b) Invalid implementation of electronic signatures
Today, all records of the US district and appeals courts are electronic records. However, no valid, visible electronic signatures are to be found on any such records. The courts use various forms of invalid signatures: Scanned images of hand-signatures, initials, /s/, typed names, or no signature at all. The notion that a national project of such scope failed to implement valid, publicly visible electronic signatures cannot be reasonably deemed an oversight, or human error.
c) Invalid implementation of authentication and service instruments and procedures (NEF/NDA)
From top:
a)
NEF with "Electronic Document Stamps" (red frames), USDC
CAED. b)
NEF,
missing the "Electronic Document Stamp", Dkt #59, Mandate
of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as docketed
in Fine
v Sheriff - Habeas
Corpus, USDC CACD (section
C3a). c)
Two
PACER docket entries in SEC
v BAC -
banking regulation under the financial crisis ,
USDC
NYSD. January
12, 2010 entry (Dkt #73, Order) is linked to an actual record.
January 19, 2010 entry (Dkt #none, Minutes) is not linked to any
record, and therefore, such "docket text only" notation
couldn't possibly be authenticated by an NEF. The January 19, 2010
telephone hearing and its minutes should be deemed simulated court
hearing and simulated minutes, like many others similar entries in
the same docket. (section C2h) d)
Docket
entry in In
RE: Ronald Gottschalk ,
USDC CACD, "Order of Disbarment ...deleted for the following
reason: Reported that the NEF was not generated." This unique text
provide affirmation by Chief Judge of the US District Court that a
record with no valid NEF is a void judicial record.
____
Although never lawfully established, the US courts implemented the NEF/NDA as authentication instruments in CM/ECF in the district and appeals courts, respectively. The NEF/NDA substitutes the Certificate of Service and Notice of Entry of Judgment by the Clerk of the Court. The NEF/NDA is invalid on its face as an authentication instrument. It fails to state the name and authority of an individual, who issued it, fails to include the certification statement "I the undersigned hereby certify...", bears no valid signature, not sent and delivered as a an accompanying record to the actual court record; only a hyperlink is provided. Furthermore, the public and pro se filers are denied access the NEF/NDA. Extensive research failed to discover a single "Notice of Entry of Judgment", a key Due Process record, prescribed by US law, since the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF. With it, the courts of appeals conduct with no authority at all simulated appeals, taken from uncertified judgments of the district courts.
f) Invalid implementation of authorities and permissions
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
