You are on page 1of 3

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

11-11-12 Maid of the Mist Corporation v Alcatraz Media, LLC - Simulated Litigation - Fraud in
the US Court, Northern District of Georgia

The case was intended to unlawfully quash subpoena of William Windsor on US Judge Olinda Evans in a
related case. It is part of a widespread practice in both the state and US courts today. Combined with other
related cases, originating from the same underlying matter, it also documents that the US Court of Appeals
and the US Supreme Court patronize the practice and share the habit.

US Judge WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR Simulated Litigation is a routine part of law school training, but it is considered criminal conduct when
Simulator enacted in the courts on naïve parties.

Los Angeles, May 12 – “The case of Maid of the Mist Corporation v Alcatraz Media, LLC is patently some
form of Simulated Litigation through collusion of US Judges OLINDA EVANS and Judge WILLIAM S.
DUFFEY, JR, and Assistant US Attorney CHRISTOPHER HUBER, and the Clerk of the US Court,
Northern District of Georgia JAMES N HATTEN,” says Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert
(NGO), “It was intended to unlawfully quash a legal subpoena by Mr William Windsor on US Judge
Olinda Evans under the guise of lawfulness.” [i ]
Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in analyzing fraud in the state and US courts in recent years, and
his findings were presented in international computer science and criminology conferences and published in
international peer-reviewed journals. His opinions were also supported by opinions of top fraud and computer
science experts. [ii ]
“The case also demonstrates the manner in which the record keeping systems of the US courts, PACER and
CM/ECF are employed for the conduct of Simulated Litigations.” According to Dr Zernik, the fundamental
shell game fraud in the systems is that all authentication records are excluded from public view in PACER.
Instead, such records are concealed under CM/ECF, where only the Court and authorized attorneys can view
them. “As a result, the public cannot tell, which of the papers and dockets, which are published online by the
US courts, are valid court records, and which ones are only hoax”.
“Any reasonable person, who would review the records of the case in reference to the Civil Litigation
Management Manual of the Judicial Conference of the United States would conclude that the case was never
considered by the US Court itself as a true case that was litigated in the US Court pursuant to the law of the
United States,” Dr Zernik adds. [iii ]
Some of the obvious signs of Fraud on the Court in conduct of the litigation, according to Dr Zernik, are: [iv ]
1) No Execution of Summons and Complaint
No summonses were issued by the clerk, and no summonses were executed with the opening of the docket.
There is no evidence of execution of service of the Commencing record (Motion to Quash) either.
2) Insufficient Pleadings
z Page 2/3 May 12, 2011

The motion was not designated as “verified”, and in fact included no verification and no declaration by either
Judge Olinda Evans (the “Movant”), or anybody else, to support the claims. No declaration by Judge Olinda
Evans was included in any other paper in the case, either.
3) No Assignment to a US Judge, No Referral to a US Magistrate
No Assignment of a US Judge or Referral to a US Magistrate were noted in the designated space in the Civil
Cover Sheet, and no Assignment Order was docketed. Instead, repeated false notations, with no docket
number, appear in the docket of “submission” of motions to Judge Duffey.
4) False Party Designations
Olinda Evans, who commenced the action was not listed as Petitioner, or Plaintiff, true party designations, but
as “Movant”, a false party designation, and the case as a whole was listed under a false case caption.
5) No Records of Minutes
No Minutes of any proceedings were recorded in the docket.
6) No Authentication Records of purported “Orders” and “Writ of Execution”
Various notations in the docket are patent fraud, all intended to create the perception that records were
authenticated, when in fact they were not.
7) No Corporate Disclosures
Although several corporations are listed as parties to the Simulated Litigation, no Corporate Disclosure
was filed by any corporation. It should also be noted that the US Court, Northern District of Georgia is
among the US Courts, which deny public access to the Corporate Parent Report. [ v ]
8) No Judgment Index
It should also be noted that the US Court, Northern District of Georgia is among the US Courts, which
deny public access to the Judgment Index. Therefore, there is no way to ascertain that any judgment or
dispositive order were ever entered in the case.
9) Fraudulent Related Transactions Report
The Related Transactions Report as a whole was constructed in a manner that a naive reader would not
discern that fact.
According to Dr Zernik, the case should be viewed in the context of several other actions related to the same
underlying matter in the various US courts. Combined, the cases provide a unique documentation of
racketeering in the US courts through the conduct of Simulated Litigations, [vi ] where the US courts of
appeals and the US Supreme Court in fact patronize the practice and share the habit. The case at hand is of
particular interest, since it provides direct evidence of collusion by the US Attorney Office and the US
courts in such conduct.
“The practice of Simulated Litigation, which is criminal in nature, is widespread in both the state and
US courts today, and undermines the US justice system,” Dr Zernik concludes.
LINKS

i
Regarding Simulated Litigation, see:
11-05-10 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission - Simulated Litigation in the US Supreme Court…
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55064366/H
Also, see:Texas Penal Code - §32.48. Simulating Legal Process
§ 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to
another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment,
or other court process with the intent to:
z Page 3/3 May 12, 2011

(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or


(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or
on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing
that the document was delivered.
ii
11-05-08 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/H
iii
10-11-19 Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010) Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Court
Administration and Case Management
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/43498081/H
iv
PACER records of the US Court, Northern District of Georgia, are posted under:
11-11-12 Maid of the Mist Corporation Et Al v Alcatraz Media, LLC, et al (1:09-Cv-01543) Simulated Litigation in the US Court, Northern
District of Georgia, through collusion of US judges, Clerk of the US Court, and US Attorney Office s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/55267532/H
v
Zernik, J: The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/42686043/H
vi
[1] 11-02-13 Maid of the Mist Corporation et al v William Windsor (1:06-cv-00714) - Evidence of Racketeering in the US District Court,
Northern District of Georgia
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48759093/H
[2] 11-02-13 Maid Of The Mist Corporation et al v William Windsor (1:06-cv-00714) in the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia: Court
records
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45084688/H
[3] 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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45080970/H
[4] 11-01-18 Press Release: 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
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47146842/H
[5] 11-02-10 Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation (10-690 and 10-A690) - Fraud opined in US Supreme Court records, received by Mr
Windsor from office of Clerk Suter
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48596120/H
[6] 11-01-28 William M. Windsor v. Maid of the Mist Corporation, at al. (10-A690) in the Supreme Court of the United States: a) Suggested
request for a valid record of denial, certified by Justice Thomas, and b) Records provided on January 28, 2011 by Mr Windsor s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47773731/H
[7] 11-02-10 Press Release: Fraud Opined in US Supreme Court Records Received by Petitioner William Windsor From the Office of Clerk
Suter
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48605325/H