I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Yoko suit documents should be filed electronically

As I previously noted, the temporary restraining order in the Yoko Ono v. Premise Media ("Expelled") copyright infringement suit required hand delivery of documents. A June 2004 press release from the federal district court where the suit was filed says,

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York announced today that beginning June 7, 2004, all District Judges and Magistrate Judges will assign newly filed civil and criminal cases to the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system . . . .With certain limited exceptions, documents filed in ECF cases must be filed electronically and will not be accepted in paper form . . .

Older cases . . .as well as pro se cases, Habeas Corpus cases, Social Security cases, and Multi-District Litigation will not be electronically filed and should continue to be filed on paper. . . .

Don't have a computer or scanner? Bring your ECF password and the paper documents to the courthouse, and you can use our public computers to electronically file your documents.

Electronic filing has a lot of advantages -- instant transmission, the documents can be easily accessed, copied, excerpted, and re-transmitted from anywhere, and the documents cannot easily be misplaced.

At first I was confident that the judge would deny the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, but now I am beginning to wonder -- this judge is beginning to look like a nutcase.

Labels:

31 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> this judge is beginning to look like a nutcase. <

That seems to be the best evidence of his sanity that you could give.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:14:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> That seems to be the best evidence of his sanity that you could give. <<<<<<

You are really sick. Can you justify the exception that he made to the court rules?

You are just trying to sabotage this blog by posting breathtakingly inane comments.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Dunghill, you are making the breathtakingly inane comments. Are you trying to sabotage your own blog?

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, yet another judge looks like a nutcase according to you. I think that is the third judge now (Jones, the California judge in your own case, and this one).

Larry, do you ever stop to consider that if several people - acknowledged experts in their profession, as judges are - disagree with you, then the most likley explanation is that YOU are wrong?

And doesn't the fact that you have no training in, or genuine experience of, law act as another pojinter to the same conclusion - or at least, make you stop to consider that you are the one who's got it wrong?

Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:42:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Larry, do you ever stop to consider that if several people - acknowledged experts in their profession, as judges are - disagree with you, then the most likley explanation is that YOU are wrong? <<<<<<

No, you stupid ignoramus. For example, as for the judges in my lawsuits, attorneys have told me that judges are prejudiced against pro se litigants. I can believe it. It is a matter of professional jealousy. Law is the most snobbish of the professions -- as I have pointed out, the overrepresentation of Ivy League law schools -- particularly Harvard Law School -- on the Supreme Court and in courts' citations of law journals is grotesque. And judges give short shrift or no shrift to low-profile cases in order to make more time for high-profile cases. You are just completely ignorant about how the courts operate.

>>>>> And doesn't the fact that you have no training in, or genuine experience of, law act as another pojinter to the same conclusion - or at least, make you stop to consider that you are the one who's got it wrong? <<<<<<

You stupid dunghill, I have pointed out many times that laypeople have become experts in narrow areas of the law just through extensive study of those areas. Have you ever heard the term "jailhouse lawyer"? That's the name for prison inmates who become quite good at representing themselves in court, even though many of them have little formal education. Some jailhouse lawyers even assist other inmates with legal matters -- Wikipedia says,

Many states in the U.S. have Jailhouse Lawyer Statutes, some of which exempt inmates acting as jailhouse lawyers from the licensing requirements imposed on other attorneys when they are helping indigent inmates with legal matters.

You sure are a dumb piece of shit.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:29:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Furthermore --

>>>>>> And doesn't the fact that you have no training in, or genuine experience of, law act as another pojinter to the same conclusion <<<<<<

I have admitted to having no formal training in the law, but I have not admitted to having no "genuine experience" in the law. Who in the hell are you to judge my experience in the law?

You criticize me for posting comments where I am not wanted, but look at you and your pal ViU. What a bunch of lousy hypocrites. Just get the hell off this blog, both of you, damn you. You don't make any worthwhile contributions to the discussions here.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ooh, touched a nerve there, I think....

"For example, as for the judges in my lawsuits, attorneys have told me that judges are prejudiced against pro se litigants. I can believe it. It is a matter of professional jealousy."

Er, no. The problem with pro se litigants is that judges have to give them a fair degree of latitude and put up with all sorts of spurious and, frankly, erroneous legal arguments, as well as posturing. A lot of pro se litigants aren't really interested in the legal situation, they are looking to make a statement. It's no wonder that judges get hacked off with them. Nothing to do with "professional jealousy" because the judges have nothing to be jealous about. It's just really frustrating to see someone whose ignorant of the field either abusing it to make a statement or just getting things really wrong so the judge has to do a lot of babysitting.

