer: Joseph Zernik
Document Number: 43
copy the URL address from the line below into the iocation bar of your Web
browser to view the document: https;/ /eef . cacd. usc(;mrt.s. gov/Ggi -bin/show_case_doc? 4 3.409918, , MAGIC, , ,179
Docket Text:
;:~~:~ ~~ :~~~~~~8~F (~~ONS AND COMPLAINT filed b~ plaintiff Joseph zernix 1
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed.to:
Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.eom
John W Pat ton Jr jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L Wachtel I mwa:::htell@buchalter com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by Pirst class U. S. Ka:ll l:Jr by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
The following document (5) are associated with this transaction;

Document description: Main Document .
Original filename: M: \POD13\CiviI \LA08CV01550VAP-ATTY . 4. pdf
ISTAMP cacdStamp__ID=l 0 2 0 290914 [Date=4/21 /2 008] IFi leNumber=5 "'18" 54 - 0] (6b81d3ge3bO f 21 fbf790504b91 Ocebb5e77e63 989 711 f c2 3~26 0 0 Od56 Oab1 f 7 5cl)ca513 f
1 of I 12/2912009 4:03 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ectcacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-binlDisplayReceipt.p1?142526158179...
MIME- Vers ion: 1.0

From: cacd ecfmail@cac:d.uscourts.gov
TO: ecfneficacd. USCOUl.'ts. gOY
Message- Id: <5858786@c:acd.uSCQurts.gov:>
Bce; nef@cacd.circ9.den
Joseph Zernik
2415 Saine George Street
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. _Jacqueline Connor et al Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding hel
content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS"''''* You may view the filed docum~lnts once without charge TO a.voi,j later cha.rges, download

The following transaction was entered on 5/15/2008 9: 49 AM Pt:T a.nd filed
on 5/15/2008
Case Name: Joseph zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et ai
Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https: I lect ,cacd. uscourts. govhttps: / lecf . cacd, uscourts. gov/cgd -bin/DktRpt. p17409918
Filer;
Document Number: 57
Copy the URL address from the line below into the +ocation bar of your Web
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Carla Woehrle Plaintiff
is ORDERED not to file anything further until a report and rec':muTiendation
or other order has been issued on the motions to dismiss oetenda.nts are
ORDERED to file only their replies to plaintiff's opposition, DENYING
REQUEST for Hearing Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (55}" DEKYING REQUEST
for Ruling Evidentiary Ruling on Docket #20 filed by Deff~ndaIlt3 [56] I and
DENYING REQUEST for Order for The Honorable Judges car~a Woehr le ,;\nd virginia
Phillips to file statements on the record regarding reQationshlps, if any,
with parties listed on plaintiffs certificate of parties [50). All matters
other than the pending motions to dismiss are STAYED unt:.l tho:,e motions
can be resolved. ·....SEF.: ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS** I (dt)
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice ha.s been electronically mailed 'to;
,John W Patton jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L Wachtell mwachtell@buchalter com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice ha.s been delivered by !'irst Class U. S. Ma:Ll or by

fax to: :
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:03 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ec(.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-binlDisplayReceipt.pl?9336 154651 06 ...
MIME-Version; 1. 0
To: ecfnef@cacd.uscQur'ts.gov
Bec: CRD_ Phillips@cacd.. uscourts. gOY I eRD_ Woehrle@cacd.uscourtB.go,,". Tina_ Naghshineh@<:acd.uscourts.gov / jwp@paslaw.com, m·....achtell@bu.cnalter.com, so
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik 'I. Ja.cqueline Connor et al Reply (Motion related)
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You ma~.. view the filed documE1nts once without charge To avoid later cha.rges l download
The following transaction was entered by Overton, Sarah on 5/22/2008 3:47
PM PDT and filed on 5/22/2008
Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https:/ lecf . cacd. uscourt~. gov/cgi-bin/r:'ktRpt. pl?4 09918
Fi I er: Allan Goodmanpa tr icia Co 11 insGerald RosenbergJacque1 ine ConnorTerry
FriedmanJohn SegalLinda Hart-ColeDebbie WittsVivian JaimeGregory O'Brien
browser to view the document; https: /1 ecf . cacd. uscourts. 90v/cgi-bin/show_case._doc?59 1409918, ,MAGIC, , ,221
Docket Text:
REPLY support of motion MOTION to Dismiss Case (19] filed by Defendants Patricia
Collins, Terry Friedman, Gerald Rosenberg, Debbie Witts, Vivian Jaime, Gregory
O'Brien. Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal, Linda Hart-Cole.
(Overton, Sarah)
~~~:~c~-;~;~t~~tice has been electronically mailed ito:
John W Pat ton Jr jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L wachtel.l tnwachtell@buchalter.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by Pirst Class U. S. Ma:ll or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
2415 Saint George Str~et
Los Angeles, CA 9002'1
The following document (5) are associated with this transo.ction·

Document description: Main Document I
Original filename: S:\Cases\SLO - Judicial Council\Zernik

v. connor\Reply t<l Opposition to Defendants' Motion. to Dismi .pdf
Electronic document ~)tamp:
(STAMP cacdStamp _.I0:J. 02 0 290914 [Date=S/2 2/2008] I F·i le~umber;;:S~l 02 718- 0] [4d02df 1 fde35 f5A '7919 Se5 3a6 00 36 7e8ae4e89 331d2a34 d 77988 f 8 35b2a 6b6 eca 73 5eae:t
1 of 1 12/29/20094:04 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ec(cacd.circ9.dcn/cgi-binlDisplayReceipt.pl?266393083 285 ...
MIME-version: 1. 0
From: cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscQurts.gov
To: ecfnef<icacd. uscourts. gOY
Message- Id: <5945940@cacd.uscourts .gov>
Bee :CRD_Phillips@cacd.u5courts.gov, CRD_Woehrle@cacd uscQurts .gov, Tl.na_Naghsh1neh8cacd. uscourts gOY, )\f.'Pl8paslaw corr, m',,'achtell@buchalter com, so
Subject:Activity in Case 2:0B-cv~01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernl.k v Jacquell.ne Connor et al IAmended Complaint
Content-Type: text/plain'*··NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS··· Judicial Conference of the United States policy pE~rmits attorneys of record and parties
UNITBD STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic pi 1 ing

The following transaction was entered on 6/2/200S! 1 :38 PM PDT and filed
on 5/27/2008
Case Name: Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et ai

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https: I lecf . cacd. uscourt!? gov/cgi -bin/DktRpt. pl?4 09918
Document Number: 62
copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your web
browser to view the document: Document: https: / leef . cacd. USCOUt"tB. gov/doC1/03106003296?magic_num=MAGIC&de_se<Lnum=22B&caseid""409913
DOcket Text:
First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Joseph Zernik amending Complaint
- (Referred), Complaint - (Referred), Complaint - (Referred), ,:omplaint
(Referred) I Complaint - (Referred), Complaint - (R~fer;red) I Compla.int - (Refer.red),
Complaint - (Referred), Complaint - (Referred) [1} I filed by plaintiff Joseph
Zernik (Attachments: ij (1) Part 2) (dt) I
2: OB-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed :to:
Sarah L Overton l BO'/erc.on@cmda~law. CO;l1
John W Patton Jr jwpripaslaw.eom
Michael L Wachtel;' mwachtell@bucl1alter.com
2 :OS-cv-15S0 Notice hus been delivered by First Cla.'ss U. S. Nailor by

fax to: :
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles. CA 90027
The following document. (s) are associated with this transaction:

Original filename: M: \POD13\Ci vil \LA08CV01550CW-ATTY (P'I
11 .pdf
Electronic document stamp:
(STAMP cacdStamp_ 10=102 0 2 90914 [oate=6/2 /2 0 08] [F i I eNumber-S94 5939 - 01 [Of7<:C7 f fa0385 33 9c3ebd09 819 069 2 9097ab2ea2 3 Bc4 71ea6 ff c.38ba1ee06a4 6 92eacOa6 9
Document description: Part 2

Original filename: M:\ro013\Civl.l\LAOOCV01550CW-ATTY (PT
2) .pdf
[STAMP eaedStamp_ In= 1 02029091< lOa te=6 /2 /2008J [Fi l.eNumber=594 5939 -1 J [B1d926 3 2 34 a6bdeq9 5eeBe8 50B18816190e656 2916 873 9 4 71530 8e f B99va515aedce66e9d
1 of 1 12/2912009 4:04 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https:!/e4cacd.circ9.dcnlcgi-binlDisplayReceipt.pl? 1091388013 81 ...
MIME-Vers ion: 1.0

FrOm: cacd ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To: ecfnefl!cacd. us courts . gOY
Message- Id: <59B0954@cacd. uscourts _gOY>
Bee: nef@Cacd.circ9.den
, j wp@paslaw.com, mwachtell@buchalter.com, soverton@Crnda-law.com, crd.....Phillips@cacd.uscourts.gov,crdyhi llips@cacd.'lscourts.gov_sumry, tina_ na
Joseph zernik
2415 saint George Street
us
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP"CW Joseph lqer:nik v. Jacqueline Connor et a1 ~inutes of In Chambers Order/D:_rt~ctive - no proceeding hel
Content-Type; text/plain***NOTE: TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS··· Juclicial Conference of the un,ited States policy permits attorneys of record and parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFO:RNIA
I

1
on 6/6/2008

Case Number: 2: 08 -cv-1550 httPs;llecf.caCd.uscourti.gov/egi-bi:n/DktRPt .pl ?409918
Filer:
Document Number; 63 ht tps: Ileaf . cacd. uscourts . gOY /doCl/o3106041975?magic_oum.,MAGIC&deJJeq_num=231&CaSeid=409918
Copy the URL address from the line below into the rocation bar of your web
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate; Judge CarLi Woehrle:
re: FINDING AS MOOT- EX PARTE APPLICATION for Reconsideration [til], Final
MOTION to Dismiss Case and proposed Order[13} , REQUEST for Rul.ing
Evidentiary Ruling on Docket #20 filed by Defendants {56], MOTION ':0 Dismiss
Case(19], MOTION to Dismiss Case[231, MOTION to Dismiss Compla:lnt Joinder[161and
DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION to Seal [49], ··SEE ORDER FOR FUR'.:'HER DETAILS·"
(dt)
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed 'to:
John W patton jwp@paslaw.com I
Michael L wachtell rnwachtell@buchalter,com

2:0S-cv-1550 Notic:e m\s been delivered by l!'irst Class 11. S. Milll or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/2009 4:04 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ecf.cacd.circ9.dcn!cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.1'1?3024l73 39848 ...
MIME- Vers ion: 1 . 0

From: cacd ecfmai l@cacd.uscourts.gov
Message- Id: <6 037194@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee: CRD Phillips@cacd.uscourts.gov, CRD woehrle@cacd uscourts gov Tlna Naghshlneh@cacct uscourts gov, jwp@paslaw.com, kdicarlo@cmda.-law,cern, mwac
f
SUbject~Activity in Case 2:0S-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et a1 :Motlon to DlsmJ.SS Case
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFO.RNIA

The following transaction was entered by Overton, Sarah on 6/19/2008 9: 37
AM PDT and filed on 6/19/2008

Case Number: 2: OB-cv-1550 ht tps: / /eef . cacd. uscourti . go,v /cgi-bin./DktRpt . pI ?40991B
Filer: Allan GoodmanPatricia CollinsGerald RosenbergJacqtleline ConnorTerry

FriedmanJohn SegalLinda Hart-ColeDebbie wi ttsVivian Jaim~Gre9'ory 0' Brien
Document Number: 68
browser to view the document: Document: https: / /ee~. cacd., uscourts gOY /doc1/03106104522?tnagic_num=MAGIC&de_sE.'(J_num=280&c';;tseid=4 09919
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case for plaintiff's fi.n~t
amended complaint filed by defendant Patricia Collins (individually) I
Terry F"riedman (indi vidually), Gerald Rosenberg (indi<viduaJ.ly), Deb:Jie wi tts (indi vidually~ '
Vivian Jaime(individually). Gregory O'Brien(Retired Ju~gE~. indiVidually) I
Jacqueline Connor (individually) I Allan Goodman (individually) I Il'ohn Segal (individually) I
Linda Hart-Cole (individually) . Motion set for hearing on 7/22/;lOO:j at 10:00
AM before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. (Attachm,ents: U. (1) Proposed Order) (Overton,
Sarah) I
Sarah L Overton SQverton@cmda-law. com
John W Patton Jr jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L wachtell mwaGhtell@buchalter.com
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice h&s been delivered by First Class U. S. :Hall ()r by

fax to: :
Joseph Zernik
2415 saint George Street
The following document. (s) are associated wi th this transaction:

Original filename: s:\cases\SLO - Judicial Council\Zelinik
v. Connor\Motion to Dismiss FAC .pdf
[STAMP cacdS tamp_ 10= 102 02 9 0914 (Date=6 / 19 / 2 00 8) (Fi leNumber:=G 0 3 7193 - OJ [c36geaa 790c12 2.qa1df92 f 6 6 81 '7484 4a '72 9dl03ele84a6a,j707 Oa56c22 5cf 8b7cb52 2b25
Document description: Proposed Order

Original filename: S: \Cases\SLO - Judicial Council \zernik
v. Connor\proposed Order FAC.pdf
Electronic document Stamp: I
[STAMP cacdStamp_ 10=10202 90914 (Date=6/19/2008] [Fi leNumber==6037193-1l (b7450d1291612c~e276b12dOB70c86fcfcd:f96333f61c46 3aa5eeOffd3bOb94aeC,956cOf
1 of 1 12/29/2009 4:04 PM
- California Central District - Display Rec(jipt https:llecf.cacd.circ9.dcnlcgi-biniDisplayReceipt.pl?878076030230 ...
MIME-Version: 1. 0
From: cacd_ ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts . gOY
Meggage- Id: <603726S@cacd.uscourts .gov>
Bee: CRD_Phillips@cacd.uscourts.gov, CRD_Woehrle@cacd.uscourts.go". Tina Naghshineh@Cacd.uscourts_gov. jwp@paslaw.com, kdicarlo@cma.a 1aw.com, mwac 4
Subject :Activity in Case 2: 08-cv-01550~VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al Motion to Dismiss Case
Content-Type: text/plain··*NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*·* Judicial Conference of the united States policy permits attorneys of record and parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICf OF CALIFORNIA

The following transaction was entered by Overton. Sarah on 6/19/200B 9: 46
AM PDT and filed on 6/19/2008
Case Name: Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et a1

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https: //ec! . cacd. uscourts. gov /cgi-bin/DktRpt. pI ?409918
Filer: ADR services, Inc.
Document Number: 69
Copy the URL address from the line below into the loci]tion bo.r of your Web
browser to view the document: Document: https: //ec~ . ca,cd. USCOIJLtS. gov /docl/03106104 596?rnagic _num=MAGIC&de_seCLnum.. 282&caseid=40991 a
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND ;~OTION to Dismiss Case for plaintlif:f' s t.i Lst
amended complaint filed by defendant ADR Services, Incj. (as a corp,:)ration) .
Motion set for hearing on 7/22/2008 at 10: 00 AM before Milgist':.ite Judge Carla
woehrle. (At tachments: tt (I) proposed Order) (Overton, Sarah)
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed ,to:
Sarah L Overton SO'ler-t,on@cmda-law. com
John W Pa t ton Jr jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L wachtell rnwachtell@buc):l.alter.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice hils been delivered by First Cla,Ss 9. s. Kail or by
fax to:
Joseph Zern! k
The following document (s) are associated with this tratrSaction:

Document description: Main Document ~
Original filename: S: \Cases\SLO - Judicial Council~Zernik
v. ADR\Motion to Dismiss FAC.pdf
Electronic document. Stamp:
ISTAMP cacdStamp_ 10=1 02 029 0914 IOate=6/19 / 200 81 [FH eNumber=6( 37264 - 0 ) 16ba1e2033b915f6c7bc591650b26eeOd4 0 f(14 4 5f 79acOc2ab6d~b5d1dl,"6a6a8eb14cc15
Document description: proposed order

Original fi lename: S: \Cases\SLO • Judicial Council \zernik
v ADR\proposed Order ADR-FAC. pdf
(STAMP cacdStamp_ 10'" 1 02 02 90914 (Date=6 / 19 /2 00 8 J [Fi leNumber=6 03 726 4 -1] r56 f90e966eBOdl ~6 823 f7 2 52eea 175f2 f9a1.ab89bbfbd9B4 f 330see4 ccf2 54 56d2 5 86 9a2
1 of 1 12/29/20094:05 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ecf.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-binIDisplayReceipt.pl? 133025739784...
MIME- vers ion: 1.0

From: cacd eCfmail@cacd.uscourts,gov
TO: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts . goy
Message- rd: <604 7687@Cacd.uscourts.gov:>
Bec: kdicarlo@cmda-law.cam , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn
• jwp@paslaw. com, mwachtell@buchalter.com, sovertoQ@cmda-law.com, crd.....Phillips@cac~.uscourts. gOY I crd""'phi llips@cacd. uscourts . gOY_ sumry, tina_na
Joseph zernik
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2:09-cv-01550-VAP-CW JoseIPh 21er:nik v. Jacqueline Connor et al 'Minutes of In Chambers Order/D:'rl~ctive - no proceeding hel
Content-Type: text/plain"'**NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USER~**1f Judicial Conference of the united States policy permits attorneys of record and parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CBNTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFO:WIA
Case Name; Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et a~
Case Number; 2: OS -cv-1550 https: I lecE . cacd. uscourts. gov Icgi -bi:n/DktRpt. pI ?409918
Filer:
Document Number: '70 ht tps: I IeeE. cacd. uscourts . goy!docfl/0310611.5827?magic_num::MAGIC&de__SeCLnum=284&Caseid=409918

Copy the URL address from the line below into the rocation bar of your web
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF IN CHAHBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge Car a Woehrle:
Two motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint wer~ filed on .June 19,
2008, by defendant ADR Services, Inc., and by defendanrs Conne;:-, et al.
Both motions were noticed for hearing on July 22, 2,00B. (dtl
2;08-cv-lSSQ Not.ice has been electronically mailed to;
Michael L Wachtel]. rnwachtell@buchalter.com
Sarah L Overton 90verton@cmda-law.com
2: 08-cv-lSSO Notice has been delivered by Pirst Class ~. S. Mall or by

fax to:
JOseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:05 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https://ec(.cacd.circ9.dcnlcgi-biniDisplayReceipt.pI?505403673100 ...
MIME- Version: 1.0

From: cacd ecfmail@cacd. uscourts. goy
Message· Id; <6112 926@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee: kdicarlo@cmda-law.com , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn

I jwp@paslaw.com, mwachtell@buchalter.com, sovertOIi@C'::nda-J.aw.com, jenna.. moldawsky@olryancave.com, crdyhillips@cacct.uscourts.gov/crdyhillips
Joseph zemik
us
SUbjecC:Activity in Case 2:0B-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph ~er:!lik v. Jacqueline Connor et a1 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive· no proceeding hel
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS;-·- Judicia.l Conference of the United States policy permits attOrlleys of record and parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFO:~NIA

The following transaction was entered on 7/2/2008 4:3,6 PM PDT and filed
on 7/2/2008
Case Name; Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et a1

Case Number: 2:0B-cv-1550 https://ecf.cacd uscourts.goiV/cgi-bi.n/DktRpt.pl?4.0991B
Filer:
Document Number: 77 https : / / ecf. cacd. uscourts. gov/doc~/03106197598?magic_num=MAGIC&deJie~

num=306&caseid.. 4.09918
Docket Text:
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate JUdgf~ car:L,~ Woehrle:Two
motions to dismis!; the First Amended Complaint filed on Ei/19/0:3. A third
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint was f.1lep on 6/31)/03 and noticed
for hearing on August 18, 2008. The noticed hearing i~ hereby ORDERED OFF-CALENDAR.
Plaintiff'S opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to this 1;hi;rd
motion shall be served and filed on or before 7/23/08. *~'SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER
DETAILS* * (dt)
Michael L wachtell mwachtell@buchalter.com
Jenna Moldawsky jenna. moldawsky@bryancave com
Kathryn E DiCarlo kcticarlo@cmda-law.com
2; 08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Cla'ss 0". S. Mall or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
us
1 of 1 12/29/20094:08 PM
- California Central District - Display Rece~pt https://ecf.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-binlDisplayReceipt.pI? 103004569400...
MIME-version: 1,0
From:cacd ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts . gOY
Bec: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave com 1 IkdlcarJo@cmda-law.com I nef@cacd IClrc9 den
• jwp@paslaw.com, mwachtell@buchalter. com, soverto~@ClTlda-l.aw.com, crdyhl.lllPS@cacd.u5courts gOY, crdyhillips@cacd.llsCollrtS.gov_sumry, crd_\>.
Joseph Zern ik
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-015S0-VAP-CW Joseph zernik v. Ja.cqueline Connor et al prder
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS~*·t Judicial Conference of the un,ited States policy permits attorneys of record and parties
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALi~ORNIA
Notice of Electronic filing

The following transaction was entered on 3/18/2009 8:,25 AM PDT and filed
on 3/17/2009

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 ht tps: I leef . cacd. uscourts. gor legi -bin/DktRpt. pI ?409918
Filer:
Document Number: 102 ht tps: I lecf . cacd. uscourts. go~/doC1/031071)77':;15?rnagiC_num=MI\GIC&de_Se<Lnum=374&CaSeid=4

09918
Copy the URL address from the line below into the 1oca~ion bar. of your Web
Docket Text:
~~~~d~:~f~~i~~:I~I~~~~l~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~f.TH~l:~~t3.~i~~nW~:~~~~ to
show grounds for disqualification Accordingly the; Co(Jrt. DENIES r:he Motion
I
to Disqualify (See document for specifics) (mrgo) i

