10-12-05 Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) - at the Supreme Court of the United States 'crooked courts' and 'order entered' // Más información sobre la conducta de la Secretaria de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos // 腐败在美国最高法院

 _ _ _ _ _ _ 

William Suter, Clerk_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ William Windsor, Petitioner
Supreme Court of the United States_ _ _ _ _ _Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411)


Re: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) - 'crooked courts' and 'order entered' at the Supreme Court of the United States

  

1) From: William M. Windsor [ mailto:williamwindsor@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 11:56 AM
To: bill@lawlessamerica.com
Subject: Supreme Court says Judicial Corruption and Constitutional Violations are not worthy of their Consideration An order was entered today by The Supreme Court on William M. Windsor's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (appeal) of one of the most horrendous of the orders by the corrupt judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The Petition was denied.  

See:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-411.htm
This may tell us how The Supreme Court will rule on judicial corruption and the ability for federal judges to void parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights because essentially the same questions were asked as in my petitions for writs of mandamus:
There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter.  These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons.  Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case.  The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.
The key questions are:

1.     Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts.
2.     Whether the Supreme Court is prepared to declare the Constitution and its amendments null and void.
The differences are that The Supreme Court doesn't have any obligation to deal with a petition for writ of certiorari, but they do have to deal with petitions for writs of mandamus.  In 2009, only 1.1 of 100 petitions for writs of certiorari were granted cert, which means they approved them for further consideration.  However, the reason for granting certiorari is allegedly when a case may set an important precedent.  With this decision, they had an opportunity to deal with the corruption, and didn't.
I would have been surprised if they had granted this, but this is very discouraging.  I would think that if honest judges were told that the federal judges in Atlanta are corrupt and are violating the Constitution, they would act.  We'll see what happens on the vital petitions for writs of mandamus, but I now suspect they will essentially void big hunks of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
What in the world are we going to do if they rule this way on the petitions for writs of mandamus?  We will know that our Supreme Court justices are corrupt, too.
I will continue to update the home page of www.lawlessamerica.com with the latest developments.
Please pass this news along.  One of our only hopes is if we can reach enough people through email because the mainstream media is afraid of the judges.
William M. Windsor bill@billwindsor.com
Office: 770-578-1094

2) At 07:45 PM 11/29/2010, Bob wrote:

Here's a case in point.  Bill  Windsor complains that the SCOTUS will not protect him from crookedness of lower  courts.  It made him so mad he created a web site protesting it.
Imagine the mess if Windsor, Ken Smith, and everyone else screwed by crooked courts would work together to stop the crookedness.  They might actually succeed. But operating singly, they will only lose, one at a time.
Bob Hurt  http://bobhurt.com  727 669 5511
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, Florida 33763 USA

3) At 10:28 PM 11/29/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

Hi Bob:
Same old, same old...
Bill Windsor writes: "An order was entered today by The Supreme Court ..." and as documentation of that fact he links us to the online docket of SCOTUS in Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411).  [1]
In all US courts that were asked, the clerks refused to certify the online dockets.
Does Bill Windsor have in his possession an order, certified by a Justice of SCOTUS, and authenticated by an authorized Clerk of SCOTUS, to convince us that "an order was entered"?
As previously shown, [2] SCOTUS today practices that same very scam, used in other US courts, where dockets are published online, noting various rulings, orders, decisions, judgments, while in fact, there is no valid judicial record to provide the foundation for such online dockets... 
Mr Windsor, please show us the goods...
The proposed solutions are two-fold:
1) Placing the clerks of the US courts under sole authority of the US Attorney General, not the US Judges, and
2) Enactment of federal rules of electronic court records, to restore accountability of the clerks for electronic (including online) records, which today they deem themselves unaccountable for.
Joseph Zernik
LINKS:
[1]  Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) - Docket
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-411.htm
[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) Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:53:40 Joseph Zernik wrote
Hi Mr Windsor:
As service to the public at large, and in particular - to all those who are similarly situated, I would be grateful if you could state whether you received from the Office of the Supreme Court of the United States any order, certified by a Justice of SCOTUS and authenticated by an authorized Clerk of SCOTUS to the effect that "an order was entered" pertaining to denial of your petition in the caption, referenced above.
In case you received any records from SCOTUS, related to the question above, I would be grateful if you could share them - such records are public records by law...
The basic civic duty of the common person in the Robber Baron Revival Era is to document the scope of the abuse...
Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

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. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ 
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
LINKS:
[1]  Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) - Docket
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-411.htm
[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/

4) At 07:15 PM 12/5/2010, William M. Windsor wrote:

Good morning.
Every so-called order that I have received is a signed letter - no seal and not an order.
I have made the request for a certified copy of the docket, but I have received nothing.
I am filing a Petition for Rehearing, and I have made your argument, among others:

THE ORDER DENYING THIS PETITION VIOLATES 28 U.S.C.§1691.  IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SEAL OF THE COURT OR THE SIGNATURE OF A CLERK WITH THE NECESSARY CREDENTIALS.

