The case was intended to unlawfully quash subpoena of William Windsor on US Judge Olinda Evans in a related case. It is part of a widespread practice in both the state and US courts today. Combined with other related cases, originating from the same underlying matter, it also documents that the US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court patronize the practice and share the habit.
US Judge WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR - Simulator
Simulated Litigation is a routine part of law school training, but it is considered criminal conduct when
Los Angeles, May 12 - "The case of Maid of the Mist Corporation v Alcatraz Media, LLC is patently some form of Simulated Litigation through collusion of US Judges OLINDA EVANS and US Judge WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR, and Assistant US Attorney CHRISTOPHER HUBER, and the Clerk of the US Court, Northern District of Georgia JAMES N HATTEN," says Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), "It was intended to unlawfully quash a legal subpoena by Mr William Windsor on US Judge Olinda Evans under the guise of lawfulness." [i]
Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in analyzing fraud in the state and US courts in recent years, and his findings were presented in international computer science and criminology conferences and published in international peer-reviewed journals. His opinions were also supported by opinions of top fraud and computer science experts. [ii]
"The case also demonstrates the manner in which the record keeping systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF are employed for the conduct of Simulated Litigations." According to Dr Zernik, the fundamental shell game fraud in the systems is that all authentication records are excluded from public view in PACER. Instead, such records are concealed under CM/ECF, where only the Court and authorized attorneys can view them. "As a result, the public cannot tell, which of the papers and dockets, which are published online by the US courts, are valid court records, and which ones are only hoax."
"Any reasonable person, who would review the records of the case in reference to the Civil Litigation Management Manual of the Judicial Conference of the United States would conclude that the case was never considered by the US Court itself as a true case that was litigated in the US Court pursuant to the law of the United States," Dr Zernik adds. [iii]
Some of the obvious signs of Fraud on the Court in conduct of the litigation, according to Dr Zernik, are: [iv]
No summonses were issued by the clerk, and no summonses were executed with the opening of the docket. There is no evidence of execution of service of the Commencing record (Motion to Quash) either.
The motion was not designated as "verified", and in fact included no verification and no declaration by either Judge Olinda Evans (the
"Movant"), or anybody else, to support the claims. No declaration by Judge Olinda Evans was included in any other paper in the case, either.
No Assignment of a US Judge or Referral to a US Magistrate were noted in the designated space in the Civil Cover Sheet, and no Assignment Order was docketed. Instead, repeated false notations, with no docket number, appear in the docket of "submission" of motions to Judge Duffey.
Olinda Evans, who commenced the action was not listed as Petitioner, or Plaintiff, true party designations, but as "Movant", a false party designation, and the case as a whole was listed under a false case caption.
No Minutes of any proceedings were recorded in the docket.
Various notations in the docket are patent fraud, all intended to create the perception that records were authenticated, when in fact they were not.
Although several corporations are listed as parties to the Simulated Litigation, no Corporate Disclosure was filed by any corporation. It should also be noted that the US Court, Northern District of Georgia is among the US Courts, which deny public access to the Corporate Parent Report. [v]
It should also be noted that the US Court, Northern District of Georgia is among the US Courts, which deny public access to the Judgment Index. Therefore, there is no way to ascertain that any judgment or dispositive order were ever entered in the case.
The Related Transactions Report as a whole was constructed in a manner that a naive reader would not discern that fact.
According to Dr Zernik, the case should be viewed in the context of several other actions related to the same underlying matter in the various US courts. Combined, the cases provide a unique documentation of racketeering in the US courts through the conduct of Simulated Litigations, [vi] where the US courts of appeals and the US Supreme Court in fact patronize the practice and share the habit. The case at hand is of particular interest, since it provides direct evidence of collusion by the US Attorney Office and the US courts in such conduct.
"The practice of Simulated Litigation, which is criminal in nature, is widespread in both the state and US courts today, and undermines the US justice system," Dr Zernik concludes.
[i] Regarding Simulated Litigation, see:
11-05-10 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission - Simulated Litigation in the US Supreme Court:
Also, see:Texas Penal Code - section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
- Section 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
- (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to
- another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment,
- or other court process with the intent to:
- (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
- (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
[iii] 10-11-19 Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010) Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management
[iv] PACER records of the US Court, Northern District of Georgia, are posted under:
11-11-12 Maid of the Mist Corporation Et Al v Alcatraz Media, LLC, et al (1:09-Cv-01543) Simulated Litigation in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia, through collusion of US judges, Clerk of the US Court, and US Attorney Office s
[v] Zernik, J: The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts
[vi] Related Cases:
 11-02-13 Maid of the Mist Corporation et al v William Windsor (1:06-cv-00714) - Evidence of Racketeering in the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia
 11-02-13 Maid Of The Mist Corporation et al v William Windsor (1:06-cv-00714) in the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia: Court records
 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
 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
 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
 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
 11-02-10 Press Release: Fraud Opined in US Supreme Court Records Received by Petitioner William Windsor From the Office of Clerk Suter