"And judges give short shrift or no shrift to low-profile cases in order to make more time for high-profile cases."

If that means they spend more time and effort on the cases most important to the public interest then more power to them.

"You stupid dunghill, I have pointed out many times that laypeople have become experts in narrow areas of the law just through extensive study of those areas. Have you ever heard the term "jailhouse lawyer"? That's the name for prison inmates who become quite good at representing themselves in court, even though many of them have little formal education."

Yes indeed - there again, they still have to put in the time and do the study. There again, time is something a lot of inmates have, so no surprise that some get good at it. But they are the exception rather than the rule. You are the rule.

"You sure are a dumb piece of shit."

A classic example of why you do not have the temperament to make a decent legal argument.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>> Ooh, touched a nerve there, I think <<<<<<

If you went through what I went through, you worthless sack of #$%&*, you would have a raw nerve too. You are a complete ignoramus spouting off as if you know something about how the courts operate.

>>>>> The problem with pro se litigants is that judges have to give them a fair degree of latitude and put up with all sorts of spurious and, frankly, erroneous legal arguments, as well as posturing. <<<<<<<

Ahem. You think that attorneys don't "posture" and make "all sorts of spurious and, frankly, erroneous legal arguments"? In my lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the county's attorney repeatedly made the false defense that I did not give the county advance notice of intent to sue, even though the law required such notice only for monetary suits, which my suit was not. In another of my lawsuits against the state, the state's attorney sent me interrogatories asking for personal information that had nothing to do with my lawsuit. There are other examples. The legal profession does not have a bad reputation for nothing.

In my federal suit against California's grossly unconstitutional "smog impact fee," I argued that the state lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by "leaving the sphere that was entirely its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the fee entirely upon the state's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations. The state did not even attempt to answer the argument. There was NO oral hearing and NO written opinion. My argument was later supported (no support was really necessary) by an expert's testimony in state court that the fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

So don't give me that crap.

>>>>>> Nothing to do with "professional jealousy" because the judges have nothing to be jealous about. <<<<<<

Law is the most snobbish of the professions -- see my post Hahvahd Law School snobbery"

>>>>> If that means they spend more time and effort on the cases most important to the public interest then more power to them. . <<<<<<

My case was important -- hundreds of millions of dollars were being paid on a grossly unconstitutional tax.

Also, plaintiffs in low profile cases pay the same court fees as the plaintiffs in high profile cases and are entitled to some consideration. In my suit against the smog impact fee, there was NO oral hearing and NO written opinion.

>>>>> they still have to put in the time and do the study. <<<<<

And I put in the time and did the study.

Dunghills like you are called "finks" -- jerks who always side with the bigshots against the little guy.

Now get lost, damn you. You've had your say and then some.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm afraid your attitude and intemperate language give an indication of why you have made no impression in the courts. Few judges would tolerate that kind of attitude.

The fact remains: you keep referring to judges as nutcases. The laws of probability suggest you have the problem, not them, because they are experienced and you are not. They have formally studied law, you have not. The law of averages suggests they are in the right, not you. Rant as much as you like, but you are just beatig your head against a brick wall, for nothing.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:09:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

You mean that you are not done yet, dunghill?

>>>>>> The laws of probability suggest you have the problem, not them, because they are experienced and you are not. <<<<<<

The laws of probability say that Darwinism is wrong.

>>>>>> They have formally studied law, you have not. <<<<<<

That lousy sleazebag judge TJ "Mad" Hatter knew nothing or next to nothing about auto emissions laws. A real expert testified in state court that the smog impact fee required the approval of the US EPA. The US EPA was therefore an appropriate co-defendant and my lawsuit therefore belonged in federal court.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> The laws of probability say that Darwinism is wrong. <

You have shown that you know nothing about the laws of probability.

> That lousy sleazebag judge TJ "Mad" Hatter knew nothing or next to nothing about auto emissions laws. <

He didn't have to. Since you had no standing to sue, despite your later perjury, the question is moot.

