Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.11.26
06:58:48 +02'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-11-25 William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States – Evidence of Public
Corruption

Los Angeles, November 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, released four letters,
issued by the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, William Suter, as evidence of
public corruption of the Clerk of the highest court of the land.
The four letters are:
1) Fine v Baca (09-A827) Application for Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): March 12, 2010 letter noticing
denial of the Application, as discovered in the paper court file. The letter was unsigned, naming ‘Staff Attorney’
Danny Bickell, who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk, as the issuer. Moreover, the letter was never stamped
‘FILED’. No evidence was found in the paper court file of valid judicial review, as the lawful foundation for such
notice of denial.
2) Fine v Baca (09-A827) - Application for Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): April 29, 2010 letter noticing the
‘return’ of Motion to Intervene, as received by the Motion filer. The letter was issued and signed by ‘Danny Bickell’ –
with no title or authority stated at all. No evidence was found in the paper court file of either judicial or clerical review
to provide the lawful foundation for such notice of ‘return’ of the Motion, which was duly filed at the Court.
3) Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56) – Application for Stay of Execution (of serious sanctions): July 15, 2010 letter noticing
denial of the Application, as received by the Applicant. The signature box of the letter was deemed false and
misleading: Signature of William Suter appeared where signature of Danny Bickell should have appeared, and ‘Staff
Attorney’ Danny Bickell was unauthorized to issue such letter. Moreover, the Applicant’s efforts to gain access to
evidence of valid judicial review of the Application were denied.
4) Fine v Baca (09-1250) – Petition (in re: Habeas Corpus): July 26, 2010 paper noticing denial of the Petition, as
discovered in the Supreme Court file. The letter was unsigned, with no name of a Deputy Clerk listed at all as the
issuer, and the paper was never stamped FILED. No evidence was found in the paper court file of valid judicial
review as the lawful foundation for such notice of denial.
The name of William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, appeared on each and every one
of the letters, which are opined as false and deliberately misleading. The letters are claimed as evidence of
wrongful denial of access to justice. Human Rights Alert previously released collection of records from the
online public access system of the Supreme Court, which provided additional evidence of contradictory,
invalid, false, and misleading records. [i ] The Supreme Court most likely also operates a case management
system, and the Office of the Clerk was requested to permit access to records from the system, pursuant to
First Amendment rights. Access was denied. The Supreme Court also failed to publish Local Rules pertaining
to the operation of its online public access and case management systems, like all other US courts, which were
inspected, in apparent violation of Due Process rights. Combined, the findings are opined as evidence of
public corruption of the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Given the pervasive nature of invalid records found at the Supreme Court, and apparent violations of First
Amendment and Due Process rights, it was greatly doubted that the Justices of the Supreme Court were
unaware of conduct of Mr Suter.
Human Rights Alert accumulated in recent years similar evidence of corruption at the US courts from coast to
coast. It was difficult to assess the level of corruption at the US courts today from historic perspective, for
lack of reliable historic data. However, corruption at the US courts today, was believe to be similar or greater
than that which was seen during the notorious Robber Baron Era, a century ago.
z Page 2/2 November 26, 2010

The clerks of the US courts were claimed as central to such conditions, through abdication of their duties and
responsibilities relative to integrity of electronic court records. The Administrative Office of the US Courts,
which implemented the electronic online public access and case management systems at the US courts, was
likewise held accountable for such conditions.
Human Rights Alert called upon the US Congress to initiate reform of the US judiciary through:
1) Placing the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General, similar to provisions
of the Salary Act of 1919, which was claimed as instrumental in restoring integrity of the courts a century
ago. In the past half-century the clerks have been placed under authority of the US judiciary, therefore
undermining key checks and balances at the US courts.
2) Enacting federal rules of PACER and CM/ECF – including publicly and legally accountable validation
(certified functional logic verification) of the online public access and case management systems of the
US courts, restoration of accountability of the clerks for electronic court records, restoration of public
access to such records, and publication of all rules and procedures that are embedded in such systems.
In report, published in a peer reviewed, computer science journal, listing scholars from six European nations
and Canada, Dr Zernik opined that PACER and CM/ECF amounted to large-scale computer fraud. [ii ] Three
additional reports on the matter are pending before an international, peer reviewed, top-tier international law
journal. [iii ]
Conditions that prevail at the US courts today undermine Human Rights and banking regulation, and
contribute to disintegration of the frameworks of democratic government in the United States. Reform of the
judiciary in the United States is also essential for addressing the current Depression.

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, 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.

i
10-08-13 Fine v Baca (09-1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States, online Order Lists pertaining to denial of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36483347/
10-08-13 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A827), Fine v Baca (09-1250), and Fine v Baca (10-A24) at the Supreme Court of the United States - October 2009 Term
Journal - validity, or lack thereof
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36476926/
ii
Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring,
Measurement, Mining 1:69-83 (2010)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/H
iii
Zernik, J: Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts in the United States - pending
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/40511204/H
Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense Banking Regulation
in the United States - pending
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41608723/
Zernik, J: The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts - pending
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/42686043/H
1) Fine v Baca (09-A827) Application for Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): March 12, 2010
letter noticing denial of the Application, as discovered in the paper court file. The letter was unsigned,
naming ‘Staff Attorney’ Danny Bickell, who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk, as the issuer.
Moreover, the letter was never stamped ‘FILED’. No evidence was found in the paper court file of
valid judicial review, as the lawful foundation for such notice of denial.
2) Fine v Baca (09-A827) - Application for Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): April 29, 2010
letter noticing the ‘return’ of Motion to Intervene, as received by the Motion filer. The letter was
issued and signed by ‘Danny Bickell’ – with no title or authority stated at all. No evidence was found
in the paper court file of either judicial or clerical review to provide the lawful foundation for such
notice of ‘return’ of the Motion, which was duly filed at the Court.
3) Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56) – Application for Stay of Execution (of serious sanctions): July 15, 2010
letter noticing denial of the Application, as received by the Applicant. The signature box of the letter
was deemed false and misleading: Signature of William Suter appeared where signature of Danny
Bickell should have appeared, and ‘Staff Attorney’ Danny Bickell was unauthorized to issue such
letter. Moreover, the Applicant’s efforts to gain access to evidence of valid judicial review of the
Application were denied.
4) Fine v Baca (09-1250) – Petition (in re: Habeas Corpus): July 26, 2010 paper noticing denial of the
Petition, as discovered in the Supreme Court file. The letter was unsigned, with no name of a Deputy
Clerk listed at all as the issuer, and the paper was never stamped FILED. No evidence was found in
the paper court file of valid judicial review as the lawful foundation for such notice of denial.