FILING DEADLINES, forward or backward?

[meganproser]

Just for fun, here is part of a 2001 article about the ECF movement:
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/dec2001/nelsonsimek.html

"According to court administrators, lawyers are by far the biggest impediment to the success of e-filing. Over and over again, court administrators lament that "lawyers are all but untrainable."

Among the comic grumblings:
"They went to law school for three years and none of them can read."

"The worst part of e-filing? Lawyers! We had to spend two hours on the phone walking them through things that were absolutely simple."

"Our chief deputy clerk spent six to nine months holding the hand of every lawyer in town, trying to teach them to e-file. He was pretty frustrated."

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Just for fun, here is part of a 2001 article about the ECF movement:
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/dec2001/nelsonsimek.html

"According to court administrators, lawyers are by far the biggest impediment to the success of e-filing. Over and over again, court administrators lament that "lawyers are all but untrainable."

Among the comic grumblings:
"They went to law school for three years and none of them can read."

"The worst part of e-filing? Lawyers! We had to spend two hours on the phone walking them through things that were absolutely simple."

"Our chief deputy clerk spent six to nine months holding the hand of every lawyer in town, trying to teach them to e-file. He was pretty frustrated."

Just For Fun? Gee, and I was waiting for you to rub it in my face.

Well quoting jokes certainly backs up your words. You hate being wrong Megan, thus your jokes.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Just for fun, here is part of a 2001 article about the ECF movement:
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/dec2001/nelsonsimek.html

"According to court administrators, lawyers are by far the biggest impediment to the success of e-filing. Over and over again, court administrators lament that "lawyers are all but untrainable."

Among the comic grumblings:
"They went to law school for three years and none of them can read."

"The worst part of e-filing? Lawyers! We had to spend two hours on the phone walking them through things that were absolutely simple."

"Our chief deputy clerk spent six to nine months holding the hand of every lawyer in town, trying to teach them to e-file. He was pretty frustrated."

I really hope Jetx or IAAL sees your stupid comic relief. Nothing you said backed up your words as to Pro Sec/ Pro Per using ECF.Classic Can you personally count the times your head spins?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Megan,
Give it a rest. Why do you persist going on and on and on and on........
You will not admit when you are wrong or failed to get the concept.
Until you get the concept you will never be able to give credible advice.
As it is, you lead people around in circles and create confusion for your own pleasure and enjoyment.

 

[meganproser]

Paradise:

In post #12, I wrote that the Eastern District of CA just went on line and they are allowing PS to use the ECF with the permission of the court. I posted THAT court’s policy. Was that not proof of a USDC that allows PS to register with the ECF?

In post #13, you made the following statement, “I repeat "SOME", and I repeat "BANKRUPTCY" court. We have had this debate before. No other court will even consider a pro se person to use the ECF at this time.”

You then posted the USDC for the Eastern District of CA’s PS policy, which clearly states that PS can use the ECF with the court’s permission.

For some reason, at the end of #13, you directed me to two links for the USBC for the Eastern District of CA. I had not mentioned anything about that court. Do you realize the USBC and the USDC are two different courts?

Perhaps I have misunderstood just what it is you are seeking proof of. I thought your position was that a PS cannot become a registered user of the ECF system in a US District Court. OBVIOUSLY, a PS in the USDC for the Eastern District of CA can now register with the court’s permission.

Or were you arguing that CA is the ONLY USDC allowing PS participation?

In post #15 you wrote: “Your wrong, I proved you wrong.”

Assuming the question is whether or not a PS can register with ECF in a USDC, WHERE did you prove me wrong?

I see you did prove that the USBC for the Eastern District of NY is not accepting PS in the ECF system. What does that have to do with anything?

I wrote: “A CHILD could do it. The courts WANT everything filed electronically…it is saving them a fortune.”

You responded to the above statement by writing, “Wrong.”

WHAT part of that statement is wrong?

I wrote: “You are arguing that access to the ECF is somehow a sacred right of a licensed attorney.”

Paradise wrote: “ For the most part, yes I am.”

For the most part? What does THAT mean? Are you claiming the ECF is somehow a special tool for ATTORNEYS or are you not?

Paradise wrote: “Now, I have backed up my post...”

Can you tell me exactly what it is you were claiming to begin with and how exactly you proved your point?

In post #18 you wrote: "Nothing you said backed up your words as to Pro Sec/ Pro Per using ECF”

I just can’t get anything past you can I? Please refer to the very first paragraph of this post.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Paradise:

In post #12, I wrote that the Eastern District of CA just went on line and they are allowing PS to use the ECF with the permission of the court. I posted THAT court’s policy. Was that not proof of a USDC that allows PS to register with the ECF? No, not really, and why did you bring up that court when that is not even the court this thread involved?