2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed ,to:
John W Pat ton j wp@pa.slaw.com
David J Pasternak djp@paslaw.com
Sarah L Overton soverton@Cmda-law.com
Jenna Moldawsky j enna. moldawsky@bryancave com
2:08-Cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mai.l or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
10f! 12129120094:05 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https:llecf.cacd.circ9.dcn!cg.i-binlDisplayReceipt.pl?478022462455...
MIME-Vers ion: 1.0

To :ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
Message- rd: <7556211@cacd.llscourts . go v>
Bee: djp@paslaw,com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com I !kdicarlo~cmda-law.com • nef@cacd.:circ9.dcn
, jwp@paslaw. com, mwachtel1f~buchalter.com, soverton@cmda-!aw.com, crdyhillips@cacd.uscourts.gov, crd---.phillips@cacd.\lscQurts.gov_sumry. crd_""
Joseph Zernik
us
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Z~erJ1ik v. Jacqueline Connor et al Notice of Report and Recommendatj,on
Content-Type: text/plain-**NQTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS;*'H Judi:;ial Conference of the Unlted States policy permits attorneys of rec:lrd and parties
UNITED STATES DIS'fRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIrORNIA

The following transaction was entered on 4/3/2009 i9:3F .l\M PDT and filed
on 3/31/2009

Case Number: 2: OB-cv-1550 https:/ /ect . cacd. uscourts. goV/<:gi-b:Ll:'/DktRpt. pI 74 09918
Fi ler:
Document Number: 103 https: / / ect. cacd. uscourts. 901/do~I/0310""84:t03?magiC_num=MAGIC&deT8e<Lnum=377&CaSeid=409918
Copy the URL address 1:rom the line below into the l,ocation bar of your web
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magis:tra~e Judge Carla woehrle.
Objections to R&R due by 4/16/2009 (Attachments: #, (1) R&R) (dtl
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed :to:
Michael L wachtel] mwachtell@buchalter.com
Jenna Moldawsky j Emna. moidawsky@bryancave com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice has been delivered by First Class u. S. Ma,i,l (lr by

fax to: :
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:06 PM
- California Central District - Display Rece~pt https://ecB.cacd.circ9.dcn/cgi-binlDisplayReceipt.p1? 104321359055 ...
MIME-Version: 1. a
From: cacd ecfmail@cacd. uscourts. gOY
To: ecfnefBlcacd. uscourts .gov
Message- Id: <75562 51@cacd.uscourts.gov:>
Bec: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com , ~dicarlo@clTlda-law.com , nef@caCd.,t:irc9.den
, jwp@paslaw.com, mwachtell@buchalter.com, sovertorl@cmda-law.com, crdyhil1ips@cacd.uscourts.gov, crd_phillips@cacd uscourts .gov_sumry, crd_""
Joseph Zernik
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2.08-cv-OlSSO-VAP-CW Joseph Zenuk v Jacquellne Connor et al Report and Recommendation (Issued)
Content-Type: texc!plain .. • ..NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERSI,;.*~ Ju6~:::lal Conference of the Un~ted States policy permits attorneys of reCQrd and parties

