Talk:Notice of electronic filing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Calling upon All Persons of Good Faith and Good Will to help in completing this stub

Additional material would be added in the next 24-48 hours, to allow review and editing. Looking for those who are into law and/or digital encryption, etc, for help in review of this matter.--InproperinLA (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution, InproperinLA. I've taken a look at this page, and I have to admit it has a tendency to read like it was written by someone who is convinced he got screwed in court by something that was filed without a NEF, and has now set out to prove the "critical significance" of the NEF.

Hi Glenfarclas: The issue at stake was and is primarily the false imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine, a separate entry please see "Richard Isaac Fine". That was what brought me to the table of Wikipedia. It was and is an ongoing saga, some say it grew into an "urban myth", whatever that means... I say, an "urban myth" is when you become a character in a video game, and Fine is not yet there :) albeit, maybe close :). His hebeas corpus rulings, and the rulings from the U.S. court of appeals, 9th Circuit, on emergency petition from the habeas corpus, were all sham papers, with no NEFs. However, the practice was widespread in the U.S. today, and should be deemed a human rights violation upon review by human rights courts. The most common victims were habeas corpus filers. They have no way to check the dockets. InproperinLA (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Glenfrclas: Upon second reading, I realized that you missed the point altogether. For example, the orders of the court state explicitly that no prisoners would be allowed access to CM/ECF. Therefore, they were left with no way to know what is valid and what is not. You edited it to read as if it was up to the attorney or pro se filer to opt in any given case to be included in CM/ECF. That was never the case. In fact, I believed that a stronger statement could have been justified, that the dual systems established dual classes of access to court papers. However, I decided that such statement would not read "encyclopedic".InproperinLA (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my educated guess, so no offense but I've tried to remove a lot of the original-research sounding language, as well as some of the mistakes, like claiming that the C. Dist. of Calif. order you linked to wasn't dated (check at the bottom). Best of luck in continuing to improve this article. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I appreciate it, especially the ones that get detailed. It shows that you invested time and intellectual capital in the matter... You are in part right on the date... I should not have separated date and signature, they are part of one and the same. A signature with no date is invalid signature, and date with no signature is an invalid date... Regardless, in terms of clear writing, you are on the mark.InproperinLA (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Glendfarclas: I wonder if you realize what "authentication" means, and also the significance of signatures on court orders. upon second reading, I realized that you deleted the fact that the 08-02 General Order, which was the only potential "official" reference for the operation of the system, was an unsigned order, leaving the whole system with no foundation.InproperinLA (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll continue to look at this in the future. A couple of points:

"A signature with no date is invalid signature, and date with no signature is an invalid date." I'm not sure what basis you might claim for this, but I've got to tell you that you're mistaken. I'm not even sure what the concept of "an invalid date" is supposed to mean. But a contract, for instance, need not be dated at all to be enforceable if it is signed by the parties.
From all the sources you've provided, a NEF replaces a certificate of service. But valid service (or the availability of proof of the validity of service) has no bearing at all on the authenticity of a filing. An authentic filing could be (and often enough is) invalidly served, and (I guess) an inauthentic document could be validly served.
I realize you live in the Central District of California, but that doesn't make LA the be-all and end-all of electronic filing. So an unsigned C.D.Cal. order could not "leav[e] the whole system with no foundation"; at most, it could leave the whole system in central California with no foundation, which is a much more limited thing to say.
But, of course, you have no proof that (1) a general order of this type is invalid if not signed, nor (2) that the paper order on file in the Clerk's office, as opposed to this electronic copy provided for the public's convenience, is unsigned.
And even if you did, I regret to say that Wikipedia not the right place to marshal your arguments and attempt to prove something new, like your claim that the entire NEF system is baseless. You should check out the guidelines on verifiability and original research. I'm afraid that a lot of this article as it currently stands doesn't live up to those guidelines. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenfarclas, you are correct. The arguments about the NEF are original research and lack reliable sources, and not be included in wikipedia. I notice the emergence of an edit war on this point. --Weazie (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much of this article is incorrect and without foundation that it is fundamentally misleading to anyone who relies on notices of electronic filing or is trying to learn about them. A major edit is needed. --DiacriticalOne (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]