Windsor v Maid of the Mist (10-A690) in the US Supreme Court – Opined as “Shell Game Fraud” by the Court.

"Maybe Justice Thomas indeed denied your application, may not… maybe there is a valid record of the denial, certified by Justice Thomas, may there is none... what form the records of the US Supreme Court are in, the People are not permitted to know...."

11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of WILLIAM SUTER, Clerk of the US Supreme Court
LINK

The Honorable Michael Dreier, Chairman,
United States House Rules Committee
Fax: 202-225-6763
E-mail:Rules.Rs@mail.house.gov

The Honorable Patrick J Leahy, Chairman
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Fax: 202-224-3479

The Honorable Lamar Smith, Chairman
United States House Committee on the Judiciary
Fax: 202-225-8628

Dear Senator Leahy, Congressman Smith, and Congressman Dreier:

Please accept instant notice as a request for initiating impeachment proceedings, pursuant to Section 4of Article Two of the United States Constitution, against WILLIAM SUTER, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. As detailed below and in the linked records, it is alleged that the office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER routinely violates the First Amendment right to inspect and to copy court records and the Due Process right for notice and service.

The conduct of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER denies applicants and petitioners, as well as the public at large, the right to distinguish, which cases were duly reviewed by the Court, and which ones were not. Such conduct renders judicial proceedings of the Court vague and ambiguous. The conduct of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER should be considered of the highest public policy significance, because of the nature of the underlying cases. Such cases pertained to matters, which were noted in the 2010UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the Human Rights Council(HRC) of the United Nations as “corruption of the courts” and effective denial of the right for Habeas Corpus.

The conduct of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER is alleged as violation of his Oath of Office, and violation of his duties and obligations pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, including, but not limited to: denial of Access to Justice, denial of Equal Protection, Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law, and/or Misprision of Felonies; therefore -impeachable offences.

For more information, click the following links:

Scribd: Request For Impeachment

Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation

Complaint against Danny Bickell – US Supreme Court Counsel - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law

Rampart-Reconsidered-LAPD-s-Blue-Ribbon-Review-Panel-Report-2006

Dr. Joseph Zermik Biography

Los Angeles, January 29, 2011 – earlier this week Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) has filed request with the US Congress for impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk William Suter. [[i]] The request was based on allegations of violations of the Oath of Office and deprivation of rights by Clerk Suter:

· Denial of the rights to access Supreme Court record (both paper and electronic) to inspect and to copy;

· Denial of the right for valid notice and service of orders and decisions of the Court.

The request for impeachment was based on analysis of:

· Letters, received by applicants and petitioners in a series of cases, where individuals alleged abuse by government or by large corporations, and

· Denial of access to the Supreme Court files in the same cases.

Of particular concern were cases, which originated from Habeas Corpus petitions, or allegations of corruption of the lower courts.

On Friday, January 28, Mr Windsor, the applicant in one of the cases, provided Dr Zernik with a series of new records, which he had received by mail from the office of Clerk Suter over the previous two weeks.

Upon review of the new records, Dr Zernik, suggested that a January 13, 2011 letter, signed by Staff Attorney Danny Bickell, purporting to notice the denial of Mr Windsor’s application on the same date by Justice Thomas, was likely to be a case of fraud by the Court. Dr Zernik is not an attorney, but he has accumulated extensive experience in analyzing fraud in the state and US courts, and his opinions were often supported by leading national and international experts in the related fields. [[iii]]

The reasons for the suspicion of fraud by the Court in the January 13, 2011 letter were the following:

· Bickell is not Deputy Clerk.

· Bickell did not sign the January 13, 2011, as "Deputy Clerk", either.

· Therefore, the January 13, 2011, letter should not be deemed as a valid notice by the office of Clerk Suter.

· No valid record, certified by Justice Thomas was attached to the January 13, 2011 letter by Bickell.

· Similar letters, which were issued by Bickell in other cases, had no foundation in valid records in US Supreme Court paper files.

· Unauthorized conduct by Mr Bickell in other cases, which was the basis for a July 2010 complaint of public corruption and deprivation of rights. [[iv]]

In order to disambiguate the nature of the conduct of the office of Clerk Suter in Mr Windsor’s application (10-A690), Dr Zernik suggested that Mr Windsor file a request with Justice Thomas. The suggested request is for Due Process notice and service of whatever Justice Thomas and Clerk Suter consider the valid record, certified by Justice Thomas, of the January 13, 2011 denial of Mr Windsor’s application.

Dr Zernik noted that inherent to the suspected fraud by the court in the case, are the vague and ambiguous conditions, which were created in the US Supreme Court, following the transitions to electronic management:

· The office of Clerk Suter has recently denied access to the paper files in a series of cases, including an application by Mr Windsor (10-A404).

· Previous inspections of US Supreme Court files demonstrated that no valid records are maintained in the paper court files any longer.

· The office of Clerk Suter entirely denies access to electronic court file records.

· The US Supreme Court has failed to publish any rules pertaining to the nature of its electronic records and valid certifications by the justices in them.

Dr Zernik opined that such vague and ambiguous conditions of the US Supreme Court records, in themselves, amount to “Shell Game Fraud”, or a “Confidence Trick”.

Dr Zernik concluded his January 29 letter to Mr Windsor:

Maybe Justice Thomas indeed denied your application, may not… maybe there is a valid record of the denial, certified by Justice Thomas, may there is none... what form the records of the US Supreme Court are in, the People are not permitted to know....