The following transaction was entered on 4/3/2009 ,9:41 1~ PDT and filed
on 3/31/2009
Case Name: Joseph zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et a1

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https://ecf.cacd uscourts, goy/cgi-bin./DktRpt .pl ?409918
Filer:
Document Number: 104 ht tps: / fecf . cacd. uscourts .go~fdoc1/0310T784146?magic_num=M.AGIC&de_seq_num=379&caseid=409918
Copy the URL addrE~ss from the line below into the llocation bar of your Web
Docket Text:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. GRANTING
MOTION to Dismiss Case for plaintiff' 5 first amended complaint: [69] ,
MOTION to Dismiss Case[7)] , MOTION to Dismiss Case for pJ.ainti.~f's
first amended complaint [681, and MOTION to Dismiss CaSt as Frivol<J1.1S
First Amended Complaint [78] Objections to R&R due by 411€/2009 (dtl
I
2: 08-cv-1550 Notic:e hC:IS been electronically mailed to:
Michael L Wachtell lllwachtel10buchalter .com
Jenna Moldawsky jenna. moldawsky@bryancave.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notic.e h!lS been delivered by First Cla~s U. s. M.i9.i.l Qr by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:06 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https:llecf'Lcacd.circ9 .dcn!cgi-binJDisplayReceipt.pI? 879779377628 ...
MIME-Version: 1. 0
From: cacd_ecfmai !@cacd. us courts . gov
Message- Id: <764 9384@cacd. uscourts . gOY>
Bcc:CRD Phillips@Cacd.uscourts.gov, CRD Woehrle@cacd u,scourts,gov, djp@paslaw.com, jenn~.moldawsky@bryancave.com, jwp@pas.law.com, kdicarlo@cmda-l
Subject-;-Activity in Case 2;08-cv-01550-VAP-CW ,Joseph z;ernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al Notice (Other)
Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS:··'· Judicial Conference of the un:ited States policy permits attorneys of record and parties

The following transaction was entered on 4/21/2009 9 ::22 AM PDT and filed
on 4/9/2009

Case Number: 2:08-cv-15s0 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.goy/cgi-bL1/DktRpt pl?409918
Document Number: 105

browser to view the document: Document: https:/ /ecL ca~d. uscou~:-ts.gov/doCl/031.07B98690?inagic_num=MAGIC&de_ s~num=389&caseic1=409913
Docket Text:
NOTICE of plaintiff's verified requests filed by plaintiff Joseph zernik.
(dt)
2:08-cv-1ss0 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Jenna Moldawsky j enrw. moldawsky@brya.ncave com
John W Patton • Jr jwp@paslaw.com
Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda··law.com
Michael L wachtel] mwachtell@buchalter com
Sarah L Overton sc-\'err.on@cmda-Iaw.com
2: 08-cv-1550 Notice ha.s been delivered by First Class O. S. MlJi 1 or by

fax to: :
Joseph Zernik
The following document (8) are associated with this transaction:

Document description: Main Document ,
Original fi lename; M: \POD13\Ci viI \LA08CV015s0CW-NTC. pdf
Electronic document Stamp: '
(STAMP cacdStamp_ ID=10202 90914 [Da te"'-4 /21/200 91 [Fi leNumber=76 49383 - 0 1 (6 57esfca94 28e8~fbfebe39 geOa6 2d56 0 8 fb5e085276d5 3121bf2 5 3d8b215aaa95c4 OdS 7
1 of 1 12/29/2009 4:07 PM
- California Central District - Display Rece~pt hitpS://ec~.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-binlDisplayReceipt.pl?228037205 585...
MIME-Version: 1. 0
Message- Id: <767551S@cacd. uscourts. goy>
~ccj~~:;~:~~~~~~m ~w~~~~:i~~~~~~:~~:~~~~~~av:o~~~t~n~~l~~:r~~~~~~-la~r~~h~
l~~~:~~~~~C~~~~u~~~ gOY I crdyhillips@cacd. uscourts. gov_sumry,
Joseph Zernik
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAp··CW Joseph Z,ernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al ~&R Adopting Report and Reconunendations
Content-Type: te.xt/plain"*"NOTB TO PUBLIC ACCESS USBRS:**'~ There: is no charge for viewing opinions.

The following transaction was entered on 4/24./2009 4.:i6 PM PD'f and filed
on 4/24/2009
Case Name: Joseph zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al!

Case Number: 2: 08-cv-1550 https:/ leci . cacd. uscourtS; .g01,/<:9i -bin/DktRpt. pI ?409918
Filer:
Document Number; 106 https: II ecf . cacd. uscourts. gov/docl/o310'N172 82?magic_ num=MAGIC&de_seq_num""391&caseid=4 :l9918
I
Copy the URL addn!ss from the line below into the l.ocatiCln bar of your Web
Docket Text:
ORDER ACCEPTING REPowr AND RECOMMENDATION of United Statfls Mag:,st::ate Judge
by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: IT IS ORDERED: (1) that'the Report and Reconunendat.ion
of the United States Magistrate Judge be accepted; (2) tttat Del:en:iants'
four pending motions to dismiss (docket no. [68l, fileC[l J'une 1:), 2008; docket
no. [69], filed Jule 19, 2008; docket no. [73], filled Jur.,e 30, ~W08i and
docket no. [78}, filed July 7. 2008) be granted; (3:) that the First Amended
Complaint (docket no. [62}, filed May 27, 2008) be dismissed w;'.thQut further.
leave to amend; and (4) that judgment be entered dismil?sing thts ,:lction in
its entirety, with prejudice as to Plaintiff's damages claims l.~ndr;~r
federal law and without prejudice as to Plaintiff's da'1lages clc!im~; under
state law and his claims for equitable relief. (pcl)
2; 08-cv-1550 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-Iaw.com
Jeru1a Moldawsky jenna .moldawsky@bryancave.com
Kathryn E DiCarlo kdicarlo@cmda-Iaw.com
2:08-cv-1550 Notice hs.s been delivered by First Class u. S. Mall Clr by

fax to:
Joseph zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:07 PM
- California Central District - Display Receipt https:/1ec~.cacd.circ9 .dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pi?552355744138...
MINE-Version: 1.0
From: cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov
To: ecfnef@cacd. us courts . gOY
Message- Id: < 76 75612@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Bee: djp@paslaw.com , jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com • ikdicarlo@cmda-law.com , nef@cacd.circ9.dcn
, jwp@paslaw.com, mwachtell@buchalter.com, sovertOI\@cmda-law.com, crdyhillips@cacd.uscourts.gov, crd_phillips@cacd uscourts .gov_sumry, crd_....
Joseph zemik
US
Subject:Activity in Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Josep,h zernik v. J'a,cqueline Connor e~ a~ t1ud9~eJ?t
Content-Type: text/pl.:\in*,uNOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS U!:!ERSl·*'~ The:::-·a is no charge for vl-ew~n9 op~n~ons.
UN'ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The following transac-tion was entered on 4/24/200~ 4:123 PM PJ)'r a.."'1d filed
on 4/24/2009

Case Number: 2:08· cv-1550 https://ecf.cacd.uscourt.s gov/cgi-b3.U/D!:(tRpt.pl?4099lS
Piler:
WARNING; CASE CLOSED on 04/2412009
Document Number: 107 https : I leef. cacd uscourts. gov/doCl!0310'J91 73S7?magic_num=M.llGIC&de_se'!-num=394 &caseid=409918
, I
Copy the URL address f.rom the line below into the liocation bar of your Web
Docket Text:
JUDGMENT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: IT IS ADJUD:GED that th:.s -action is
dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs damages claims under federal law
and without prejudice as t.o his state law damages claims and his claims for
equitable relief. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated) _ (pc 1'>
Michael L wachtel) mwachtell@buchalter.com
Jenna Moldawsky jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
2:0S-cv-1550 Notice ha.s been delivered by First Class U. S. M;!li.l or by

fax to:
Joseph Zernik
US
1 of 1 12/29/20094:07 PM
____________
I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as: 3: Verified Motion
for a Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al on parties in this action by a) emailing, and
b) by mailing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage
fully prepaid, addressed as follows:

(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3180

(213) 620-7772
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP

Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court
(213) 894-4727
correct.

Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813 TOC

___________

vs

___________

___________
4: INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE IN RE: LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS V USA ET AL
Joseph Zernik, PhD

2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Faximile (213) 261-9881
4: MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON THE USA AND LOG
CABIN REPUBLICANS IN RE: LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS V USA ET AL (2:04-
CV-08425) AND THE UNCERTIFIED OCTOBER 12, 2010 JUDGMENT - WHY
INSTANT APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION AND/OR MOOTNESS;
TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: Intervenor Joseph Zernik (“Zernik”) herein files
his Motion for an Order to Show Cause on USA and Log Cabin Republicans in re: Log
Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-Cv-08425) and the uncertified October 12, 2010
Judgment: Why instant Appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or
mootness.
1. The concomitantly filed papers should be deemed integral parts of instant
motion.
Concomitantly filed under separate covers, as integral parts of instant motion:
Intervene;
4: Motion for an Order to Show Cause on Log Cabin Republicans and the USA in
re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al and the uncertified October 12, 2010
Judgment - Why instant Appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
and/or mootness;
2/9
3: MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN RE: LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS V USA ET AL
7: Motion for Declaratory Mandate in re: Establishment of CM/ECF at the US
District Court through the General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of
Rights;
8: Request for Incorporation by Reference, and
2. The NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) – electronic certificates of
authentication/ attestation by the Clerk - of the judicial and clerical records
from which the Appeals were taken were excluded from the PACER docket of
the District Court.
Pursuant to General Order 08-02, II. (O) of the District Court, the NEFs today serve
as the authentication records of the District Court (See also 5: Motion for Mandate: The
NEFs are Public Records).
However, all records in the PACER docket of Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al,
including but not limited to the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment and Permanent
Injunction, were published without the respective NEFs.
3. Absent the electronic certificates of authentication/attestation (NEFs), all
judicial and clerical records in the case, from which the Appeals were taken,
should be deemed vague and ambiguous and/or null and void.
3/9
Conditions were created, where the public cannot distinguish whether the judicial
and/or clerical records in the PACER docket of Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al,
including, but not limited to, the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment and Permanent
Injunction, are valid and effectual, or null and void. Therefore, such clerical and/or
judicial records should be deemed vague and ambiguous and/or null and void.
4. Alternatively, the PACER docket of the case holds, even absent the NEFs,
sufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that the judicial records in the
District Court’s case, including, but not limited to, the uncertified October 12,
2010 Judgment and Permanent Injunction, are vague and ambiguous and/or
null and void.
The following are some of the deficiencies noted in the PACER docket of the
litigation:
a) No record is available in the docket of the initial Complaint (Dkt #001), or of the
summons, as issued by clerk.
US law, 28 USC §1691 requires:
All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the
seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.
The FRCivP, Rule 79: Records Kept by the Clerk (a)(1) and (a)(2), states:
(a) Civil Docket.

(1) In General.
The clerk must keep a record known as the civil docket in the form and manner
prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned
consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry
of the action is made.
(2) Items to be Entered.
The following items must be marked with the file number and entered
chronologically in the docket:
(A) papers filed with the clerk;
(B) process issued, and proofs of service or other returns showing execution; and
(C) appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments.
4/9
Therefore, it is claimed that the litigation was commenced out of compliance
with US law, and its docket, as published online in PACER is out of compliance
with the law.
b) No record is avaliable of execution/waiver of the service of the summons.
The FRCivP, Rule 4: Summons (m), states:
(m) Time Limit for Service.