The probability is that he did know more about auto emissions laws than you as every legal analysis you have given on this blog shows you to be quite inept on the subject.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:21:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Why don't you bozos go to other blogs and tell the bloggers there that they don't know anything and see how far you get.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry asks, apparently puzzled, Why don't you bozos go to other blogs and tell the bloggers there that they don't know anything and see how far you get.

Why would you want them (us) to leave? We're the only ones who bring sanity to your otherwise unstable blog. If you were right, we wouldn't have anything to argue about. Since you're wrong -- about just about everything it seems -- we are needed.

Friday, May 23, 2008 7:46:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Larry asks, apparently puzzled <<<<<

I'm not puzzled -- you are, dunghill.

>>>>> If you were right, we wouldn't have anything to argue about. <<<<<<<

The problem is that you don't argue, bozo -- you just say that I am wrong and/or that I don't know anything. When you think I am wrong, you should try to show why I am wrong rather than just say that I am wrong and/or that I don't know anything.

Friday, May 23, 2008 8:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Why don't you bozos go to other blogs and tell the bloggers there that they don't know anything and see how far you get. <

Because we don't know of any other blogs where the blogger so consistently shows that he doesn't know anything.

> The problem is that you don't argue, bozo -- you just say that I am wrong and/or that I don't know anything. <

We do show how your are wrong and you just pretend that the arguments have not been made - let alone won.

In contrast you just say that you are right and repeat your original statements rather than trying to support them with facts.

If you don't want people to believe that your are wrong and/or that you don't know anything, stop trying so hard to prove it.

Friday, May 23, 2008 9:05:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Rather than dwelling on Larry's ignorance of legal concepts dating back 12 years, let's look at his ignorance dating to this week.

The title of this post, while true, is quite misleading. It falsely implies that the documents are not being filed electronically. They are being filed electronically (as anyone with PACER access and a couple of bucks to burn can ascertain for themselves). Nor has the judge ruled otherwise.

The confusion arises from Larry not understanding that there is a legal distinction between serving documents and filing documents. Documents are served to attorneys and then (subsequently or concurrently) filed with the court. Rule 5 of the FRCP covers the responsibilities for distributing of documents.

And according to Rule 5, electronic service of documents requires the written approval of the receiving attorney. Can Larry justify the exception he is demanding to the court rules?

Why should the court care that the lawyers would rather receive paper copies? If the lawyers are willing to lose that little bit of extra time they might or might not gain (after all, to know that you have received an email, you have to be looking at your email), what difference does it make to the court? If a lawyer is willing to shorten the amount of time he'd normally have to respond in order to speed up the process, what harm is there to the court or the other party?

Another tidbit. At the time the Order to Show Cause was issued, the California and Texas lawyers had not yet been admitted pro hac vice. Therefore, the only defense lawyer that could be served was the local lawyer. The delay appears to be caused by errors in the requests for admission.

Friday, May 23, 2008 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry's attempt to rationalize his blog posts and comments in light of W. Kevin Vicklund's recent informative comments in 5...4...3...2... (I think I see steam as Larry tries to defend his writings)....

Friday, May 23, 2008 1:26:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous heaved,

>>>>> Larry's attempt to rationalize his blog posts and comments in light of W. Kevin Vicklund's recent informative comments in 5...4...3...2... (I think I see steam as Larry tries to defend his writings).... <<<<<

You hypocritical dunghill, do you waste comment space on other blogs by making comments like that even before the blogger has had a chance to answer? Then why in hell do you do it on this blog?

You no-good sack of living crap, that is the last time a comment like that won't be deleted here. Deleting such comments is not censorship.

You dunghills are just cluttering up this blog with your crap.

Friday, May 23, 2008 1:45:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>You hypocritical dunghill, do you waste comment space on other blogs by making comments like that even before the blogger has had a chance to answer?<<<

You sure as hell do, Larry. You did it a week ago on Ed's blog (the Caldwell post). The anti-evoltuionists on PT do it all the time. The anti-HIV crowd at Aetiology do it all the time.

In fact, it is a very common phenomenon on the web.

Oh, and your attempt to deflect notice from the egg dripping down your face is hereby futile.

Friday, May 23, 2008 2:08:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund barfed,
>>>>>> Rather than dwelling on Larry's ignorance of legal concepts dating back 12 years, let's look at his ignorance dating to this week.

The confusion arises from Larry not understanding that there is a legal distinction between serving documents and filing documents. <<<<<<

Kevin, you lousy dunghill, can't you ever raise an objection without making personal attacks? Do you do this kind of shit to other bloggers and commenters?

