winona rosa

Monday, September 19, 2011

Alleged corruption of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States

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 can be found in the paper files of the Supreme Court as the legal foundation of false and deliberately misleading dockets, which are published online by the office of the clerk. False and deliberately misleading letter, invalidly signed are mailed by the office of the clerk, noticing "denial" of cases.
See complete posting in PDF format, with active links:
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 inWindsor 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 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
[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

No comments:

Post a Comment