In post #13, you made the following statement, “I repeat "SOME", and I repeat "BANKRUPTCY" court. We have had this debate before. No other court will even consider a pro se person to use the ECF at this time.”

You then posted the USDC for the Eastern District of CA’s PS policy, which clearly states that PS can use the ECF with the court’s permission.

For some reason, at the end of #13, you directed me to two links for the USBC for the Eastern District of CA. I had not mentioned anything about that court. Do you realize the USBC and the USDC are two different courts? Of course I do, but you are all over the place with courts on this thread. Your just throwing out your personal opinion on ECF like you running it, and of course avoided the fact it is simply your opinion.



Perhaps I have misunderstood just what it is you are seeking proof of. I thought your position was that a PS cannot become a registered user of the ECF system in a US District Court. OBVIOUSLY, a PS in the USDC for the Eastern District of CA can now register with the court’s permission. OH! Brother! Do you even know what it entails to get permission for a Pro Per litigant to actually use ECF?? I doubt you do. ECF is designed for attorneys, and in some cases Trustees, and creditors if they meet the requirements. (That is in BK court of course), and of couse BK court is what this thread is about. Even the poster told you it was not something she could use, but you love pushing this.


Or were you arguing that CA is the ONLY USDC allowing PS participation?

In post #15 you wrote: “Your wrong, I proved you wrong.”

Assuming the question is whether or not a PS can register with ECF in a USDC, WHERE did you prove me wrong? Stop assuming please.

I see you did prove that the USBC for the Eastern District of NY is not accepting PS in the ECF system. What does that have to do with anything? Because this thread is about BK, and I was giving you at least one state to shut you up.


I wrote: “A CHILD could do it. The courts WANT everything filed electronically…it is saving them a fortune.” No Megan, you are wrong. What is your freaking problem? You simply assume what every court WANTS?You responded to the above statement by writing, “Wrong.”

WHAT part of that statement is wrong? It is your opinions, you have not proven anything. You just keep posting your opinions.


I wrote: “You are arguing that access to the ECF is somehow a sacred right of a licensed attorney.”

Paradise wrote: “ For the most part, yes I am.”

For the most part? What does THAT mean? Are you claiming the ECF is somehow a special tool for ATTORNEYS or are you not? YES! I AM!

Paradise wrote: “Now, I have backed up my post...”As I will again! Read it Megan, God just read it.

http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/ecffaq.html

Can you tell me exactly what it is you were claiming to begin with and how exactly you proved your point? See the link.

In post #18 you wrote: "Nothing you said backed up your words as to Pro Sec/ Pro Per using ECF”

I just can’t get anything past you can I? Actually, you hare having a hard time getting anything past anyone. Please refer to the very first

paragraph of this post. Megan, please do tell how, and what requirements are needed?

Now, IAAL and JETX are attorneys and you might want to ask them all this.

Your head spins so fast.

http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/ecffaq.html

 

[meganproser]

M wrote: "In post #12, I wrote that the Eastern District of CA just went on line and they are allowing PS to use the ECF with the permission of the court. I posted THAT court’s policy. Was that not proof of a USDC that allows PS to register with the ECF?"

Paradise wrote: " No, not really, and why did you bring up that court when that is not even the court this thread involved?"

No not REALLY? You have insisted for months that a PS can NOT use the ECF in Federal Court. Does the above paragraph NOT prove you wrong?

 

[meganproser]

Oh Bad Apple! I was just looking through my original debate with Paradise on this ECF thing and I see I owe you an apology and correction.

Back in November you said that as far as you know the USDC for the Western District of TN did not allow PS to use the ECF.

After checking their site out, I came back and said that they clearly allow PS to use PACER. I proceeded to argue as if PACER = ECF. This is a point I often confuse, because when logging directly in to ECF you tend to forget all about PACER. They seem to be one. They are NOT.

I now see that USDC for the Westren District of TN does not seem to comment one way or another on PS using ECF. This could be due to the fact that they have not yet implemented the program!!!

The Eastern District of TN allows PS to use ECF with court approval. The USBC of the Middle District of TN allows PS to use ECF without any court approval.

I'm sorry for the misinformation I TRIED to give you! ::blush::

 

[meganproser]

Paradise claims:
“No other court will even consider a pro se person to use the ECF at this time.”

I am taking issue with the above statement. At present, I know OFFHAND of at least 7 USDC’s that process a PS application for the ECF without involving the court. I know of at least 7 other USDC’s that allow a PS to register as long as they have court approval.

In a previous post I wrote: “ OBVIOUSLY, a PS in the USDC for the Eastern District of CA can now register with the court’s permission.”

Instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you brought up the following irrelevant points:

“Do you even know what it entails to get permission for a Pro Per litigant to actually use ECF?? I doubt you do.”

Yes, I do. Some courts require the filing of a motion while others just take the regular application and get the judge to sign off on it. Simple isn’t it? That’s because the court WANTS as many filers as possible to use the ECF as long as they are competent with the technology (which a child could work).

“ ECF is designed for attorneys…”

WHERE did you get that information? ECF is part of the court. The court belongs to the PEOPLE.

In post #15 you wrote: “Your wrong, I proved you wrong.”

Can you please tell me exactly what point you proved me wrong on?

I wrote: “…. The courts WANT everything filed electronically…”

You answered: “ No Megan, you are wrong. What is your freaking problem? You simply assume what every court WANTS?

Where did you get the idea that I have “assumed” this fact? Should I cite some authority for every simple statement, even those that anyone with common sense would know is true? What in God’s name leads YOU to think the courts do NOT want everything filed ECF?

If they don’t want everything in the ECF, can you explain the upcoming amendment to FRCP 5(e), which permits individual courts to REQUIRE filings to be done electronically? Or maybe you can explain why the clerk must scan all non-electronic filings into the ECF?

Again, common sense should tell you once a court goes to the ECF, they can’t have half of their files on paper and half on PC. Anyone who can’t ECF directly makes more work for court staff. Exceptions to the ECF requirement will always be made for PS who don’t have the necessary equipment, who have language barriers or for prisoners, but ECF will be mandatory for all attorneys.

You wrote: ”Read it Megan, God just read it.” and gave the following link:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/ecffaq.html

The site you gave includes the following question and incorrect answer:

Can any member of the public use CM/ECF to file documents with the court?

No. Access to the filing portion of CM/ECF is available to authorized attorneys only. Authorization and training is provided by the practicing CM/ECF court.

I sent them an e advising them of the error. While it does provide SOME excuse for your ignorance, I am curious as to how you decided that the info on that site was correct rather than the site for the USDC for the Northern District of California? You had conflicting information before you; why not find out WHICH ONE IS CORRECT instead of choosing the one you liked?

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

“ ECF is designed for attorneys…”

WHERE did you get that information? ECF is part of the court. The court belongs to the PEOPLE. Gee! I don't know.

In post #15 you wrote: “Your wrong, I proved you wrong.”

Can you please tell me exactly what point you proved me wrong on?

I wrote: “…. The courts WANT everything filed electronically…”

You answered: “ No Megan, you are wrong. What is your freaking problem? You simply assume what every court WANTS?

Where you get the idea that I have “assumed” this fact? See your posts above.

Should I cite some authority for every simple statement, even those that anyone with common sense would know is true? Your statements were not simple.

What in God’s name leads YOU to think the courts do NOT want everything filed ECF?The law leads me to believe this.

If they don’t want everything in the ECF, can you explain the upcoming amendment to FRCP 5(e), which permits individual courts to REQUIRE filings to be done electronically? Or maybe you can explain why the clerk must scan all non-electronic filings into the ECF? Your spinning your head again Megan.

Again, common sense should tell you once a court goes to the ECF, they can’t have half of their files on paper and half on PC. Anyone who can’t ECF directly makes more work for court staff. My common sense has nothing to do with the laws.


Exceptions to the ECF requirement will always be made for PS who don’t have the necessary equipment, who have language barriers or for prisoners, but ECF will be ma

ndatory for all attorneys. How much more stupid can you get?
You wrote: ”Read it Megan, God just read it.” and gave the following link:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/ecffaq.html

The site you gave includes the following question and incorrect answer:

Can any member of the public use CM/ECF to file documents with the court?

No. Access to the filing portion of CM/ECF is available to authorized attorneys only. Authorization and training is provided by the practicing CM/ECF court.

I sent them an e advising them of the error. While it does provide SOME excuse for your ignorance, I am curious as to how you decided that the info on that site was correct rather than the site for the USDC for the Northern District of California? You had conflicting information before you; why not find out WHICH ONE IS CORRECT instead of choosing the one you liked? [/QUOTE]

OK! Now I know your nuts. You actually sent the "Administrative Office of the United States Court" a mail telling them they were wrong?

Did you send them this post, so they know you mean business?

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=105075

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

OH! And Megan, don't forget to enlighten us with the response you get from The Administrative Office of the United States Court ok?
06-03-2002, 08:05 PM
meganproser
Member Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225

Identifying a message board poster

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone posts a defamatory statement on a message board, what legal action is necessary in order to get the IP server to reveal the owner of the pc that was used?

How is one to go about suing someone if they can not identify who WROTE the post? I have contacted the police and they have told me I'll need a court order. But when I called the court, they said that since the post was likely out of their jurisdiction, they wouldn't know how to go about ordering the company to give the info to me!


