You are on page 1of 5

Human Rights Alert

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750


Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Windsor v Maid of the Mist in the Supreme Court of the United States and alleged corruption of the
office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States

SCOTUS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _____ _ _ William Windsor


Windsor v Maid of the Mist in the Supreme Court of the United States and alleged corruption of the office of the
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States

Los Angeles, January 18 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, released records and correspondence
regarding records of the Supreme Court of the United States, and alleged corruption of the office of the clerk of the
Supreme Court. Human Rights Alert has previously filed request for investigation of Staff Attorney Danny Bickell for
alleged public corruption and deprivation of rights through the issuance of invalid letters with no authority, noticing parties
of "denial" of their applications or petitions to the Supreme Court. [1] Further evidence has been previously provided of
alleged corruption of Clerk of the Court William Suter himself.[2] Such evidence includes records, previously issued by
the office of the clerk in Windsor v Maid of the Mist. [3-5] Similar false records were issued by the office of the clerk of
the Supreme Court of the United States in other cases as well, including, but not limited to, Fine v Sheriff and Taitz v
McDonald. [6-13]

False and deliberately misleading court records are commonplace today in the United States

The pattern is similar in all courts which were examined:

• Judges issue deliberately invalid orders and judgments - with invalid certification by the judges and/or invalid
authentication/attestation by the clerks.
• False and deliberately records are published online, to create the false perception of valid court actions.
There are some technical differences, depending on the specific court.

Records of the Supreme Court of the United States are no exception

The situation in SCOTUS is the same as in other state and US courts:

• False and deliberately misleading dockets are published online by the SCOTUS, were various decisions and
orders are listed.
• Upon inspection of the paper court files of SCOTUS, no records are found of valid decisions or orders of the
Court in numerous cases, which were listed in the online dockets.
• SCOTUS most likely secretly established a case management system. In such case management system, it is
likely that the justices sign digitally, by logging in and placing their votes. It is likely that similar to all other courts, which
were examined, the justices consider the records in the case management system the true, valid records of the court.
That is the likely explanation why one cannot find signed orders in the SCOTUS paper files.
• Like all other courts, which were examined, SCOTUS never published Rules of Court to establish the new
procedures, involving its electronic case management system by law, in alleged violation of Due Process rights and
the Rule Making Enabling Act. Moreover, the public has no access to the records in the case management system, in
alleged violation of First Amendment rights.
z Page 2/5 January 19, 2011

• The office of Clerk William Suter routinely issues letters to parties, purportedly notices of orders or decision of
SCOTUS, which are served with no record of the decision or order itself. Moreover, the letters are typically signed in a
deliberately misleading, invlaid manner, by William Suter himself, by "Staff Attorney Danny Bickell" (not a deputy clerk),
or other unauthorized court personnel.
Therefore, the public cannot tell which of the orders and decisions of SCOTUS, which are listed in the online dockets,
are valid and effectual, and which ones are null and void.

The proposed solution involves actions by US Congress and vigilance by the public at large

The proposed solution is three-fold:

1) Restoring key provisions of the Salary Act of 1919 the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney
General.
At the time, conditions in the US courts were described in the US Congress as "a burlesque", and the Salary Act was
credited as a key measure for restoration of integrity of the US Courts. It restored the role of the clerks as checks and
balancesvis a vis judicial corruption, which was their reason for existence since the late middle ages. However, by the
mid 20th century the clerks were again placed under the authority of the judiciary.

2) Enactment of federal rules for electronic court records.


The evidence shows that the clerks of the courts today do not deem themselves accountable for the integrity of
electronic court records, both the case management systems of the courts and the online public access systems. The
systems were implemented over the past two-three decades in both state and federal courts. In the process, a sea-
change was introduced in court procedures, which had been established for centuries, and were the core of Due
Process. However, all courts that were examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to the
new procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights. Moreover, all courts that were examined deny public access
to various records in the electronic case management systems in alleged violation of First Amendment rights. Therefore,
the US Congress should perform its duties and establish the systems by law. Implicit in such laws should be the
requirement for publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems prior to
their implementation.

3) The public at large and in particular computing professionals must assume their civic duties in ongoing monitoring of
the integrity of electronic court records.
The First Amendment right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v
Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court said that
the right was necessary for the public "to keep a watchful eye on government". Today, the public must keep a watchful
eye particularly on electronic court records. No other measures could substitute for public scrutiny of court records in
safeguarding the integrity of the courts.