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court
— on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff — must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does
not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).
Regardless, the complaint was not dismissed by the US District Court as
required by US law.
Therefore, it is claimed that the litigation was continued, following failure to
execute service of summons within the time prescribed by law, out of compliance
with US law.
c) No valid Assignment Order for a Presiding Judge is found in the docket.
Therefore, it is claimed that the two Judges, who appeared as Presiding Judges in
the case, did so with no authority.
d) The two Judges issued two opposing judgments: The first judgment, issued on
March 21, 2006 by Judge George Schiavelli, was in favor of the United States of
America, and dismissed the Log Cabin Republicans’ complaint. It was listed as
entered in the Judgment Index of the US District Court, and consequently the case
was deemed “closed”. (Dkt #34)
No appeal or other procedure overtunred the 2006 judgment.
5/9
The second judgment, issued over four years later, on October 12, 2010, by
Judge Virginia Phillips was in favor of the Log Cabin Republicas. The October
12, 2010 Judgment was not listed as entered in the Judgment Index of the Court.
e) The Clerk of the US District Court refuses to certify the docket of the case.
f) The Clerk also refuses to permit public access to electronic certificates of
authentication/attestation (NEFs) of the two judgments, in apparent violation of
First Amendment rights.
Therefore, all judicial and clerical records in the online PACER docket of Log Cabin
Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425) should be deemed vague and ambiguous and/or
null and void.
5. Evidence from the cases incorporated by reference, shows that in other PACER
dockets in the US District Court judicial and clerical records were published,
including Judgments, which should be deemed null and void.
Two other cases at the US District Court, Central District of California, were
incorporated by reference: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) (See also - 3: Motion
for Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al and Exhibits 3:1,2,3,4) and Fine v Sheriff et al
(2:09-cv-01914). (Exhibits 4:1a,b,c)
In both cases, the evidence shows that judicial records, including but not limited to
judgments, were listed as ‘entered’ in the respective online PACER dockets, while only
invalid NEFs were issued by the Clerk of the Court.
In both cases, the Clerk of the US District Court refuses to certify the PACER
dockets.
6/9
6. Parties in the Appeals in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al failed to respond on
request to produce copies of the certificate of the October 12, 2010 Judgment.
In view of the facts stated in paragraphs 1-5, above, requests were forwarded on
December 6, 2010, to parties in the Appeals (Exhibit 4:2) to provide copies of the
certificates - the NEFs - of the two contradictory Judgments in Log Cabin Republicans v
USA et al.
No response on the matter has been received from the Parties.
7. The Clerk of the US District Court also failed to respond on request to provide
copies of the certificates - the NEFs - in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al, and
also failed to respond on request to certify the respective PACER docket.
In view of the facts stated in paragraphs 1-6, above, requests were forwarded on
December 9, 2010, to the Clerk of the US District Court (Exhibit 4:3) to provide copies
of the certificates – the NEFs - of the two contradictory Judgments in Log Cabin
Republicans v USA et al and also to certify the online PACER docket in the case.
No response on the matter has been received from the Clerk of the Court.
8. The evidence should lead the Court to rule that both the uncertified March 21,
2006 and the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgments are vague and ambiguous
and/or null and void judicial records.
In view of the facts outlined in paragraphs 1-7, above, both the uncertified March 21,
2006 Judgment (Dkt #024) and the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment (Dkt #252)
should be deemed vague and ambiguous and/or null and void judicial records.
9. The US Court of Appeal should not conduct Appeals from an uncertified
Judgment.
7/9
Conditions were created, where a docket was opened at the US Court of Appeals for
Appeals from an uncertified Judgment, which is vague and ambiguous and/or null and
void.
Under the circumstances, it is likely that the US Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction
in the Appeals in question, alternatively, that the Appeals are moot.
enter an Order to Show Cause on both Log Cabin Republicans and the USA in
re: The uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment - Why the Appeals, now pending,
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or mootness.
For the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-9, above, the Court should enter the Order to
Show Cause on both Log Cabin Republicans and the USA in re: The uncertified October
12, 2010 Judgment - Why the Appeals, now pending before the court, should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or mootness.
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
____________
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 4:1 - Fine v Sheriff et al (2:09-cv-01914):

a) The March 19/20, 2009 Petition for Habeas Corpus (Dkt #01) (face page), and the
respective NEF, bearing the ‘electronic document stamp’, as required by General
8/9
Order 08-02 for valid electronic certificate of authentication/attestation;
b) The June 29, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #31). Upon inspection on December 29, 2009,
the respective NEF, was discovered to be missing the ‘electronic document
stamp’.
c) The February 18, 2010 Mandate (Dkt #59) as docketed in the US District Court –
with no certification by a Circuit Judge and with no NDA (Notice of Docket
Activity) from the US Court of Appeals, and the respective NEF, bearing no
‘electronic document stamp’.
Exhibit 4:2 - Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425):
December 6, 2010, request upon counsel of parties in the Appeals to provide copies
of the NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al in the US District Court, and
confirmation of receipt by counsel for the USA.
Exhibit 4:3 - Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425):
December 9, 2010, request upon Clerk of the US District Court Terry Nafisi to
provide copies of the NEFs and certify the PACER docket.
____________
I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, read instant Intervenor’s 4: Verified Motion for an
Order to Show Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al, and I know the
content thereof to be true and correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and
belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
9/9
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 4:1
Mar 19 2009 11:5?AM
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
;... .j
n~D NAFTALIN
Document 1 612}'~24343,O
Filed 03/20/2009 I?1/ of6c50/ AJltb---'
Page
'_. ....f
~;
I?{Ckf/ft:.b I .- Pr tv £.
NAMIl
7;]ooK"Uu- -# 1&2.·f3 G':}-

PRISON IDP:N11FICATJONIBOOKING NO,
?WIN /W£kG&f aItIfc.Cl7()tv)f<.... ff!ou7Y
MARJO 3m
ADDRESS OR PLACE OF CONFlNEMENT
4w BwCl/ff-tr., UJJ ~f, C~ ~IJI:Z--

Not~; It is yom responsi:bflity to ll.mfl; the Cleric otCOtlrt in w:iTlng ofa.")y
changeofaddr¢Sl. 1!n:pn:so:llo<l by an 8l':Omey, ~rovid( bil n8mt.
address, :el(phone and fucsi:njle numbfOrs. end e-mail nMress.
UNITED STATES I)'ISTRlCT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRIct OF CALIFORNIA
". o . AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

~1/tIe1R= t9':::' ~..r /fIvrJ.e.,iJ£J COwny BY A PERSON INSTATE CUSTODY
NAME OF WAlWEN.Sl'I'ERINTENDENT. JAILOR OR AUTHORlZED I"u_ 1);.-. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 v '-'.::" .I.~L"'
PERSON HAVING CUSTODY OF PETITIONER I ~u ~V£sr- R.e'GA1Ee6-li-NQ1 r<o.t-T~
Re~ondenl. PLACEtCOUNTY OF CONVICTION ~./ ~S
PREV£OUSLY rn..eo, R1!LATeo Cl\SES IN nns DISTRICT COURT
i (U</!1y ca.... '1umlu1r)
!Cv
lev
"
I:-iSTRUcnONS· PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

I. To use this fo!'m, you must be l\. person Viilo either is currently serving 8. sentence under a judgment against you in 11 Califomia.
state court, or will be sel'Ving a sent¢nce in the f\lture under II judgment against you in a. California state court. You lIl'e asking for relief
from the conviction 2ndior the sentence. Thi£ form i~ your petitiun for relief.
2. In this petition, you may chl'.llengt: I!le judt'1Tlenl t:ntered by unly {me California slale court. If yOll want tQ challenge the judgment
entered by a different Califomia state court., you must fre tI sepaxare petition.
3. Make sure the form is typed or nea:ly handwritten. You must tell the truth and sign the form. [fyau make a false statem~t of
n material fnct, yOIl ll'Qy bc prosecuted fur perjury.
4. Answer all lIte questions. You do not need t,~ cite /;.Use law, but you do need to SUite the federallegaJ theory and operativ~ facts
in slIpJ'lortofeach gmund YO'J may submit additionJlI pages ifnece3sary. If you do not fill out the fonn properly. you will be asked tt}
sllbmit additioDal oroorrect intOrmation. If you want to submit a legal brief or lIrgUments, you may attach a se-parate memorandum.
S. You IDU.51 include in this petition all the grt)unds fc.r relieffrom the conviction and/or sentence that you challenge. And you mwt
state the facts that s'.9port cnch grounJ, lfyoll fail to s~l forI}) nil t!:e t,7l'oands :ll this petition. you may be baned from presonling additional
grounds ut a later date.
S. You must pay a fee ef$S ,01), I[[be fce is paid, yeur peliticn wii; be filed. If you cannot afford t:,e fee. you may ask to proceed
infarma pauperis (a~a poor pen!<m}. Tv do lhal, you musl fLIt oUl~nd sign the declaratio:l of the last tWQ pages of the fonn. Alro, yell
must have an authorir.ed officer at th{' penftl institution ':(lmplece the certificat~ as to the amount ofmoney and securities on deposit t3 your
credit in Rny acCOUlU ai the il~slitution, If ynrr prison u~(;()un~ ex(;ec:ds $25.00, you musl pay the filing fee.
6. When FlU hav., ('ompltt-:d !he faffil, sel~ the c,riginn! .rne two c:>p:es to tbe following I1ddr~9S:
Clerk d :he Ummd States Disrrict Co~rt for t.h~ Central District of California
United Sllltes ComthoUiC
ATTN: Llt<J1etD·)c};,et Seeticn
312 North Spring Street
I,os Angeles. California 90012
J'ETITION FO¥< WRrl Of iimAS CORPVS BY _-\ PERSON IN ST A.TE CUSTODY (28 V.S.C t 11~)
Page 1 of 10
1. Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 3/24/2009 at 8:32 AM PDT and filed on 3/19/2009
Case Name: Richard l. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
Case Number: 2:09-cv-1914
Filer: Richard I. Fine
Document Number: 1
Docket Text:
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case
assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson and referred to Magistrate Judge Carla
Woehrle. (Filing fee $ 5: FEE PAID.), filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.
(Attachments: # (1) Part 1 of Petitioner, # (2) Part 2 of Petitioner, # (3) Part 3 of
Petitioner)(ghap)
2:09-cv-1914 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2:09-cv-1914 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by fax to: :
Richard 1. Fine
BK# 1824367
Twin Towers Correctional Facility
450 Bauchet Street
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document
Original fiLlename:M:\CV Case Opg\LA09CY01914CW-2254-1.pdf
[STNvIP cacdStamp ID=1020290914 [Date=3/24/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-0]
[ba 1e4c9adce56e6928dOecfa53c4bOc81 0443abc5deee05 72 f9 a7b6bbda4fa2e964b
b05 08 £149 c09cc40ibdf093 6e6483 e4a54078 34027013 ddd6569207 b4d9a]]
Document description: Part 1 of Petitioner
Original ftitlename:M:\CV Case Opg\LA09CYOI914CW-2254-2.pdf
[5TAMP cacdStamp ID= 1020290914 [Date=3/24/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-1]
[b5J78e40dclb3dI64887a5416571dd26cbfu9daSa6aft02bd7c7de078d36a5004601
16706c9b7fec55bgeille 1416b7bb3 1ebOtb73 e62222dc6 ffc3 bdd82 80187]]
Original filename:M:\CY Case Opg\LA09CVOI914CW-2254-3.pdf
[STAMP cacd Stamp_I D= I020290914 [Dale=3/24J2009] [FileN umber=7490322-2)
[48gelb101209abage55 154c2000c6c375dc8ecb578c32cfa9a4287ce4f4902b03012
15a6d8d5f736cO lca465d060ft)a320cbcaft)78bd5f2bc7a8aa05884c4835J]
Original filename:M:\CY Case Opg\LA09CY01914CW-2254.pdf
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID= 1020290914 [Date=3/24/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-3]
[6b8 to b48 200 13 2bOc8e7f66779bc4 I96a4de5ec4e85 983 1Oa6aeab9884 762e2 8e4a4
Ofb75e37052ae8f583d597f2c7da70ebdb70ce552fcOfbdb 1fe783fl816c]]
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 31 Filed 06/29/2009 Page 1 of 1
1
2
3
4
5
6 JS-6
7
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 RICHARD I. FINE, ) No. CV 09-1914-JFW(CW)
)
13 Petitioner, ) JUDGMENT
)
14 v. )
)
15 SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA, et al.,)
)
16 Respondents. )
)
17
18 IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
19 denied and the action dismissed with prejudice.
20
21 DATED: June 29, 2009
22
23
JOHN F. WALTER
24 United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED
FEB 182010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073
Petitioner - Appellant,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
v. U.S. District Court for Central
California, Los Angeles
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES RECEIVED
, ClEJ"~ U.S. DISTRICT COllRT
COUNTY; et aI., MANDATE
..
Respondents - Appellees. FEB 182010
~~TRAL OIST'J~ CAUFOR~rA
'. D~PI)TY
The judgment of this Court, entered December 16,2009, takes effect this
date.
This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule
41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of Court
Gabriela Van Allen

Deputy Clerk
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 162009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM·
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;
et aI.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2009**

Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Richard Fine appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for
habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
• This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
.. The panel unanimously fmds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court correctly concluded that Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Yaffe's refusal to recuse himself from Fine's contempt proceedings was not
"contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law" or an "unreasonable determination of the facts." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see
also Jones v. Ryan, 583 F.3d 626, 636 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review). Ajudge's
failure to recuse himself results in a constitutional violation where "the probability
of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be
constitutionally tolerable." Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252,
2257 (2009) (citation and quotation omitted). Fine asserts that Judge Yaffe was
intolerably biased because he received employment benefits from Los Angeles
County, a party to the underlying litigation. However, unlike the circumstances of
Caperton, Judge Yaffe's receipt of these benefits did not give him a "direct
personal, substantial, pecuniary interest" in the matter. Id. at 2259 (citing Tumey v.
Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)). Nor was Judge Yaffe so "personally embroiled" that
he could not preside impartially. Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 1132 (9th Cir.
2007). Fine's argument that he "exposed" Judge Yaffe for receiving "criminal
payments" is belied by a California statute expressly providing that judges "shall
continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then paying the
benefits." See Cal. Gov. Code § 68220; see also Sturgeon v. County a/L.A., 84
2
Cal. Rptr. 3d 242 (2008) (rejecting taxpayer's contention that judicial
compensation was an unconstitutional waste or gift of public funds, but finding
that judicial compensation required statutory prescription).
AFFIRMED.
3
Tis· ti e-mail me a c en rated y th CMJECF s stem. Pica c DO OT
R PO t i - j] bccau c tbe m i1 box i un tt oded.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States
policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to
receive ooe free electronic copy of aU documents filed electronicaUy, if receipt is required by
law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later
charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the
referenced document is a tTanscript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
I. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The following transaction was entered on 2/23/20 I0 at 3: 15 PM PST and filed on 2/18/2010
Case Name: Richard 1. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
Case Number: 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
Filer:
\VARNING: CASE CLOSED on 06129J2009
Document Number: 59
Doc kef Text:

MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Petition for Certificate of Appealability[34], CCA #
09·56073. The Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Mandate received in
this district on 2/18/2010. (Ir)
2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Notice bas been electronicaUy mailed to:
Kevin M McCormick krnccormick@bentonorr.com
Aaron Mitchell Fontana afontana@lbaclaw.com.. bmoyer@lbaclaw.com
Joshua Lee Rosen jrosen1aw@ca.rr.com
2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Notice bas been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by fax to: :
Richard 1. Fine
BK# 1824367
Twin Towers Correctional Facility
450 Bauchet Street
US
EXHIBIT 4:2
10-12-06 Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-
cv-08425) Request forwarded to Counsel for Log Cabin
Republicans and the USA for copies of the NEFs, and confirmation
of receipt by Counsel for the USA
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:11:54

To: dwoods@whitecase.com, paul.freeborne@usdoj.gov, trusche@seyfarth.com,
aakahn@whitecase.com, emiller@whitecase.com, faenlle-rocha@whitecase.com,
patrick.hunnius@dlapiper.com, shameed@whitecase.com,
joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov, ryan.parker@usdoj.gov, scott.simpson@usdoj.gov
Subject: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA (2:04-cv-
08425) at the US District Court, Central District of California
Daniel J Woods
White & Case
633 W 5th St, Ste 1900
213-620-7772
Email: dwoods@whitecase.com
Paul G Freeborne
US Department of Justice
PO Box 883
Washington, DC 200444
202-616-8330
Email: paul.freeborne@usdoj.gov
Timothy Michael Rusche

Seyfarth Shaw
333 South Hope Street
Suite 3900
213-270-9662
Fax: 213-270-9601
Email: trusche@seyfarth.com
Aaron Alexander Kahn

White and Case
633 West Fifth Street, 19th Floor
213-620-7751
Fax: 213-452-2329
Email: aakahn@whitecase.com
Devon Anne Myers

White and Case
633 West 5th Street, Suite 1900
213-620-7700
Earle D Miller
White & Case
633 W 5th St, Ste 1900
213-620-7700
Email: emiller@whitecase.com
Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha
White and Case
633 West Fifth Street Suite 1900
213-620-7700
Fax: 213-452-2329
Email: faenlle-rocha@whitecase.com
Patrick O Hunnius
DLA Piper LLP (US)
1999 Avenue of the Stars
4th Floor
310-595-3030
Fax: 310-595-3330
Email: patrick.hunnius@dlapiper.com
Sayema Javed Hameed

White & Case
633 W 5th St, Ste 1900
213-620-7700
Email: shameed@whitecase.com
Daniel J Woods
Paul G Freeborne
Timothy Michael Rusche
Joshua Edward Gardner

United States Department of Justice
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
202-305-7583
Email: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov
Ryan Bradley Parker

US Department of Justice - Civil Division
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
202-514-4336
Email: ryan.parker@usdoj.gov
W Scott Simpson
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch
Post Office Box 883
Rm 7210
202-514-3495
Email: scott.simpson@usdoj.gov
RE: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA

(2:04-cv-08425) at the US District Court, Central District of
California
To Attorneys for Log Cabin Republicans and United States of America:
Please notice records and press release, posted online and linked below,
which highlighted the dubious nature and/or invalidity of judicial records
in the litigation, referenced above.
The US District Court, Central District of California, has routinely

denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing), which are
likely to be in your possession. Such records are public records by law,
and are essential for the public to discern the true nature of the litigation.
Please also notice in the records linked below documentation of another

case, involving Judge Virginia Phillips, where government officers and
Bank of America Corporation were named Defendants, and where she
issued false and deliberately misleading records with invalid NEFs.
For all the reasons listed above, your cooperation is kindly requested in
expediently providing copies of the NEFs of the Complaint (Dkt #1), and
all later records, which were docketed by the Court (no copies are
requested of NEFs docketed by counsel for either Plaintiff or
Defendants), in the caption referenced above.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

LINKS
[1] 10-12-06 Dont Ask Dont Tell Another Pretense Litigation by Judge Virginia
Phillips at the US District Court, Central District of California?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44771304/
[2] 10-12-06 Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-
08425) at the US District Court, Central District of California - Don't Ask Dont
Tell - litigation records
[3] 10-12-05 Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings where
appropriate, in re: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN
WALTER, and US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE for conduct, which
undermined Banking Regulation and/or Human Rights in the United States
[4] 10-12-04 RE: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN
WALTER, US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE - Request for Investigation,
Impeachment Proceedings Where Appropriate
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human
Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los
Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of
computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice
system in the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
______
Subject: Read: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA
(2:04-cv-08425) at the US District Court, Central District of California
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:41:49 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Topic: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA
Thread-Index: AcuVaxTGR22NJxc/Su6eujJgqGpQhgAAceXm
From: "Freeborne, Paul (CIV)" <Paul.Freeborne@usdoj.gov>
FILETIME=[FB5FB070:01CB956C]
06,2010-12-06,1970-01-01 signatures=0
06,2010-12-06,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message
To: dwoods@whitecase.com; Freeborne, Paul (CIV);
trusche@seyfarth.com; aakahn@whitecase.com; emiller@whitecase.com;
faenlle-rocha@whitecase.com; patrick.hunnius@dlapiper.com;
shameed@whitecase.com; Gardner, Joshua E (CIV); Parker, Ryan (CIV);
Simpson, Scott (CIV)
Cc:
Subject: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA
California
Sent: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:11:54 -0500
Final-Recipient: RFC822; PFreebor@CIV.USDOJ.GOV

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: W+L52GIPy0q6acU6D90mYg==
______
Subject: Read: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:48:39 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Topic: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA
Thread-Index: AcuVaxTGR22NJxc/Su6eujJgqGpQhgAArvka
From: "Parker, Ryan (CIV)" <Ryan.Parker@usdoj.gov>
FILETIME=[D1179A70:01CB956D]
06,2010-12-06,1970-01-01 signatures=0
06,2010-12-06,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message
To: dwoods@whitecase.com; Freeborne, Paul (CIV);

trusche@seyfarth.com; aakahn@whitecase.com; emiller@whitecase.com;
faenlle-rocha@whitecase.com; patrick.hunnius@dlapiper.com;
shameed@whitecase.com; Gardner, Joshua E (CIV); Parker, Ryan (CIV);
Simpson, Scott (CIV)
Cc:
Subject: Request for copies of NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v USA
California
Sent: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:11:54 -0500
Final-Recipient: RFC822; RParker@civ.usdoj.gov

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: W+L52GIPy0q6acU6D90mYg==
EXHIBIT 4:3
10-12-09 Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-
cv-08425) Request forwarded to Clerk of the US District Court Terry Nafisi
for copies of the NEFs, Certification of the PACER docket
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:32:19

To: "Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court" <terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Subject: Timely response requested Fwd: RE: Log Cabin Republicans v United
States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425)
Cc: "Attention Hon Audrey Collins, Chief Judge"
<Angela_Bridges@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Dawn Bullock, Records Supervisor"
<dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Sharon McGee, Intake Unit
Supervisor"<Sharon_McGee@cacd.uscourts.gov>,
<Donna_Thomas@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Theresa Doty - Chief Deputy Clerk"
<Theresa_Doty@cacd.uscourts.gov>, <Lydia_Yurtchuk@cacd.uscourts.gov>,
"Smith, Darcy $USMS$" <Darcy.Smith@usdoj.gov>, "Shell, Thomas$USMS$"
<Thomas.Shell@usdoj.gov>, dwoods@whitecase.com,
paul.freeborne@usdoj.gov, trusche@seyfarth.com, aakahn@whitecase.com,
emiller@whitecase.com, faenlle-rocha@whitecase.com,
patrick.hunnius@dlapiper.com, shameed@whitecase.com,
joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov, ryan.parker@usdoj.gov, scott.simpson@usdoj.gov
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
Given that the matter, outlined below, is of considerable public interest, and given
that a Notice of Appeal was filed in this case, timely response by your office,
within 7 days, is kindly requested.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human
Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los
Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of
computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the
justice system in the United States.
_____________________________
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:18:18

To: "Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court" <terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov>,
Subject: RE: Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al
(2:04-cv-08425) - Request for copies of attestations by the Clerk of the
Court of the two contradictory judgments in the case.
Cc: "Attention Hon Audrey Collins, Chief Judge"
<Angela_Bridges@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Dawn Bullock, Records
Supervisor" <dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Sharon McGee, Intake
Unit Supervisor"<Sharon_McGee@cacd.uscourts.gov>,
<Donna_Thomas@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Theresa Doty - Chief Deputy
Clerk" <Theresa_Doty@cacd.uscourts.gov>,
<Lydia_Yurtchuk@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Smith, Darcy $USMS$"
<Darcy.Smith@usdoj.gov>, "Shell, Thomas$USMS$"
<Thomas.Shell@usdoj.gov>, dwoods@whitecase.com,
paul.freeborne@usdoj.gov, trusche@seyfarth.com,
aakahn@whitecase.com, emiller@whitecase.com, faenlle-
rocha@whitecase.com, patrick.hunnius@dlapiper.com,
shameed@whitecase.com, joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov,
ryan.parker@usdoj.gov, scott.simpson@usdoj.gov
RE: Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-

08425) - Request for copies of attestations by the Clerk of the Court of
the two contradictory judgments in the case.
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
Your help is requested relative to the caption referenced above in:
a) Providing copies of the attestation records (NEFs - Notices of

Electronic Filing) of the two judgments in the case - i. 06-03-21 Dkt #024
- Order granting Motion to Dismiss (and respective Judgment entered in
the Court's Judgment Index), published in the name of Judge George
Schiavelli, and ii. 10-10-12 Dkt #252 - Judgment and Permanent
Injunction published in the name of "Transferee Judge" Virginia Phillips;
b) Providing certification that the PACER docket in the case was

constructed pursuant to the law of the United States and by authority of
the Clerk of the Court.
Your help in this matter may also assist in preventing the burden on the
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of running an Appeal from a void, not
voidable Judgment.
In case there are any fees required for obtaining the requested records,
please let me know, so that I may expediently forward payment.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of

Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United
States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on
the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous
deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
____________
for an Order to Show Cause in re: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al on parties in
this action by a) emailing, and b) by mailing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a
sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:

(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3180

(213) 620-7772
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP

(213) 894-4727
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
correct.
Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813 TOC


vs

___________

___________

DECLARATORY MANDATE: THE NEFs ARE PUBLIC RECORDS
Joseph Zernik, PhD

In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Faximile (213) 261-9881
5: MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY MANDATE: THE NEFs (NOTICES OF
ELECTRONIC FILING) ARE COURT RECORDS SUBJECT TO THE FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO INSPECT AND TO COPY.
files his Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) are
court records subject to the First Amendment right of public access to inspect and to
copy; like the Certificates of Service by the Clerk, which preceded them, the NEFs must
be incorporated in the PACER (the Court’s online public access system) dockets by the
Clerk of the Court.
motion.
The papers, which are concomitantly filed under separate covers, are integral parts of
instant motion:
Intervene;
4: Motion for an Order to Show Cause on USA and Log Cabin Republicans in re:
the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al:
Why instant Appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or
mootness;
2/9
5: MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY MANDATE: THE NEFs ARE PUBLIC RECORDS
7: Motion for Declaratory Mandate in re: Establishment of CM/ECF at the US
District Court through the General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of
Rights;
2. Prior to Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, Certificates of Service by the
Clerk were employed by the Court as Certificates of authentication/attestation
by the Clerk of the Court.
Prior to implementation of PACER and CM/ECF (the Court’s case management and
electronic filing system), the US District Courts employed Certificates of Service by the
Clerk as authentication records.
General Order 08-02, II. Electronic Filing, (O) Certification of Electronic Documents,
of the District Court, Central District of California, in pertinent parts states:
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
3/9
true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.
Accordingly, with implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the NEFs replaced the
paper-based Certificates of Service by the Clerk.
3. Prior to Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the Certificates of Service by
the Clerk were incorporated into the dockets, and the public was permitted
access to such records to inspect and to copy, pursuant to First Amendment
rights.
Prior to Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the Certificates of Service by the
Clerk were incorporated into the dockets.
In Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) the Supreme Court of the United
States re-affirmed the common law right of the public to access court records to inspect
and to copy, as inherent to various Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,
including, but not limited to, the First Amendment.
Accordingly, the Certificates of Service by the Clerk were public records.
4. With implementation of CM/ECF the NEFs were universally excluded from
public access, while no Rules of Courts were published to that effect, in alleged
violation of the Rulemaking Enabling Act, Due Process and First Amendment
rights.
As part of the implementation of CM/ECF, the US District Court universally
excluded the NEFs from the PACER dockets. Instead, the NEFs are today included only
in CM/ECF. With it, public access to the NEFs is today denied.
Such material change in court procedures and such restrictions on public access to
court records were implemented, while no Rules of Court were published to that effect, in
4/9
alleged violation of the Rulemaking Enabling Act and Due Process and First Amendment
rights.
Additionally, the US District Court established in the General Order 08-02
procedures, whereby pro se filers are universally denied access to CM/ECF, and with it -
to the NEFs, even in their own litigation. (see also: 7: Motion for Mandate: The
establishment of CM/ECF through the General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of
Rights.)
5. The evidence in Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America, in Fine v
Sheriff, and in Zernik v Connor et al in the US District Court documented the
harm affected by such new court procedures.
The evidence, which was presented in instant Intervention from the three cases, listed
above, documented the harm affected by the practices of the US District Court relative to
denial of public access to the NEFs:
a) In Zernik v Connor et al such practices enabled the publication of a PACER
docket, where all judicial and clerical records were issued with invalid NEFs.
Plaintiff was permitted access to the NEFs only months after the publication of
the Judgment in the PACER docket, regardless of repeated requests. Upon
discovery of the NEFs, they were invalid, missing the ‘electronic document
stamps’ and Filer name. (Exhibits 3:1,2,3,4)
b) In Fine v Sheriff the District Court continues to deny access to most of the NEFs.
On December 29, 2009, access was permitted to the NEF of the June 29, 2009
Judgment, to inspect, but not to copy. The NEF for the Judgment was found
invalid, missing the ‘electronic document stamp’. (Exhibit 4:1b)
5/9
On December 29, 2009, access was permitted to the NEF of the February 18,
2010 Mandate, as docketed in the US District Court (Dkt #59) to inspect and to
copy. The NEF for the Mandate was found invalid – missing the ‘electronic
document stamp’ and Filer name. (Exhibit 4:1c)
c) In Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al access to the NEFs
continues to be denied.
6. Absent access to the NEFs, the public and pro se filers, in particular, are
presented with vague and ambiguous PACER dockets and vague and ambiguous
judicial records.
As detailed in paragraphs 1-5, above, in the absence of access to the NEFs, the public
and pro se filers are presented with vague and ambiguous PACER dockets and vague and
ambiguous judicial records.
Under such circumstances the public and pro se filers, in particular, are unable to
distinguish between judicial and clerical records, which are valid and effectual, and those
which are null and void. Therefore, the Public and pro se filers are denied Due Process
rights.
Judgments are imposed on the public and pro se filers, which the District Court itself
deems invalid. Such conduct should be deemed Deprivation of Rights under the Color of
Law.
7. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals is respectfully requested to enter a
declaratory mandate: The NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) are court records
subject to the First Amendment right of public access to inspect and to copy.
6/9
For the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-6, above, the US Court of Appeals should enter
the declaratory mandate: The NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) are court records
subject to the First Amendment right of the public access to inspect and to copy. Like the
Certificates of Service by the Clerk, which preceded them, the US District Court shall
immediately incorporate the NEFs in the publicly accessible PACER dockets.
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
____________
Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are Public Records, and I know the content thereof
to be true and correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except
as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to those
matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
7/9
____________
I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as: 5: Motion for a
Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are Public Records on parties in this action by a)
emailing, and b) by mailing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope,
with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:

(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3180

(213) 620-7772
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP

(213) 894-4727
correct.
Executed this date, December 27th, 2010,
8/9
Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
9/9
Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813 TOC


vs

___________


DECLARATORY MANDATE – THE NEF, AS DRAFTED, IS AN INVALID
CERTIFICATION RECORD
Joseph Zernik, PhD

In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Faximile (213) 261-9881
6: MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY MANDATE: THE NEF, AS DRAFTED, IS
AN INVALID ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION/
ATTESTATION BY THE CLERK; THE US DISTRICT COURT SHALL
IMMEDIATELY DRAFT A VALID ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHENTICATION/ ATTESTATION BY THE CLERK.
requests that the Court enter a Declaratory Mandate: The NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing), as drafted, is an invalid certification record; The US District Court shall
immediately redraft a valid electronic certificate of authentication/ attestation by the
Clerk of the Court.
motion.
The concomitantly filed papers are integral parts of instant filing:
Intervene;
the uncertified October 12, 2010 Judgment in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al
- Why instant Appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or
mootness;
2/9
6: MOTION FOR MANDATE – THE NEFs ARE INVALID CERTIFICATION RECORDS
6: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs, as drafted, are invalid as electronic
certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk, the US District Court shall
immediately draft valid electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the
Clerk;
through the General Order 08-02 of the US District Court amounts to
Deprivation of Rights;
2. Prior to Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, Certificates of Service by
Clerk served as the Certificates of Authentication/ Attestation by the Clerk.
Prior to implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the US District Courts employed
Certificates of Service by Clerk as authentication records.
The General Order 08-02, of the District Court, in section II. Electronic Filing, (O)
Certification of Electronic Documents, replaced the Certificates of Service with the NEFs.
(See also – 5: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are Public Records).
3. Prior to Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the Certificate of Service by
the Clerk used valid language for the Certification of Authentication/Attestation
by the Clerk of the Court.
The paper-based Certificate of Service by the Clerk of the Court, used the following
language:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3/9
<name1>, Case Number: <number>
Plaintiff,
v.
<name 2>, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Defendant.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the

Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
That on <date>, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing
said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's
office.
<service list>
Dated: <date>
<name of clerk>, Clerk
<wet graphic signature>
_________________________
By: <name of deputy>, Deputy Clerk
4. The NEF, which was implemented as part of CM/ECF uses different language.
The NEF, as implemented in CM/ECF, uses the following language:

The following transaction was entered on <date> at <time> AM PDT and filed on <date>.
Case name: <caption>
Case number: <number>
Filer: <name>
Document Number: <docket number>
Docket Text:
<Text as it appears in the docket>
Notice has been electronically mailed to:
<names and electronic mail addresses>
Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by fax to:
<names and mailing addresses>
4/9
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description: <e.g.: “Main Document”>
Original filename: <e.g.: “M:\CY Case Opg\LA09CYO1914CW-2254-1.pdf”>
[STAMP cacdStamp ID=1020290914 [Date=3/24/2009] [FileNumber=7490322-0]
[ba1e4c9adce56e6928dOeefa53c4bOc81 0443abc5deee0572f9a7b6bbda4fa2e964b
b0508f249c09cc40tbdID936e6483e4a5407834027013ddd6569207b4d9a]]
5. The language of the NEF, as drafted, fails to include the essential elements of
certification of authentication/attestation by the Clerk of the Court.
The language of the paper-based Certificate of Service is compared to the language of
the NEF regarding the following elements: a) Title, b) Certification statements, and c)
Signatures/authorities.
a) In the Certificate of Service the title included the word “Certificate”. The title of the
NEF fails to include such wording.
b) The Certificate of Service included the key statement ‘I, the undersigned, hereby
certify…’ The NEF fails to include such statement.
c) The Certificate of Service included a ‘wet’ graphic signature in a legal signature
box, including the typed name of the Clerk of the Court above the graphic
signature, the name of an individual, and his/her authority below the signature line.
The NEF fails to include the full name or authority of the individuals, who
issues the NEF.
No personal signature, either graphic or digital, is affixed in the NEF by an
individual, as a symbol of intent to take responsibility.
5/9
The ‘electronic document stamp’, which appears in the NEF is an encrypted,
machine generated ‘checksum’ string. As such, it should be deemed inherently
invalid as a symbol affixed by an individual with the intent to take responsibility.
Therefore, the NEF should be deemed vague and ambiguous and/or void as a
certificate of authentication/authentication by the Clerk of the Court.
6. The NEFs undermined the accountability of the Clerk of the US Court for
integrity of electronic court dockets and electronic court records.
The Clerk of the US Court refuses to certify the PACER dockets in general, and the
PACER dockets of Log Cabins Republicans v USA et al, in Fine v Sheriff, and in Zernik v
Connor et al, in particular.
7. In two cases of the US District Court, Central District of California, which were
incorporated by reference, unauthorized personnel issued the NEFs.
Under the circumstances, created through the implementation of the NEF, as drafted,
individuals, who were not authorized as Deputy Clerks, ‘entered’ records in the PACER
dockets and issued the NEFs in Fine v Sheriff and Zernik v Connor et al.
It is likely that upon discovery it would be found that unauthorized individuals also
‘entered’ records in the PACER docket and issued the NEFs in Log Cabin Republicans v
USA et al.
8. As a result of implementing the NEF as the electronic certificate of
authentication/authentication, it is claimed the PACER court dockets should be
deemed vague and ambiguous, therefore, denying Federal Due Process rights.
The facts, described in paragraphs 1-7, above, relative to implementation of the NEF
as the electronic certificate of authentication/attestation, are claimed to have left the
6/9
PACER dockets of the US District Court vague and ambiguous in general, and in Fine v
Sheriff , in Zernik v Connor et al, and in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al, in
particular.
Maintenance of vague and ambiguous court dockets should be deemed by the Court
violation of Federal Due Process rights.
9. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals is respectfully requested to enter a
declaratory mandate: The NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing), as drafted, is an
invalid electronic certificate of authentication/attestation by the Clerk of the
Court; the Us District Court shall immediately draft a valid electronic
certification record.
For the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-8, above, Court should enter a declaratory
mandate: The NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing), as drafted, is an invalid electronic
certificate of authentication/attestation by the Clerk of the Court; the US District Court
shall immediately redraft a valid electronic certificate of authentication/ attestation by the
Clerk of the Court.
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
7/9
____________
Declaratory Mandate: The NEF is Invalid as a Certification Record, and I know the
content thereof to be true and correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and
belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
____________
I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as: 6: Motion for a
Declaratory Mandate: The NEF is Invalid as a Certification Record on parties in this
action by a) emailing, and b) by mailing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a
sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:

(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3180

(213) 620-7772
(213) 620-7785
8/9
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP

(213) 894-4727
correct.
Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
9/9
Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813 TOC


vs

___________

7: INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR A

DECLARATORY MANDATE: THE ESTABLISHEMNT OF PACER AND
CM/ECF THROUGH THE GENERAL ORDER 08-02 OF THE US
DISTRICT COURT AMOUNTS TO DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER
THE COLOR OF LAW.
Joseph Zernik, PhD

