Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States District Court Central District of California: Civil Minutes - General Page I Of2

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    33 views2 pages
    Please note: The herein "Minute" of the US District Court, Central District of California, is deemed as Judicial Fraud on the Court, since it was issued with no “Document Stamp” in the respective NEFs, which is required pursuant to the Court’s General Order 08-02 as authentication/certification by the Clerk, a fact that could not be discerned in the PACER docket of the US District Court. Moreover, the pretense June 6, 2008 “Minutes” was issued with no authority at all by Donna Thomas, who was – upon information and belief – Courtroom Deputy, fraudulently identified in the “Minutes” as a “Deputy Clerk”. Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi, and Presiding Judge Audrey Collins refused to respond on repeated requests to confirm or deny the fact, alternatively – to initiate corrective actions.

    Original Title

    08-06-06 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California Dkt #063 - Magistrate Carla Woehrle's purported "Minutes" - contriving novel dishonest docketing rules, alleged as Fraud on the Court.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Please note: The herein "Minute" of the US District Court, Central District of California, is deemed as Judicial Fraud on the Court, since it was issued with no “Document Stamp” in the respective NEFs, which is required pursuant to the Court’s General Order 08-02 as authentication/certification by the Clerk, a fact that could not be discerned in the PACER docket of the US District Court. Moreover, the pretense June 6, 2008 “Minutes” was issued with no authority at all by Donna Thomas, who was – upon information and belief – Courtroom Deputy, fraudulently identified in the “Minutes” as a “Deputy Clerk”. Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi, and Presiding Judge Audrey Collins refused to respond on repeated requests to confirm or deny the fact, alternatively – to initiate corrective actions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    33 views2 pages

    United States District Court Central District of California: Civil Minutes - General Page I Of2

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    Please note: The herein "Minute" of the US District Court, Central District of California, is deemed as Judicial Fraud on the Court, since it was issued with no “Document Stamp” in the respective NEFs, which is required pursuant to the Court’s General Order 08-02 as authentication/certification by the Clerk, a fact that could not be discerned in the PACER docket of the US District Court. Moreover, the pretense June 6, 2008 “Minutes” was issued with no authority at all by Donna Thomas, who was – upon information and belief – Courtroom Deputy, fraudulently identified in the “Minutes” as a “Deputy Clerk”. Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi, and Presiding Judge Audrey Collins refused to respond on repeated requests to confirm or deny the fact, alternatively – to initiate corrective actions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    ...

    Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 63 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 2

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    cnnLNUNUTES-GENERAL
    CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) June 6, 2008

    Zernik v. Connor, et al.

    Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge

    Donna Y. Thomas n/a n/a


    Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

    Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

    n/a n/a
    Proceedings: (In Chambers)

    1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint ("FAC H ) was filed on May


    27, 2008, as docket no. 62, and has replaced the original Complaint
    (docket no. 1, filed March 5, '2008). In light of the filing of the
    FAC, the following motions are denied, without prejudice, as moot:

    (a) motion to dismiss, docket no. 13, filed March 24, 2008.
    (b) motion to dismiss, docket no. 16, filed March 27, 2008.
    (c) motion to dismiss, docket no. 19, filed March 28, 2008.
    (d) motion to dismiss, docket no. 23, filed March 28, 2008.
    (e) request for leave to file FAC, docket no. 58, filed May 9, 2008.
    (f) request for reconsideration, docket no. 61, filed May 27, 2008.

    2. Defendants who have already appeared shall serve and file an


    answer or other response to the FAC on or before June 26, 2008. If
    defendants'move to dismiss the FAC they may incorporate by reference,
    as appropriate, the previously filed motions to dismiss.

    3. Once defendants have responded to the FAC, the court will


    issue further orders, including setting any deadlines for responsive
    pleadings by plaintiff or replies by defendants.

    4. ,The court is making every effort to ensure that all filed


    documents are docketed, and that documents filed by hard copy are
    scanned and linked to the docket. This process -- especially the
    scanning of large numbers of lengthy paper documents -- takes
    considerable staff time. Because of the limits on the availability of
    court staff to do this work, it is sometimes necessary for paper
    documents to be scanned or docketed after the date on which they were
    filed. Plaintiff is assured that any such delay will not affect the
    legal status of such documents, or the date on which they are legally
    construed as having been filed.
    CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page I of2
    Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW ,no
    "
    Document 63 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 2 of 2

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    CnnLN.UNUTES-GENERAL
    CV 08-1550-VAP(CW) June 6, 2008
    Zemik v. Connor, et a1.

    5. If any party believes that a filed document is missing from


    the record, the party is asked to first wait a reasonable time to
    allow the court to catch up with the docketing process, and then to
    file a notice attaching a copy of the face page ,of the missing
    document and making clear when the document was filed.

    6. Multiple documents filed together on the same day may appear


    under the same docket number as attachments. So long as the text of
    the attachments can be accessed electronically from the docket, this
    is not a problem: the documents in question are in the record, are
    accessible electronically, and will be given all due consideration by
    the court.

    7. The court has located several filed documents which do not


    appear to have been scanned. They will be scanned and docketed as
    soon as staff is available to do so.

    8. Plaintiff's ex parte application to seal document (docket


    no. 49, filec;i May 8, 2008) is DENIED. The documents in question do
    not require filing under seal, and will be returned to plaintiff in
    the mail under separate cover.

    9. Plaintiff is reminded that he must comply with requirements


    of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4' as to service of summons and complaint. On
    or before June 26, 2008, plaintiff shall file any proofs of service as
    to defendants who have been served but have not yet appeared.

    cc: Plaintiff and All Counsel

    CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page2of2

    You might also like