Write them back and see if they can assist you further with this question.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Megan,
Just what is it you are trying to prove?

 

[meganproser]

Before I indulge in further petty interaction with you Paradise, let's review the pertinent part of my last post...you made no response to it and I'm wondering if you saw it.

Paradise claims:
“No other court will even consider a pro se person to use the ECF at this time.”

I am taking issue with the above statement. At present, I know OFFHAND of at least 7 USDC’s that process a PS application for the ECF without involving the court. I know of at least 7 other USDC’s that allow a PS to register as long as they have court approval.

M wrote: What in God’s name leads YOU to think the courts do NOT want everything filed ECF?

P wrote: The law leads me to believe this.

M writes: WHAT????? Wahahahahaha I know you will be happy to direct us to that law won't you?

M asked: If they don’t want everything in the ECF, can you explain the upcoming amendment to FRCP 5(e), which permits individual courts to REQUIRE filings to be done electronically? Or maybe you can explain why the clerk must scan all non-electronic filings into the ECF?

P wrote: Your spinning your head again Megan.

M writes: Maybe the question was too big for you. Can you just explain why there is an amendment to the FRCP coming out, which permits each court to REQUIRE ALL FILINGS TO BE DONE ELECTRONICALLY (with a few exceptions). Isn't that contrary to your "law" that says they DON'T want everything ECF?

P wrote: My common sense has nothing to do with the laws.

M writes: There are no LAWS regarding who can use ECF or whether or not the courts are anxious to get everything converted to ECF. We are talking about procedural rules here and your common sense really should give you SOME direction in this matter.

M wrote: Exceptions to the ECF requirement will always be made for PS who don’t have the necessary equipment, who have language barriers or for prisoners, but ECF will be mandatory for all attorneys.

P wrote: How much more stupid can you get?

M writes: What part of THAT statement do you disagree with?

M wrote: I sent them an e advising them of the error. While it does provide SOME excuse for your ignorance, I am curious as to how you decided that the info on that site was correct rather than the site for the USDC for the Northern District of California? You had conflicting information before you; why not find out WHICH ONE IS CORRECT instead of choosing the one you liked?

M writes: P failed to answer why she chose to believe one official site over another when they had conflicting information on them. I'll answer it for her then. She chose to believe what she wants to believe and she would rather remain ignorant of the facts than admit she is wrong.

M writes: Though she couldn't give any rational for choosing to believe the PACER site info over the CA court info, P did manage to express her horror that I had the NERVE to email the PACER folks and tell them their info is WAY out of date.

P's horrifed reaction: OK! Now I know your nuts. You actually sent the "Administrative Office of the United States Court" a mail telling them they were wrong?

M writes: I guess I lost my head thinking that they might want to know that courts all over the country are indeed allowing PS to use the ECF. I don't know what made me think they would want accurate info on their site. I hope I don't get arrested!

M writes: Ok Paradise, right about here is where you ALWAYS tell me, "I'm done with this Megan! You are too stupid to bother with!"

You evidently convince yourself this fools other readers into thinking you are dropping the topic for some reason other than the fact that your mouth has written some checks your ass can't cash. It doesn't fool anyone, they can all read.

BTW, I will absolutely let you know if I hear back from the PACER folks.

 

[meganproser]

Wellllllll RMET, if you were reading, you would know that I have stated repeatedly that PS are permitted to use the ECF in Federal Court.

Paradise, who clearly has NO KNOWLEDGE of ECF or the USDC, insists on challenging me every time I make this assertion. She has been challenging me on this issue since last November. Her challenges are not polite and are in fact quite abusive.

Until now I haven't bothered to try and reason with her, because it's like spitting in the wind. This weekend, I’ve been amusing myself by watching her try to support her claim that I am wrong.

I tried to be nice and withdraw at one point, but she wouldn’t have it. I can't say I've really been trying to prove anything, it's more like I've been waiting to see what proof Paradise offers.

I’d like to think she is desperate to learn the truth of the matter, but if that were the case, she’d do a few searches on the LR’s of some USDC’s and she’d have her answers.

Alas, it is not knowledge she seeks in challenging me, it is something far less admirable.

I find it interesting that no one has bothered to chime in with the indisputable facts that will put an end to the debate. More interesting, is that no one here has bothered to privately give her a clue.

The fun has gone out of the debate now because as nasty as this woman has been to me since the day I first started to post, I don’t really enjoy being this hard on someone. I'm signing off now before I get all remorseful and erase my posts to her.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Megan.
OP is in the Middle District of FL, not the Eastern District of CA. Why all the debate on an irrelevant question, how does that help OP? You were WRONG, just admit it and go to bed!