In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
___________
7: VERIFIED MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY MANDATE: THE
ESTABLISHEMNT OF PACER AND CM/ECF THROUGH THE GENERAL
ORDER 08-02 OF THE US DISTRICT COURT AMOUNTS TO DEPRIVATION
OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.
files his Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The establishment of PACER and CM/ECF
through the General Order 08-02 of the US District Court amounts to Deprivation of
Rights under the Color of Law.
motion.
The following papers were concomitantly filed under separate covers:
Intervene;
3: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The April 24, 2009 Judgment in Zernik v
Connor et al was, is, and always will be void, not voidable.
the October 12, 2010 uncertified Judgment in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al:
Why instant Appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or
mootness;
2/10
7: DENIAL OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO CM/ECF AMOUNTS TO DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
6: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The NEF, as drafted, is invalid as an electronic
certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk, the US District Court shall
immediately draft valid electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the
Clerk;
through the General Order 08-02 of the US District Court amounts to Deprivation
of Rights;
2. In General Order 08-02, the US District Court established procedures related to
electronic filing and case management
General Order 08-02 established the procedures for electronic filing and electronic
case management and public access to electronic court records in the US District Court,
Central District of California. Two systems were established: a) The Court’s online
public access system (PACER), and b) The Court’s case management/electronic filing
system (CM/ECF).
Inherent in the General Order 08-02 are various procedures, which materially affect
the rules pertaining to conduct of litigation in the Court, pertaining to authority and
accountability of the Clerk for papers entered in the PACER dockets, pertaining to
counsel and pro se appearance, and pertaining to public access to court records.
Therefore, the General Order 08-02 had material impact on matters pertaining to
Access to the Courts, Federal Due Process, and/or First Amendment Rights.
3/10
3. The General Order 08-02 was published by the US District Court with no name
of a duly authorized US Judge as its author, with no signature by a duly
authorized US judge of the US District Court, and with no certification by the
Clerk of the Court.
In contrast with other General Orders of the US District Court, the General Order 08-
02 was published with no name of a duly authorized US Judge as its author, with no
signature by a duly authorized US judge of the US District Court.
Regardless, the US District Court enforced the General Order as a valid order of the
Court.
The publication and enforcement of the unsigned, uncertified General Order 08-02,
as described above, is alleged as violation of Due Process rights.
4. The Clerk of the US District Court denies access the General Order 08-02 to copy
the record with valid name of its author, signature by a judge of the US District
Court, and certification by the Clerk of the Court, in alleged violation of First
Amendment rights.
Requests were repeatedly filed with the Clerk of the US District Court, to obtain a
valid copy of the General Order 08-02, including a name of its author, signature by a
duly US judge of the District Court, and certification by the Clerk of the Court. The
requests have been denied.
The denial of access to the General Order 08-02, as certified by a judge of the Court
is alleged as violation of First Amendment rights.
5. Upon information and belief, Zernik claims that in fact, no valid and effectual
copy of the General Order 08-02 exists.
4/10
Upon information and belief, gained through the efforts to gain access, Zernik claims
that in fact, no valid and effectual copy of the General Order 08-02 exists.
6. In General Order 08-02 the US District Court effectively established new Rules of
Court, in alleged violation of the Rulemaking Enabling Act.
US law prescribes the manner in which the US courts are to adopt rules of court,
pursuant to Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC §§2071-7.
In General Order 08-02, the US District Court effectively established material new
rules of court in alleged violation of the requirements prescribed in the Rule Making
Enabling Act 28 USC §§2071-7.
7. In General Order 08-02 the US District Court effectively established Rules of
Court, which exclude the electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by
the Clerk from public access in alleged violation of First Amendment and Due
Process rights.
Although never explicitly stated in the General Order 08-02, the rules, which were
effectively established, deny public access to the electronic certificates of
authentication/attestation by the Clerk of the Court (NEFs – Notices of Electronic Filing).
(see also: 5: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are Public Records).
Therefore, it is alleged that the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF through the
General Order 08-02 effectively denies the public First Amendment rights.
Moreover, absent access to the NEFs, the public is unable to distinguish between
valid court orders and judgments and such that are void, not voidable.
Therefore, it is alleged that the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF through the
General Order 08-02 effectively denies the public Due Process rights.
5/10
8. In General Order 08-02 the US District Court effectively established in CM/ECF
new Rules of Court pertaining to employment of the NEF, as drafted, as the
electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk. The NEF, as
drafted, is claimed to be an invalid certificate, and as such, violation of Due
Process rights.
In implementing PACER and CM/ECF through the General Order 08-02, the Court
established the use of the NEF as the new certificate of authentication/attestation by the
Clerk.
Although never explicitly stated in the General Order 08-02, the General Order 08-
02 effectively established the NEF, as drafted, using invalid certification language.
(see also - 6:Motion for Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs, as drafted, are invalid as
electronic certificates of authentication/attestation by the Clerk)
Therefore, it is alleged that implementation of the NEF, as drafted, denies the public
Due Process rights.
9. In General Order 08-02 the US District Court explicitly established new Rules of
Court, denying pro se filers and the public at large access to CM/ECF, in alleged
violation of rights inherent to the First Amendment, Due Process, and Access to
the Courts.
General Order 08-02, II. Electronic Filing, (O) Certification of Electronic Documents,
of the District Court, Central District of California, in pertinent parts, states:
B. Pro Se Litigants.
Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to be filed and served in the traditional manner and
will be scanned by the Clerk’s Office into the CM/ECF system.
Therefore, it is alleged that through the General Order 08-02, the US District Court
effectively established new Rules of Court, which effectively deny pro se filers and the
6/10
public at large rights inherent to the First Amendment, Due Process, and Access to the
Courts.
10. The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, permits pro se filers access to CM/ECF.
The evidence shows that the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, never adopted such
discriminatory rules, which generally denies pro se filers’ access to CM/ECF.
11. In the General Order 08-02 the US District Court effectively undermined the
authority of the Clerk and the accountability of the Clerk for appearances by
Counsel and papers entered by Counsel in the online PACER dockets.
Through the General Order 08-02, the US District Court effectively established Rules
of Courts, which permit counsel to appear and enter papers in the PACER dockets with
no prior review by the Clerk of the Court.
12. Enabling counsel to appear and enter papers in the PACER dockets with no
prior review by the Clerk of the Court is alleged as violation of Equal Protection
and Due Process rights.
Conditions, where counsel are able to appear and ‘enter’ papers in the PACER
dockets with no prior review by the Clerk of the Court enable appearances by Counsel,
who are not counsel of record.
The phenomenon was documented under similar circumstances in a different US
Court, in the March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #248) of the Honorable Jeff
Bohm, US Bankruptcy Judge, US Bankruptcy Court, Texas, in the Case of Borrower
Parsley (05-90374). [ 1 ] Counsel appeared in the case on behalf of Countrywide
1
For those with no access to PACER, a copy of the Memorandum Opinion was posted online:
7/10
Financial Corporation, while not counsel of record, and with ‘no communications with
client’ clause.
The same conduct took place under Zernik v Connor et al in the US District Court,
Central District of California: The office of the General Counsel of Bank of America
Corporation repeatedly informed Plaintiff Zernik that Bryan Cave, LLP was not
authorized to appear on behalf of Bank of America. Regardless, Bryan Cave, LLP
continued to appear on behalf of Bank of America.
The same conduct took place in Fine v Sheriff in the US District Court, Central
District of California: The Judicial Council of California provided credible evidence that
Attorney Kevin McCormick was not authorized to appear in the case on behalf of the
Superior Court. Regardless, Attorney McCormick appeared and filed papers on behalf of
the Superior Court. (Exhibit 7:1)
The same conduct is claimed to have taken place under Zernik v Connor et al at the
US District Court, Central District of California. Following discovery of the false
appearances of Attorney McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court of California, the
California Judicial Council refused to respond on requests to confirm the authority, or
lack thereof, of Attorneys from Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates, who
appeared in the caption on behalf of the Superior Court of California.
Appearances by unauthorized counsel are alleged as violation of Equal Protection and
Due Process rights.
13. Under CM/ECF as established by the US District Court, unauthorized Court
personnel ‘entered’ minutes, orders, and judgments with invalid NEFs.
8/10
In both Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v Sheriff persons at the US District Court, who
were not authorized as Deputy Clerks ‘entered’ in the PACER dockets minutes, orders,
and judgments with invalid NEFs, with no ’electronic document stamps’.
(see also 3: Motion for Declaratory Judgment in re: Zernik v Connor et al.)
It is claimed that upon investigation and discovery it would be established that
unauthorized individuals also ‘entered’ judicial records in the PACER docket of Log
Cabin Republicans v USA et al.
The entry of records in the PACER docket by unauthorized individuals is alleged as
violation of Due Process rights.
14. Under conditions established by the US District Court in PACER and CM/ECF,
the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify the PACER dockets in Log Cabin
Republicans v USA et al and in Zernik v Connor et al.
Conditions were established by the US District Court, so that today the Clerk of the
Court refuses to certify the PACER dockets in the two cases that are underlie instant
Intervention: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al and Zernik v Connor et al.
The publication of PACER dockets, which the Clerk refuses to certify is alleged as
violation of Due Process rights.
15. Under the General Order 08-02, it is alleged that the US District Court effectively
established separate and unequal Access to the Courts and the First Amendment
right to access court records.
Through the General Order 08-02, the US District Court effectively established two
classes relative to Access to the Courts and the First Amendment right to access court
records.
9/10
Those who hold CM/ECF password are permitted to ‘enter’ records in the PACER
dockets with no prior review by the Clerk, while those with no CM/ECF password are
denied such right.
Those who hold CM/ECF password are permitted access to certain court records,
while those with no CM/ECF password are denied access to such court records.
Therefore, it is alleged that through the General Order 08-02, the US District Court
established separate and unequal [ 2 ] Access to the Courts and the First Amendment right
to access court records to inspect and to copy.
16. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals is respectfully requested to enter the
Declaratory Mandate: Establishment of CM/ECF in the US District Court
through the General Order 08-02, amounts to Deprivation of Rights under the
Color of Law.
For the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-15, above, the Court should enter the
Declaratory Mandate: The establishment of PACER and CM/ECF through the General
Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Right under the Color of Law.
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
________
2
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the US Supreme Court rejected the doctrine of
Separate but Equal. Separate but Unequal should surely be rejected by the Court.
10/10
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 7:1 - Correspondence with the California Judicial Council in re: Appearance
by Attorney Kevin McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court under Fine
v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
____________
Declaratory Mandate: Establishment of PACER and CM/ECF through the General
Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Rights, and I know the content thereof to be
true and correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to
those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to those matters,
I believe them to be true and correct as well.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
11/10
EXBIBITS
EXHIBIT 7:1
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
10-03-19 Richard Fine: Dr Zernik – Mr Carrizosa Correspondence in re: Case Caption.
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:35:04 -0700

To: "Carrizosa, Philip" <Philip.Carrizosa@jud.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Request for information - Fine case
PHILIP R. CARRIZOSA
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your expedient attention and care of my requests. Let me again clarify my requests:
a) Mr Carrizosa's March 16, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as:
Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court.
b) Dr Zernik's March 16, 2010 11:41 PM email requested that the case caption be stated as:
"the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it
appeared in the US District Court PACER docket"
c) Mr Carrizosa's March 19, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as
Fine v. Sheriff .
d) Dr Zernik's March 19, 2010 12:58 PM email repeated the March 16, 2010 request that the case
caption be stated as:
Again, I apologize for any burden that I created on your office. Herein, I respectfully repeat my request, that
your good offices issue a response that could not possibly be viewed by any reasonable person as vague
and/or ambiguous, therefore, stating the case caption as:
The matter at hand pertains to a person's Liberty. Regardless, if through my own lack of care, I unintentionally
created in my requests for correct listing of the caption of the case at hand a burden, which could not be
accommodated by your office, please let me know, so that I do not bother you by repeating the same request
again.
Truly,
Page 2/6 March 19, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
At 01:23 PM 3/19/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,
Perhaps I do not understand your request. I resent the message using the case title
and number as you stated it in your original e-mail. What is it about the resent
message that is incorrect?
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"
At 12:58 PM 3/19/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:
From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:58 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you for your timely response. Given that ambiguity was created in the original
response by your office, relative to the identity of the case at hand, the March 16,
2010 letter, copied below, explicitly requested that "you ... resend the message
below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly
stated, as it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket."
The favor of a corrected response from your good offices, including "the full caption of
the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the
US District Court PACER docket" is again requested.
Please bear with my additional request for correction - instant request is merely an
exact repeat of my March 16, 2010 request letter. I hope that you would be able to
abide with me in this clerical issue.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Page 3/6 March 19, 2010