Anyway, I will answer the issues you raised.

This local rule of the Southern New York federal district court does not distinguish between "serving" and "filing." It is normal to assume that documents will be filed with a court in the same form in which they are served. In my lawsuits, I served paper documents by snail-mail and I filed the documents with the courts by personal hand delivery for local courts and snail-mail for out-of-town courts (I often sent documents by certified mail with a return receipt, but this was not a requirement). My reasons for hand delivery to local courts: time was often short and I also wanted to make sure that the documents were timely filed. At the federal court house, I often saw couriers who were there to hand-deliver documents and get copies of the documents time-and-date-stamped.

The Temporary Restraining Order in the Yoko case gave no reason for the unusual requirement of hand delivery.

This TRO did not mention electronic filing, so I naturally assumed that hand delivery to the court was also expected.

FRCP Rule 5 requires only one kind of service of documents, not two (e.g., both electronic filing and hand delivery, as you say actually occurred in this case).

The court rule says that with a few exceptions, paper filing would not even be accepted.

>>>>> Why should the court care that the lawyers would rather receive paper copies? <<<<<

The rules are the rules, and the rules say that the documents are supposed to be filed electronically. If the parties want to deliver the documents in other ways as well, that is no business of the judge.

>>>>> Another tidbit. At the time the Order to Show Cause was issued, the California and Texas lawyers had not yet been admitted pro hac vice. <<<<<<<

What difference does that make? Anyway, if the documents are filed electronically, then anyone can access them.

>>>You hypocritical dunghill, do you waste comment space on other blogs by making comments like that even before the blogger has had a chance to answer?<

You sure as hell do, Larry. You did it a week ago on Ed's blog (the Caldwell post). <<<<<<<<<

Bullshit -- Ed won't even allow me to post comments on his blog.

>>>>> In fact, it is a very common phenomenon on the web. <<<<<<

Not that I have noticed. Furthermore, a lot of bloggers participate little or not at all in the discussions on their blogs.

Friday, May 23, 2008 2:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU drivels,

>>>>>We do show how your are wrong and you just pretend that the arguments have not been made <<<<<<

ViU, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. In most cases, you do not even attempt to show that I am wrong.

Next time you make some breathtakingly inane comment, I will remind you of your ridiculous claim here.

Friday, May 23, 2008 2:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> You no-good sack of living crap, that is the last time a comment like that won't be deleted here. <

So you are going back to your previous censorship. Yet you still wonder why you are not being taken seriously.

> Deleting such comments is not censorship. <

It is just a sign that you have no answer to Kevin's post and you are trying to divert us from that. If you can't answer perhaps this is better than your usual posting of proof that you don't understand.

Friday, May 23, 2008 9:24:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> It is just a sign that you have no answer to Kevin's post and you are trying to divert us from that. <<<<<

I just answered Kevin's post, dunghill.

Comments that do not address the issues and that just attack me personally will no longer be tolerated here. Those comments just waste comment space and readers have to wade through them to read the substantial comments. You have repeatedly falsely accused me of censorship anyway, so I might as well just delete your crap that doesn't say anything. The party is over.

Friday, May 23, 2008 10:35:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Kevin, you lousy dunghill, can't you ever raise an objection without making personal attacks?<<<

The hypocrisy of that statement is breathtaking. Not to mention the fact that pointing out that someone made an error due to ignorance is not a personal attack.

>>>Do you do this kind of shit to other bloggers and commenters?<<<

Yes. If you feel picked on, it's merely a reflection of the fact that you pontificate upon so many things that you happen to be ignorant about. Welcome to the internet.

>>>Anyway, I will answer the issues you raised.<<<

This ought to be interesting. Did Larry actually understand my comment, or did he just raise irrelevant objections to obfuscate his ignorance? Let's find out.

>>>This local rule of the Southern New York federal district court does not distinguish between "serving" and "filing."<<<

Irrelevant objection. The local rule refers to FRCP Rule 5, which does make the distinction. Since the local rule refers only to filing, we should assume it only refers to filing. For example, if a school district had a rule that students were not allowed to park on campus during normal instructional hours, we should not assume that teachers are similarly banned from parking.

