Sunday, December 5, 2010

10-12-05 How to gain access to records at the US courts. // Cómo acceder a los registros en los tribunales de EE.UU.. // 如何获得在美国法院的记录。

Los Angeles, November 5 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, published simple instruction for all those who wish to help in documenting the conduct of the US Courts. (see below)
___________
1) On Saturday, December 4, Joseph Zernik wrote

From:
joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 9:33 PM
To: joseph zernik
Cc: Smith, Darcy (USMS); Shell, Thomas(USMS)
Subject: Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings where appropriate, in re: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, and US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE for conduct, which undermined Banking Regulation and/or Human Rights in the United States
See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44671154/


2) On 12/5/2010, John Doe wrote:

What action would be helpful to your cause from Florida?


3) On Sunday, December 5, Joseph Zernik wrote

Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010
To: John Doe
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings whe re appropriate, in  re: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA P HILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, and US Magistrate  CARLA WOEHRLE - for conduct, which undermined Banking Regulation and/or Human Rights in the United

Dear John:

Thanks for your response.

At this point the focus is on the US district courts, since pursuant to international law they are 'national tribunals for protection of rights'.

The focus is on matters, where individuals try to protect their rights by going to the US district courts:

a) Filing of complaints related to constitutional or civil rights (Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law, Habeas Corpus, Temporary Restraint Orders on the State Courts, etc);
b) Filing of complaints related to attempts to protect individuals from abuse by large financial institutions under the current crisis;
c) Filing of complaints related to attempts to protect individual from abuse by any type of large corporation.

I am seeking to archive the conduct of such cases in the US district courts, by collecting:
a) Case caption, case number, name of US district court
b) Existence or absence of valid Summons
c) Existence or absence of valid Civil Cover Sheet
d) Existence or absence of valid Assignment Order for the judge (if several judges were involved - most important is the Assignment Order for the judge whose name appears on the dispositive judicial paper in the case)
e) Existence or absence of valid Referral Order for the magistrate
f) Existence or absence of Notices of Appearance by Counsel for government or financial institutions involved in the matters.
g) Most important (since there is no way that I can get these records from PACER) - copies of the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing):
The NEFs are today the attestation/authentication records of judicial records, and absent NEFs, there is no way to ascertain whether the records, listed above, are valid and effectual, or null and void.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

A. How to Gain Access to NEFs

1) Prepare a short letter (see sample below)
2) Appear in person at the office of the clerk and present the paper.
3) In case you gain access to the NEFs, you may be asked to pay $0.50 per page. Most NEFs are only one page. Therefore, the NEFs, which are requested, are not likely to cost more than $5.00.
4) In case you are denied access to the NEFs, please provide a short declaration under penalty of perjury in the matter (see sample below)

B. Sample Request to Access NEFs to Inspect and to Copy

To , Clerk of the Court, US District Court, District of

RE: Request to Access Court Records to Inspect and to Copy

Please accept this request to access court records to inspect and to copy, pursuant to First Amendment rights and US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).

Instant request pertains to the following records in :
1) NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) on the Complaint (Dkt #1);
2) NEF on the Summons (Dkt #2)
3) NEF on Assignment of the Hon Judge (Dkt #x)
4) NEF on Minutes of the Hon Judge (Dkt #y)
5) NEF on Order of the Hon Judge (Dkt #z)
6) NEF on Judgment/Dismissal Order/Consent Decree of the Hon Judge (Dkt #aa)
7) NEF on Mandate of the Court of Appeals, xth Circuit (Dkt #bb).

Date:

_______


C. Sample Declaration Regarding Denial of Access NEFs to Inspect and to Copy

(please add the standard introductory and end paragraphs)

1) I appeared on at the Office of the Clerk, US District Court, District of .
2) I presented the duty Deputy Clerk with a request to access court records, to inspect and to copy.
3) The attached record (Exhibit 1), is a true and correct copy of the request which I presented to the Duty Deputy Clerk.
4) My request was denied.

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 - 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.
Locations of visitors to this page
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. 

10-12-05 Welcome France - Last New Visitor! // Bienvenido Francia - Visitante Mas Reciente! // 欢迎法国 - 最后的新访问者!

Last New Visitor

France
Visited December 5, 2010

10-12-05 More on Impeachments - from the OAK Discussion Board // Más Sobre Acusaciónes

Jed Rakoff- -_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _   Virginia Phillips__ _ _ _ _ _ __ _John Walter_

_ _ _ _  _ Carla Woehrle
From the Oak Discussion Board:

1) Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 13 hours ago
Request for investigation, impeachment proceedings where appropriate, in re: US Judges JED RAKOFF, VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, JOHN WALTER, and US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE – for conduct, which undermined Banking Regulation and/or Human Rights in the United States

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44671154/

2) Dr. A. D. Jackson
Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 11 hours ago
That someone is writing congressmen about investigating and maybe impeaching some judges is certainly news, but in keeping within the 250 word limit, some of this might better have appeared as links.
Andrew

3) Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 6 hours ago
Hi Dr Jackson:
Thanks for noticing the novelty of the message below. I should add that I hardly expect investigation, let alone impeachment to ever take place, given the dysfunctional state of US government today. However, the request serves as notice to the international community of the state of the US government in general, and the US courts in particular, in matters pertaining to Human Rights and Banking Regulation.
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

4) 
Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA

Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 5 hours ago
Hi Dr Jackson:

The request for investigation/impeachment proceedings would also serve as a historic mark for the state of the US justice system today:

In 2006 US Judge Manuel Real, US District Court, Central District of California, was caught engaging in conduct of similar nature - he 'seized a bankruptcy case' - i.e., he took over the case with no Assignment Order and pretended to serve as Presiding Judge. It was a bankruptcy case, with no public policy significance beyond the documentation of corruption of the courts. The US House initiated hearings, but the outcome was only the imprisonment of the whistleblower - Attorney Steve Yagman.

In 2010 - a series of three cases are provided, pertaining to three US judges and a US magistrate, which hold the highest public policy significance, since they document the key role of the US courts in undermining Banking Regulation under the current financial crisis, and also in undermining Human Rights through collusion of the US District Court, Central District of California, with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which is notorious for the large-scale false imprisonments it insists on continuing to perpetrate...

Therefore, response of US Congress in 2010 would serve a good marker for the change, or lack thereof in integrity of the US Government from 2006 to 2010.

One of the problems, faced by anybody who attempts to study the corruption of the US justice system as a whole, is the lack of reliable published reports. Therefore, it is difficult to place the level of corruption today in historic perspective.

Therefore I claim:
The civic duty of the common person in the Robber Baron Revival Era is to document the scope of the abuse.

The request for investigation/impeachment proceedings, and the concomitant publications in peer reviewed, international journals were intended as part of fulfillment of such civic duty...

I am grateful to OAK for performing its share of this civic duty, by creating this message board...

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.

10-11-05 Welcome Germany - Last New Visitor! // Bienvenido Alemania - Visitante Mas Reciente! // 欢迎德国 - 最后的新访问者!

Last New Visitor

Germany
Visited December 5, 2010