At 11:24 AM 3/19/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:
Mr. Zernik,
In response to your March 16 request to resend our response with the case title and
number that you used, I offer our response:
The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
law firm to represent the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914, pursuant to Government Code
section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of Court, which require the AOC
to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal
counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the
retained law firm.
We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Request for information - Fine case
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your prompt response. Upon re-reading of your response below,
I realized that you had an typographical error in stating the caption of the case that
was the subject of my request for information. Therefore, for the record, in order to
have a valid response from your office on the matter at hand, I would be grateful if you
could resend the message below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas
corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District Court
PACER docket.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Page 4/6 March 19, 2010
At 02:50 PM 3/16/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:
Mr. Zernik,
In response to your March 13 request for clarifying information and confirmation of

your five hypothetical assertions, I offer our response:
The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
law firm to represent the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court, Case No. CV 09-1914,
pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules
of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the
responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin
McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:23 PM
Cc: McCormick, Brenda; McCormick, Kevin M; Attention: Judge David Yaffe and the
LA Superior Court C/O John Clarke, Clerk
Subject: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the
habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA
March 13, 2010
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
RE: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
Page 5/6 March 19, 2010
the habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your past help in clarifying information pertaining to the California
Administrative Office of the Courts. I again request your help.
In recently published online notes in several forums, I alleged dishonest and/or

fraudulent conduct by Attorney Kevin M McCormick of the law-firm of Benton, Orr,
Duval & Buckingham, relative to his appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles. I
further alleged that his conduct was key to affecting the ongoing false hospitalization
of Attorney RICHARD FINE - a political dissident. [1], [2], [3]
Following the online postings at the ABA Journal, I received unauthenticated,

unverified communications, which lead to the formulation of the following five (5)
hypothetical assertions:
1) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK's wife, Attorney BRENDA MCCORMICK, was
Court Managing Attorney for the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura.
2) Appearances of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were not pursuant
to his engagement by the Intervenors in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID
YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES.
3) Appearances of KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR,
DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were pursuant to his
engagement by the California Administrative Office of the Courts, an arm of the
Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE, and/or
through related entities.
4) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR, DUVAL &
BUCKINGHAM was never authorized as Counsel of Record by the Intervenors in
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
5) Engagement of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM by the California Administrative Office of the Courts,
and arm of the Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD
GEORGE, and/or related entities. included a stipulation prohibiting Attorney KEVIN
MCCORMICK from communicating with the Intervening parties - DAVID YAFFE and
the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - regarding
Attorney KEVIN MCCORMICK's appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
Request is for confirmation on behalf of the California Administrative Office of
the Courts, and the Chairman of the Judicial Council, California Chief Justice
Ronald George, the five (5) hypothetical assertions, listed above, regarding
engagement of Attorney Kevin McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914) - the habeas corpus petition.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

CC:
1. McCormick, Brenda - by email
2. McCormick, Kevin - by email
3.Yaffe, David and the LA Superior Court - by fax
Page 6/6 March 19, 2010
4. Others of Interest
LINKED:
[1] The American Bar Association's motto is: "Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice"
[2] ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-year Mark In
Jail In Contempt
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#comments
[3] March 13, 2010 ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-
year Mark In Jail In Contempt, as copied:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-13-aba-journal-article-on-richard-fine-and-comments-
s.pdf
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
10-03-22 Richard Fine: Final response by California Judicial Council - false and deliberately
misleading
Ronald George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court,
Chair of the California Judicial Council
Los Angeles, March 22 - following is the latest, March 22, 2010 response, [1] which was received from the
Judicial Council. The case caption stated in such response is false and deliberately misleading. The case
caption stated in the response by the Judicial Council is "Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court," The case
caption as stated in the US Court docket is: "Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County."
The California Judicial Council is chaired by Ronald George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court. No further attempt would be made to have the California Judicial Council correct this record.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] March 22, 2010 response by the California Judicial Council.
X-MSK: CML=1.001000
From: "Carrizosa, Philip"
To: joseph zernik
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:58:26 -0700
Thread-Topic: Request for information - Fine case
Thread-Index: AcrHwfYJBnu5MkmISiKkBZ5LohiLpgCSAP4w
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Mr. Zernik,
In light of your revised request, I am again sending our original response which we believe contains the correct and true
z Page 2/2 March 23, 2010
caption for the case.
The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham law firm to represent the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court, Case No. CV
09-1914, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of Court, which require the
AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and
judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
____________
for a Declaratory Mandate: Establishment of PACER and CM/ECF through the
General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Rights, on parties in this action by a)
emailing, and b) by mailing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope,
with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:

(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3180

(213) 620-7772
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP

(213) 894-4727
correct.

Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813

___________
vs

___________
8: INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S REQUEST FOR

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Joseph Zernik, PhD

In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
8: INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S VERIFIED REQUEST FOR
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
files his request for incorporation by reference.
1. List of records, whose incorporation by reference is requested.
Zernik requests that the Court incorporate by reference the dockets and all papers in
the following three cases of the US District Court, Central District of California:
a) Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425)
b) Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
c) Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (2:09-cv-01914)
Zernik requests that the Court incorporate by reference the docket of the following
case of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:
d) Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (09-56073)
Zernik requests that the Court incorporate by reference of the following record from
the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas.
e) March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #248) in the Case of Borrower
William Allen Parsley (05-90374) [ 1 ]
Zernik requests that the Court incorporate by reference, of the following record of the
US District Court, Central District of California:
f) General Order 08-02 [ 2 ]
1
For ease of reference by readers with no access to PACER, a copy was posted online:
2
For ease of reference, a copy was posted online: Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/
2/5
8: REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
2. Request is for incorporation of both the PACER records and the CM/ECF
records in the cases listed in 1. a), b), and c), above.
The NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing), which are today the electronic certificates of
authentication/attestation of the US District Court are excluded from the PACER (the
District Court’s online public access system) dockets, but are accessible in CM/ECF.
The NEFs and other CM/ECF records are explicitly part of instant Request.
3. The request for incorporation by reference of judicial and clerical records, listed
in 1 a), b), c), and f), above, should not be construed as implying their validity.
Relative to judicial and clerical records, listed in 1 a), b), c), and f), above, instant
request should not be construed as implying their validity. On the contrary, the
concomitantly filed papers claim their invalidity.
4. The above referenced cases provide critical evidence relative to instant filing.
The dockets and court records, listed in 1. a) through f), above, provide critical
evidence in support of claims raised in the Notice to Reliably Inform the Court, the
Motion to Intervene, and the concomitantly filed papers.
5. Therefore, the Court is respectfully requested to incorporate by reference the
records listed in 1 a) through f), above.
For the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-4, above, the incorporation by reference of
records listed in 1 a) through f), above, should be granted.
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
3/5
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
____________
I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, read instant Intervenor’s 8: Verified Request for
Incorporation by Reference, and I know the content thereof to be true and correct, it is
Executed on this 27th day in December, 2010.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
____________
Incorporation by Reference on parties in this action by a) emailing, and b) by mailing a
true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid,

(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3180
4/5
(213) 620-7751
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7772
White & Case LLP

(213) 894-4727
USDistrict Court, Central District of California
correct.
Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
5/5
Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813 TOC


vs

___________

9: INTERVENOR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S VERIFIED REQUEST FOR

PERMISSION TO OBTAIN CM/ECF PASSWORD.
Joseph Zernik, PhD
In Pro Se
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
___________
9: VERIFIED REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO OBTAIN CM/ECF PASSWORD
requests that the Court permit him to obtain a CM/ECF password.
1. Zernik is readily familiar with CM/ECF procedures.
Zernik has read and reviewed the CM/ECF manuals and instruction video transcripts
of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and comparable materials of various US District
Court and Courts of Appeals.
Zernik also published review of CM/ECF in a peer-reviewed international computer
science journal. [ 1 ]
Zernik has also authored another report pertaining to CM/ECF, currently pending
peer-review in an international law journal. [ 2 ]
2. Absence access to CM/ECF, Zernik is placed in serious disadvantage in the
litigation.
Conditions, where one party to litigation is denied access to CM/ECF, while other
parties are permitted access, are claimed to put the party, which is denied access, in
serious disadvantage, alleged as denial of Due Process rights. (see also 7: Motion for a
Declaratory Mandate in re: General Order 08-02 CM/ECF)
3. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals is respectfully requested to permit Zernik to
obtain a CM/ECF password.
1
Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts,
International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
2
Zernik, J Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts in the United
States - pending
2/4
9: REQUEST FOR CM/ECF PASSWORD
For the reasons listed in paragraphs 1-2, above, the US Court should grant Zernik’s
request for permission to obtain CM/ECF password.
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
____________
I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, read instant Intervenor’s 9: Request for Permission to
Obtain CM/ECF Password, and I know the content thereof to be true and correct, it is
____________________
Joseph Zernik
____________
Permission to Obtain CM/ECF Password on parties in this action by a) emailing, and
b) by mailing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage
fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
3/4
(202) 514-3388
(202) 514-3309
(202) 514-3180

(213) 620-7772
(213) 620-7785
(213) 620-7751
White & Case LLP

(213) 894-4727
correct.
Joseph Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2231 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (323) 521-6209
Facsimile (213) 261-9881
4/4

10-12-27 Log Cabin Republicans V USA Et Al (10-56634 and 10-56813) in The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, DR Joseph Zernik's Motion To Intervene S

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

10-12-27 Log Cabin Republicans V USA Et Al (10-56634 and 10-56813) in The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, DR Joseph Zernik's Motion To Intervene S

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case Nos 10-56634 and 10-56813

IN THE UNIED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Log Cabin Republicans,

United States of America; Robert M Gates,

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1: [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S REQUEST TO

Joseph Zernik, PhD Digitally signed by

C. List of Cases and Courts … iii

D. Table of Authorities … iii

F. Request to File, Notice to Inform, and Motion To Intervene …3

G. Point & Authorities in re: Notice to Reliably Inform the Court …4

H. Points & Authorities in re: Motion to Intervene …7

I. Points & Authorities in re: Intervention Per Se … 11

L. Request For Intervention & Prayer for Relief … 14

Exhibit 1:1: Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425):

Exhibit 4:1: Fine v Sheriff et al (2:09-cv-01914):

8: Request for Incorporation by Reference PAGE 162

C. LIST OF CASES AND COURTS

1. Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), USDC, CACD

2. Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (2:04-cv-08425), USDC, CACD

3. Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634 and 10-56813), USCA, 9th

4. Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (2:09-cv-01914), USDC, CACD

5. Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (09-56073), USCA, 9TH

Equal Protection Rights … 3:5; 4:8; 7:7

Access to the Courts Rights … 3:5; 4:8;7:3,6,9

First Amendment Rights … 3:5; 5:2,3,6; 7:3,4,5,6;

Federal Due Process Rights … 1:12; 3:5; 4:6,8; 5:4,6;

Code of Conduct of US Judge … 1:3

28 USC §1691 … 1:6

28 USC §2071-7, Rule Making Enabling Act … 5:4; 7:4

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) … 7:9

Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc 435 U.S. 589 (1978) … 5:4

777 F.2d 462 … 2:2

E. [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S NOTICE OF REQUEST

TO FILE, NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM THE COURT, AND MOTION TO

TO THE COURT AND PARTIES OF RECORD, please notice Dr Joseph Zernik’s

Conduct, and Verified Motion to Intervene, filed herein pursuant to FRCivP.

integral part of this Request, including, but not limited to:

3: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate in re: Zernik v Connor et al

records were issued with invalid electronic certificates of authentication/attestation

with no ‘electronic document stamp’.

access system) docket in the case.

the Court null and void.

null and void.

5: Motion for a Declaratory Mandate: The NEFs are Public Records

as electronic certificates by the Clerk

7: Motion for Declaratory Mandate: Establishment of CM/ECF in the US District

Court through the General Order 08-02 amounts to Deprivation of Rights.

remedies pertaining to underlying conditions at the US District Court, Central District of

certify the PACER docket.

pertaining to Constitutional and Civil Rights, Banking Regulation, and management of

the Armed Services.

Dated: December 27th, 2010 Joseph Zernik

F. [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR DR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S REQUEST TO FILE,

NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM THE COURT, AND VERIFIED MOTION TO

TO THE COURT AND PARTIES OF RECORD, Intervenor Dr Joseph Zernik

States of America et al (10-56634 and 10-56813), pursuant to FRCivP.

and Motion to Intervene.

2: Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;

3: Motion for Declaratory Mandate in re: Joseph Zernik v Jacqueline Connor et al

(2:08-cv-01550) - The uncertified April 24, 2009 Judgment in Zernik v Connor et

al was, is, and always will be void, not voidable;