LINKS:
[1] 10-07-01 In re:Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleging Public
Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
[2] 10-11-25 William Suter - Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States - Evidence of Public Corruption
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44034212/
[3] 10-12-05-Windsor-v-Maid-of-the-Mist-Corporation-et-al (10-411) in-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-
Crooked-Courts-and-Order-Entered-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44817092/
[4] 10-12-10-Maid-of-the-Mist-Corporation-et-al-v-William-Windsor-1-06-cv-00714-in-the-US-District-Court-Northern-
District-of-Georgia-Compiled-records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45084688/
[5] 12-12-11-Maid-of-the-Mist-Corporation-et-al-v-William-Windsor-10-10139-in-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-11th-Circuit-
Compiled-Records-of-Appeal-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45080970/
[6] 10-03-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Copy-of-the-Application-from-US-Supreme-Court-file-failing-to-show-note-of-its-
March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Ken
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306238/
z Page 3/5 January 19, 2011

[7] Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-US-Supreme-Court-online-docket-showing-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Kennedy-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304940/10-04-21
[8] 10-04-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Zernik-Declaration-Re-Danny-Bickell-and-Filing-at-the-US-Supreme-Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30366354/
[9] 10-07-01-In-re-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleging-Public-
Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-Rig
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
[10] 10-08-26-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-at-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Declaration-of-Joseph-Zernik-Re-Letter-
dated-April-29-2010-by-Supreme-Co
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36466636/
[11] 10-04-21-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-in-the-US-Supreme-Court-List-of-Orders-for-March-8-15-2010-failing-to-show-the-
March-12-2010-denial-of-Fine-v
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306342/
[12] 10-07-21-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-Failure-of-Associate-Justice-Clarence-Thomas-to-
dispose-of-a-matter-before-him-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34657461/
[13] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-at-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-of-Denial-of-the-
Application-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/

RECENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR WILLIAM WINDSOR IN RE: SOCTUS DECISIONS IN WINDSOR V MAID
OF THE MIST
_____

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:59:43

To:
Subject: Re: Windsor v Maid of the Mist in the Supreme Court of the United States

Dear Mr Windsor:

Thank you for your note. I agree with some of your conclusions, but not all.

• The basic problem is in your opening sentence: "The United States Supreme Court issued three orders today ".
• I doubt that you would find any valid record of such "orders" issued by SCOTUS in your case. The online docket may
say so, but the online docket in not a valid court record.
Your help would be greatly appreciated:

• In providing copies of whatever records you may get by mail from the office of William Suter, Clerk of the
SCOTUS.
• In gaining access to the SCOTUS files in your case, and copying any records that may be found there, which
were generated by SCOTUS (usually, papers by parties are on the pocket on one side, the paper by
SCOTUS on the other). It is also important to photocopy the face page of your application(s), since the Local
Rules of SCOTUS permit a justice to inscribe the denial of an application on the face page of the application.
The face page of the application may also show stamps and signatures by the office of the clerk.
Thanks again for your help in the past.

Joseph Zernik

At 07:12 PM 1/18/2011, William Windsor wrote:

The United States Supreme Court issued three orders today that give federal judges carte blanche to void the
Constitution of the United States
Go to http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspxand search Windsor, William and/or 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690.
z Page 4/5 January 19, 2011

Ladies and gentlemen, there is now no question whatsoever that the entire federal judicial system is corrupt. My
petitions were unopposed, filled with hundreds of pages of proof and sworn under penalty of perjury affidavits. Our so-
called Supreme Court says it is okay for federal judges to ignore the facts, ignore the law, ignore the Constitution, and
commit as many criminals acts as they choose while hiding behind their robes.
When I began my efforts, I naively thought there would be an honest judge somewhere. I was wrong and stupid.
I will file petitions for rehearing, and I will sue every cotton picking one of these A$$holes. It likely won t get me
anywhere, but I want everything that I can get on a record somewhere. I am writing to the Chief Judge at each Judicial
District and Circuit in an effort to see if any of them are honest. If honest, they have a duty to report all of the laws
broken by all the judges, including the Supremes. If they do nothing, I will sue all of them, too.
I still can t think very clearly after all the medical problems, so I apologize for not remembering this. Several people
suggested that I file complaints with the U.S. military and a human rights organization. If you can remind me who/where,
I will get those going.
Since it is unlikely that anyone in the judiciary anywhere will do anything about this, I guess taking it to the people may be
the only hope. I will get my book written and on display at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and elsewhere ASAP. If any of
you want to write a chapter, please do so, and send it to me. I d like the book to be about more than my experiences.
Second, I d like to come up with more ideas for fixing the system. Here are the ideas I had a while back for fixing the
system:http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php/news/blog-of-william-m-windsor/123-some-ideas-for-fixing-the-judicial-
corruption-problem Please send me a separate email titled Ideas for Fixing the System, and I will try to incorporate all
the good ideas.
Folks, I am absolutely flabbergasted. I lived most of my 62 years believing there was at least significant integrity in our
government. I actually believed we were protected by the Constitution. We have a crisis of the largest possible
proportions on our hands. We definitely live in a police state. The most corrupt of governments around the world have
nothing on us!
For those who want the background, here are articles on my website with all of my petitions and proof:
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php/news/blog-of-william-m-windsor/127-supreme-court-says-judicial-corruption-
is-not-worthy
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php/news/blog-of-william-m-windsor/103-petition-for-recusal-of-judge-william-s-
duffey-us-supreme-court
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php/news/blog-of-william-m-windsor/104-petition-for-recusal-of-judges-of-the-
eleventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-us-supreme-court
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php/news/blog-of-william-m-windsor/105-petition-for-recusal-of-judge-orinda-d-
evans-us-supreme-court

William M. Windsor
____

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the
justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human
Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of
the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
z Page 5/5 January 19, 2011

http://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES?
* "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice
Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration
of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations."
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute
http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report
recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know
of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility
when innocent people are convicted."
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
* "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/