Tuesday, January 18, 2011

11-01-18 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 // la presunta corrupción de la oficina del Secretario de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos // 涉嫌贪污了对美国最高法院书记办公室

  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

No signed orders and decisions can be found in the paper SCOTUS files; false and deliberately misleading dockets are published online by the office of the clerk; false and deliberately misleading letters are mailed by the office of the clerk.

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.
  • 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 balances vis 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.

[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

[2] 10-11-25 William Suter - Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States - Evidence of Public Corruption
[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
[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
[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
[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
[7] Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-US-Supreme-Court-online-docket-showing-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Kennedy-s
[8] 10-04-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Zernik-Declaration-Re-Danny-Bickell-and-Filing-at-the-US-Supreme-Court
[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
[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
[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
[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
[13] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-at-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-of-Denial-of-the-Application-s


Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:59:43 +0200
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.aspx and search Windsor, William and/or 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690.

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:





William M. Windsor
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. 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.
Locations of visitors to this page
"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
"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)
"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
"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)
"...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."