>>>It is normal to assume that documents will be filed with a court in the same form in which they are served.<<<

To someone who is ignorant of court procedure, this would be reasonable. Someone familiar with Rule 5 would know that the procedures for service and filing are not the same, and therefore would not normally make that assumption.

>>>In my lawsuits, I served paper documents by snail-mail and I filed the documents with the courts by personal hand delivery for local courts and snail-mail for out-of-town courts (I often sent documents by certified mail with a return receipt, but this was not a requirement). My reasons for hand delivery to local courts: time was often short and I also wanted to make sure that the documents were timely filed. At the federal court house, I often saw couriers who were there to hand-deliver documents and get copies of the documents time-and-date-stamped.<<<

And the point of stating this is what? To prove that your ignorance is due to an inability to understand legal concepts, rather than simply being unaware of the existence of the Rule? That puts you in an even worse light, Larry.

>>>The Temporary Restraining Order in the Yoko case gave no reason for the unusual requirement of hand delivery.<<<

Unusual? Service by hand delivery is the standard. Electronic service requires a written request, according to the FRCP. Service =/= filing.

>>>This TRO did not mention electronic filing, so I naturally assumed that hand delivery to the court was also expected.<<<

The Order to Show Cause did not mention filing of any sort. The natural assumption, knowing that filing is required and has separate procedures than service, is that filing is to occur in the manner normally prescribed by the court.

>>>FRCP Rule 5 requires only one kind of service of documents, not two (e.g., both electronic filing and hand delivery, as you say actually occurred in this case).<<<

I did not say that at all. Filing, as I said previously, is not the same as service. That electronic filing occured does not tell us that electronic service occured.

>>>The court rule says that with a few exceptions, paper filing would not even be accepted.<<<

And since filing and service are two separate legal concepts, this rule is irrelevant to whether paper service is accepted.

>>>>> Why should the court care that the lawyers would rather receive paper copies? <<<<<

>>>The rules are the rules, and the rules say that the documents are supposed to be filed electronically. If the parties want to deliver the documents in other ways as well, that is no business of the judge.<<<

However, since the local rule you referenced didn't say that the documents have to be served electronically, the FRCP (which clearly delineates between serving and filing) is the authority. Since the FRCP states that electronic service is only permitted with the written consent of the attorney being served, the judge is bound by the FRCP. So my question either remains unanswered or Larry's second sentence is his answer.

>>>>> Another tidbit. At the time the Order to Show Cause was issued, the California and Texas lawyers had not yet been admitted pro hac vice. <<<<<<<

>>>What difference does that make? Anyway, if the documents are filed electronically, then anyone can access them.<<<

This was an oblique reference to a previous objection you had raised, about whether the California and Texas lawyers should have been served. A lawyer can't officially be served until they are admitted. And again, I stress that serving and filing are two separate actions with different procedures.

>>>>>>You hypocritical dunghill, do you waste comment space on other blogs by making comments like that even before the blogger has had a chance to answer?<<<

>>>You sure as hell do, Larry. You did it a week ago on Ed's blog (the Caldwell post). <<<<<<<<<

>>>Bullshit -- Ed won't even allow me to post comments on his blog.<<<

Whcih doesn't prevent you from posting comments on his blog which are later deleted by Ed, as happened a week ago Friday on the Caldwell thread. Larry is eerily similar to Larry the Crocodile (and the rest of the adult male crocs) in the comic strip Pearls Before Swine. Today's strip is particularly apropos.

>>>>> In fact, it is a very common phenomenon on the web. <<<<<<

>>>Not that I have noticed. Furthermore, a lot of bloggers participate little or not at all in the discussions on their blogs.<<<

It is something that I have noticed, and I pointed out quite a few examples. And the "Furthermore, ..." is a non-sequiter.

And just to point out yet another example of Larry's monumental hypocrisy, here is what Larry wrote in a post a week ago today:

I am now expecting an inevitable flood of invective from various trolls -- e.g. , Voice in the Urbanness, Kevin Vicklund, various Anonymous's -- saying that I know nothing about the law while they make no challenges to my above arguments.

Larry is engaging in the exact behavior that he is bitching about other people doing. Motes and beams, Larry. Motes and beams.

Oh, and one more time:

Serving and filing are not the same thing. Any further attempts to conflate them will be regarded as a deliberate lie.

Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:55:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin barfed,
>>>>> If you feel picked on, it's merely a reflection of the fact that you pontificate upon so many things that you happen to be ignorant about. <<<<<<

So you mean that you have never found anyone else on the Internet who you consider to be ignorant about anything, dunghill?

