Follow on Google News News By Tag Industry News News By Location Country(s) Industry News
Follow on Google News |  Additional Evidence of Racketeering in the US CourtsThe pattern is again of a cascade, similar to that which was found in other US courts
By: Human Rights Alert, NGO ____ The pattern is again of a cascade, similar to that which was found in other US courts: Racketeering in the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia Pretense Appeal in the US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit Fraud in papers of the Supreme Court of the United States Case Records:[1] Maid Of The Mist Corporation et al v William Windsor (1:06-cv-00714) ____ General Notes: 1. Case Summary and Docket as a whole: a. No name and authority is listed as to the individuals who entered notations and records in the Docket. b. All Attestation records (NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filing) by the Clerk of the US District Court were excluded from the Docket. 2. Public Access to the Judgment Index of the Court is denied. The US District Court, Northern District of Georgia differs in this matter from most US District Courts, which were examined. [[1]] It is likely that upon investigation, it would be discovered that the Northern District of Georgia routinely engages in racketeering relative to false pretense of entry of judgments in litigations in the Court. 3. Pending Statuses Report shows: "No statuses pending, No statuses terminated." 4. Related Transactions Report shows the Complaint not terminated, even after the case is listed in an unnumbered docket entry as "terminated" ____ Specific Docket Records: 1. No Assignment Order for Judge J Owen Forrester appears in the Docket. 2. March 29, 2006 Dkt #008 Recusal and Reassignment: a. No Reassignment Order for Judge Orinda D Evans appears in the docket. b. The docketing text states reassignment, but the record itself includes nothing to that effect. 5. The Writ of Execution was never docketed, and no Dkt # was designated. Therefore, no NEF could possibly be issued on such docket notation: a. After #753 04/09/2010 WRIT of Execution issued in the amount of $192,377.87 against William M. Windsor. Original mailed to Carl Anderson via certified mail. (ank) (Entered: 04/09/2010) 6. All certificates by the Deputy Clerks, consistently, were not docketed, and no Dkt #s were designated to them. Therefore, no NEFs could possibly be issued on the certificates. In other words - none of the records, notated as certified, is in fact certified: a. After Dkt #157 02/02/2007 ORAL ORDER DENYING 59 Defendants' Motion to Compel and for Attorney Fees. Entered by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 2/2/07. See 157 Minute Sheet from In Chambers Conference. (ddm) (Entered: 02/05/2007) ... y. After #977 01/05/2011 Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to William M. Windsor re 977 Exhibit Return Notification. (pdw) (Entered: 01/05/2011) 7. All Certificates, which were filed by Defendant Windsor, were likewise not docketed, and no Dkt #s were designated to them. Therefore, no NEFs could possibly be issued on the certificates. In other words - none of the records, notated as certified, is in fact certified: a. After #45: 06/19/2006 CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Appeal Record re 41 Notice of Appeal filed by Alcatraz Media, LLC,, Alcatraz Media, Inc.,, William M. Windsor,. USCA Case Number 06-13272-GG (fem) (Entered: 06/19/2006) ... f. After #797: 01/21/2011 CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Appeal Record re 808 Notice of Appeal, filed by William M. Windsor, 847 Notice of Appeal, filed by William M. Windsor, 898 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor, 965 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor, 919 Notice of Appeal, filed by William M. Windsor, 850 Notice of Appeal, filed by William M. Windsor, 766 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor, 805 Notice of Appeal, filed by William M. Windsor, 780 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor, 890 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor, 894 Notice of Appeal filed by William M. Windsor. Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 10-11758; 10-11981; 10-12515; 10-12516; 10-12731; 10-15587. (fem) (Entered: 01/21/2011) ____ Conclusions: 1. For all the reasons listed above, the PACER records and the Docket of the US District Court in this case, as a whole, cannot be deemed as valid judicial records. 2. A PACER docket was meticulously constructed, including hundreds of papers, to appear as a valid docket of the US District Court. 3. Defendant Windsor was therefore asked to obtain copies of the NEFs of key docket records and a copy of the Judgment Index, in order to conclusively establish whether the docket in this case in fact is Fraud on the Court by Judge Orinda D Evans and Clerk of the Court James N. Hatten. 4. The nature of conduct of the US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit in this matter remains to be examined. [[ii]] 5. The nature of the US Supreme Court's conduct in this matter was opined as Fraud by Clerk William Suter. [[iii],[iv],[ ____ LINKS [1] Zernik, J; The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts http://www.scribd.com/ [ii]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 http://www.scribd.com/ [iii] [3] 11-01-18 Press Release: 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 http://www.scribd.com/ [iv] 11-02-10 Windsor v Maid of the Mist Corporation (10-690 and 10-A690) - Fraud opined in US Supreme Court records, received by Mr Windsor from office of Clerk Suter http://www.scribd.com/ [v] 11-01-28 William M. Windsor v. Maid of the Mist Corporation, at al. (10-A690) in the Supreme Court of the United States: a) Suggested request for a valid record of denial, certified by Justice Thomas, and b) Records provided on January 28, 2011 by Mr Windsor s http://www.scribd.com/ [vi] 11-02-10 Press Release: Fraud Opined in US Supreme Court Records Received by Petitioner William Windsor From the Office of Clerk Suter http://www.scribd.com/ # # # Human Rights Alert, a Los Angeles County, California, NGO, is committed to monitoring Human Rights violations by the US government, and reporting such violations, including, but not limited to the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the US by the UN. End
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