1.             The so-called order denying this Petition is Exhibit A.  It is a letter, not an order, and it does not bear the seal of the clerk. 
2.          28 U.S.C. ss1691 requires: "All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof."  The Order is invalid, so the Petition must be reheard.

 
 5) From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:15 PM
To: williamwindsor@bellsouth.net; lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) - 'crooked courts' and 'order entered'
Mr Windsor:
Thanks for the expedient  response!
I would be grateful if you could please scan whatever paper(s) you did receive, and share it.
Of particular interest is the signature box:

• Who signed?
• Is it "on behalf of William Suter, Clerk fo the Court"?
• Whose name appeared below the signature line?
• Any title, authority listed below the signature line?

A copy of the letter - a public record, would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Joseph Zernik,PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

 6)  From: "William M. Windsor"

To: "'joseph zernik'"
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) -   'crooked courts' and 'order entered'
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 15:17:12
Gladly.  I need to reinstall scanning software on my wife's computer.  I'll try to get that done later today.

 7)  From: Joseph Zernik

Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:47:36
To: William Windsor
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) -   'crooked courts' and 'order entered'
Thanks.
I assume you saw the four samples of invalid similar notices, which are already in the archive. 
In all such cases, no valid judicial record was found in the paper court file, or access was denied. 
In all cases access was denied to the putative case management system of SCOTUS.
jz
LINKS 

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/44034212/ 

 8)  From: Joseph Zernik

To: , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) -  'crooked courts' and 'order entered'
Dear Mr Windsor:
Not being an attorney, only a lay court observer, let me offer you my prediction regarding the response by SCOTUS on your Petition for Rehearing:
* NO RESPONSE AT ALL (violation of Code of Conduct of US Judges, which requires expedient disposal of judicial duties, etc)
* The request for certified copy of the docket, even if filed as a paper under the caption, is likely not to appear in the docket.
* Ditto - your Petition for Rehearing.
I am very interested in documenting also cases where papers, which were duly filed at SCOTUS were left out of the docket.  I assume you have conformed copies, I would be grateful if you could scan the face pages only, of papers that were left out of the docket only, and share them as well.
Thanks again, 

JZ

 9)  From: "William M. Windsor"

From: "William M. Windsor"
To: "'joseph zernik'"
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) - 'crooked courts' and 'order entered'
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:05:13 

Mine are identical to the four shown on your link below. 

10)  From: Joseph Zernik
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 23:21:38

To: William Windsor 
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) - 'crooked courts' and 'order entered'.
Each of them includes a signature box that is invalid in a different manner, the uniformity is only in the invalidity...
I look forward to getting your records for the archive.
JZ

11) At 11:18 PM 12/5/2010, William Windsor wrote:

I currently have several filings missing from the docket.  I'll be careful to document everything, and I'll send copies to you.

12)  From: Joseph Zernik

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:19:11
To:
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) -   'crooked courts' and 'order entered'

Thanks!
As stated, I am interested only in scans of the face pages, with the stamp of the marshals and/or the stamp of the office of the clerk, and only for papers that are missing from the docket.
JZ

13)  From: Joseph Zernik

Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 23:38:08
To: William Windsor
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation, et al (10-411) -    'crooked courts' and 'order entered'
Two other suggestions, not that they are likely to yield any result, but they are important for documenting the level of corruption at the Office of the Clerk of Scotus:
1) File a Motion for an Order on the Clerk of SCOTUS to serve on you a valid judicial record, certified by Justice(s) of SCOTUS (the Journals of SCOTUS typically start with a statement to the effect that the justices certified the decisions of the day.
2) File a Motion for an Order on the Clerk of SCOTUS to all court records in the putative internal case management system of SCOTUS under your caption, subject to page charges, [1] including all audit data. [2]
jz
NOTES:
[1] The uniform finding in all justice system agencies that were ivestigated, was the keeping of double books:
a) Online public access system - which the agencies themselves never deemed valid court records, but the public is misled to deem as such.  E.g. - PACER
b) Case management system - which the agencies deem the true and valid court records, but the public is denied access to. E.g. -  CM/ECF (the version used inside the courts, not the one that counsel is permitted access to). 

[2] By audit data reference is to the login name and login time of the individuals who entered any data in the records.