I am instituting some new commenting rules here. One of the new rules is a prohibition on saying that someone else knows nothing about something, or is ignorant about something, that sort of thing. You are free to call me a liar or a pettifogger, but you are not free to call me ignorant. If you want to continue commenting here, that is a rule that you will have to follow. This is not censorship -- you are still free to express your opinions here about the issues.

>>>This local rule of the Southern New York federal district court does not distinguish between "serving" and "filing."
Irrelevant objection. The local rule refers to FRCP Rule 5, which does make the distinction. <<<<<

The press release for the local rule (the link is in my original post) does not mention FRCP Rule 5.

>>>>> Since the local rule refers only to filing, we should assume it only refers to filing. <<<<<<

If the local court rule is intended to distinguish between rules for serving documents and rules for filing documents with the court, the local rule should say so. The court should not expect people to read the court's mind.

>>>>>> For example, if a school district had a rule that students were not allowed to park on campus during normal instructional hours, we should not assume that teachers are similarly banned from parking. <<<<<<

This is a false ViU-type analogy -- it does not excuse courts from having clear, explicit rules.

>>>>> Someone familiar with Rule 5 would know that the procedures for service and filing are not the same, and therefore would not normally make that assumption. <<<<<<

I presume that most people -- even most attorneys -- are not even aware of Rule 5's distinction between filing and service. Filing and service are just routines that attorneys do without thinking that they are following any particular set of rules. Even that local court rule does not follow Rule 5 -- the press release for the new court rule says,

With certain limited exceptions, documents filed in ECF (Electronic Case Filing) cases must be filed electronically and will not be accepted in paper form. (emphasis in original)

-- whereas FRCP Rule 5(c)(4) says,

The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice. (my emphasis)

BTW, I suppose that means that a document may be filed on an 8-inch floppy disc, but I doubt that anyone would try to do that (not if they expect anyone to read the document).

>>>>> Service by hand delivery is the standard. <<<<<<

There is no "standard," but service by regular snail-mail is (or at least was, prior to electronic filing) very common.

>>>>>> Electronic service requires a written request, according to the FRCP. <<<<<

But not according to that local rule, which requires electronic filing. Electronic filing is in effect also electronic service, because the parties to be served can access the court's electronically filed documents. In fact, FRCP Rule 5 says of electronic service, "If a local rule so authorizes, a party may use the court’s transmission facilities to make service under Rule 5(b)(2)(E) "(i.e., electronic service). If there is electronic filing, then additional service by other means would be redundant.

>>>>>> Service =/= filing <<<<<<

You can keep repeating that until you are blue in the face, but the press release (linked in my original post) for the local court rule does not distinguish between filing and service and does not even mention FRCP Rule 5 (not that it matters).

>>>>>> The Order to Show Cause did not mention filing of any sort. The natural assumption, knowing that filing is required and has separate procedures than service, is that filing is to occur in the manner normally prescribed by the court. <<<<<<

As I said, people normally associate filing and service, particularly when the filing is electronic.

>>>>>> That electronic filing occured does not tell us that electronic service occured. <<<<<

As I said, electronic filing is in effect electronic service.

>>>>> However, since the local rule you referenced didn't say that the documents have to be served electronically, the FRCP (which clearly delineates between serving and filing) is the authority. <<<<<

Please, let's forget about FRCP Rule 5 -- the press release for the local rule does not mention it and -- as I showed above -- the local rule does not even follow it.

>>>>> A lawyer can't officially be served until they are admitted. <<<<<

And your authority for that rule is -- ?

>>>>>>Bullshit -- Ed won't even allow me to post comments on his blog.<
Whcih doesn't prevent you from posting comments on his blog which are later deleted by Ed, as happened a week ago Friday on the Caldwell thread. <<<<<<

Prove it.

Also, the Temporary Restraining Order confuses filing and serving by mentioning only serving for some documents and both serving and filing for other documents --

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that good and sufficient service of this Order to Show Cause and other papers on which it is basedshall be made, via hand delivery or Federal Express overnight delivery, to be received on or before April 30, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. on Defendants Premise Media Corporation, L.P., C&S Production L.P. d/b/a Rampant Films, Premise Media Distribution L.P. and Rocky Mountain Pictures, Inc. c/o Allen C. Wasserman, Esq., Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, 885 Third Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10022 and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that answering papers, if any, shall be served upon Plaintiffs by hand delivering copies thereof to Plaintiffs counsel, Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber & Herbsman LLP, 111 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019 on or before May _14_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that reply papers, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon Dendants by hand delivering copies thereof to be retrieved by Defendants’ counsel, on or before May _16_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m..


>>>>> Serving and filing are not the same thing. <<<<<<

They can be the same thing, depending on the circumstances. And people generally associate the two -- they both fall under the same rule, FRCP Rule 5, and people often mean both "filing" and "serving" when they say only "filing" or say only "serving."

Saturday, May 24, 2008 1:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> So you mean that you have never found anyone else on the Internet who you consider to be ignorant about anything, dunghill? <

No, Cretin, that is not what he said. He was pointing out the fact that you seem to limit your comments to subjects of which you are ignorant.

> I am instituting some new commenting rules here. One of the new rules is a prohibition on saying that someone else knows nothing about something, or is ignorant about something, that sort of thing. <

And at the same time you comment about "truthism". You want to arbitrarily censor the truth.

> This is not censorship <

Why do you always want to redefine words. By any dictionary I know of it is censorship. Saying that it isn't, no matter how often you repeat it (and we all know how you are about repetition) it will still remain censorship.

Have you disbanded your Society of Noncensoring Bloggers? It is time to do so.

> If the local court rule is intended to distinguish between rules for serving documents and rules for filing documents with the court, the local rule should say so. <

If they spell out everything that is well known to the people involved, they will have no time for anything else.

> Filing and service are just routines that attorneys do without thinking that they are following any particular set of rules. <

What a totally unsupported and baseless conjecture.

> The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice. <

But the clerks filing of a paper does not constitute required service.

> service by regular snail-mail is (or at least was, prior to electronic filing) very common. <

Of course just mailing something does not constitute service. Other things are required which are well known by most everyone familiar with the law.

I once heard of a bozo who was so dumb that he tried to sue the sheriff that would not serve some of his documents. (Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that we were not supposed to talk about you.)

> Electronic filing is in effect also electronic service, because the parties to be served can access the court's electronically filed documents. <

Service does not just mean that a party has access to a document. There must generally be proof that he has been made aware of it.

>>>>>> Service =/= filing <<<<<<

> You can keep repeating that until you are blue in the face <

And you can keep denying it until you are blue in the face but it will still be true.

And press releases are not an authority for anything.

> As I said, people normally associate filing and service <

Who are these people?

> As I said, electronic filing is in effect electronic service. <

As I said, repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.

> Prove it. <

It passes the "duck test".

> Also, the Temporary Restraining Order confuses filing and serving by mentioning only serving for some documents and both serving and filing for other documents <

Are you saying that an article that mentions dogs and cats confuses dogs and cats?

Serving =/= filing.

Saturday, May 24, 2008 6:44:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

>>>>> That electronic filing occurred does not tell us that electronic service occurred. <<<<<

< As I said, electronic filing is in effect electronic service. >

Yikes! Even when Kevin makes it crystal clear not only that they are different, but even why they are different, you dispute it. Perhaps you are just disputatious.

Your statement is especially absurd, assuming as it does that someone is supposed to be aware of the arrival of documents in a medium which they may or not be monitoring.

Sunday, May 25, 2008 1:48:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>> And at the same time you comment about "truthism". <<<<<

It's called "truthiness," idiot.

>>>>> But the clerks filing of a paper does not constitute required service. <<<<<

I never said that it does, idiot.

>>>>> Of course just mailing something does not constitute service. <<<<<<

You stupid dunghill, in my lawsuits, all service of documents was by snail-mail (except for service of the complaint and summons).

>>>>> I once heard of a bozo who was so dumb that he tried to sue the sheriff that would not serve some of his documents. <<<<<

In my first suit against the smog impact fee, an L.A. County sheriff's office refused to serve the complaint and summons on the federal government, though there was no written rule authorizing such refusal. Service by a sheriff's deputy would not have implied that the county government is superior to the federal government -- such service would have only meant that the service was performed by a responsible person (actually, FRCP Rule 4 says any person over 18 who is not a party to the action may serve the complaint and summons). I hired a private process server. In another lawsuit, another sheriff's office agreed to serve the complaint and summons upon the state government, so there was obviously no consistency there.

'Nonymous said...
>>>>> Yikes! Even when Kevin makes it crystal clear not only that they are different, but even why they are different, you dispute it. Perhaps you are just disputatious. <<<<<<

Let's go over this again. Any sane person reading the press release for the new court rule would assume that the electronic filing also constitutes service. Additional service by other means would be redundant. If for some very strange reason the court did not intend electronic filing to also constitute service, the court should have said so in the press release.

People don't say that a lawsuit was "filed and served" -- people just say that a lawsuit was "filed." It is assumed that the summons and complaint were "served." BTW, service of the summons and complaint is not covered in Rule 5 but is covered by a different rule, Rule 4. Though rule 4 says, "Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint," I hired a professional process server in my suit against the smog impact fee.

Here is what the court's Procedures for Electronic Case Filing says (pages 4-5 of document, pages 5-6 of pdf),

Service of Documents by Electronic Means
Transmission of the Clerk's Notice of Electronic Filing of a document shall constitute service of such document upon any Filing User in that case. It remains the duty of the attorney for a party to review regularly the docket sheet of the case. Attorneys and pro se parties who are not Filing Users shall be served with a paper copy of any electronically filed pleading or other document. Service of such paper copy must be made according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Local Rules.

Public Access
A person may review at the Clerk's office filings that have not been sealed by the Court. A person also may access the Electronic Filing System at the Court's Internet site www.nysd.uscourts.gov by obtaining a PACER log-in and password . . . .. . .


>>>>>> Your statement is especially absurd, assuming as it does that someone is supposed to be aware of the arrival of documents in a medium which they may or not be monitoring. <<<<<<

See the above excerpt from the court's procedures for ECF.

Sunday, May 25, 2008 4:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

>>>>> But the clerks filing of a paper does not constitute required service. <<<<<

> I never said that it does, idiot. <

You certainly implied it by your equating service and filing, cretin.

> You stupid dunghill, in my lawsuits, all service of documents was by snail-mail (except for service of the complaint and summons). <

You mindless cretin, we weren't talking about your lawsuits.

>>>>> I once heard of a bozo who was so dumb that he tried to sue the sheriff that would not serve some of his documents. <<<<<

> In my first suit against the smog impact fee, an L.A. County sheriff's office refused to serve the complaint and summons on the federal government, though there was no written rule authorizing such refusal. <

Was there a written rule requiring this service?

> In another lawsuit <

Without knowing the details of both cases we can't judge this.

> Any sane person reading the press release for the new court rule would assume that the electronic filing also constitutes service. <

How would you know what a sane person would do?

> If for some very strange reason the court did not intend electronic filing to also constitute service, the court should have said so in the press release. <

1. They may assume that the parties know enough about law to know that filing is not the same as service.

2. Press releases are not official court documents.

Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:59:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> In my first suit against the smog impact fee, an L.A. County sheriff's office refused to serve the complaint and summons on the federal government, though there was no written rule authorizing such refusal. <

Was there a written rule requiring this service? <<<<<<

So the sheriff's office may not serve process on a person or entity unless there is a specific rule authorizing such service of process? As I said, all that service of process by a sheriff's deputy means is that process was properly served by a responsible person. It doesn't matter if the process is served on the Man in the Moon.

>>>>>> In another lawsuit [a lawsuit against the state government]<

Without knowing the details of both cases we can't judge this. <<<<<<<

What "details"? The sheriff's office doesn't know and doesn't want to know the contents of served documents.

Yes, I know, ViU, I am always wrong and others are always right.

>>>>> 1. They may assume that the parties know enough about law to know that filing is not the same as service. <<<<<<

They also may assume that parties know enough about law to know that, technically speaking, "filing" a lawsuit in a court is not the same as both "filing" the lawsuit in a court and "serving" the summons and complaint upon the defendant. But it is normally assumed that the term "filing" in regard to a lawsuit implies "serving" the complaint and summons as well.

>>>>> 2. Press releases are not official court documents. <<<<<<<

This one is -- it is posted on the court's website under the court's letterhead.

Now ViU will respond with one of his famous analogies, e.g., "if I say that bears don't shit in the woods, I don't mean to imply that bears don't shit in zoos."

Sunday, May 25, 2008 2:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Yes, I know, ViU, I am always wrong and others are always right. <

It does seem to work out that way.

Monday, May 26, 2008 7:22:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home