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: 2011.01.25
18:19:50 +02'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of WILLIAM SUTER, Clerk of the US Supreme Court
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 4
of 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 2010
UPR (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.
Additional measures are proposed for restoring the integrity of the offices of the clerks of the US courts.
1. The First Amendment right to access judicial records in paper court files is denied by the office of
Clerk WILLIAM SUTER.
The right to access judicial records is one of the oldest in the English speaking courts. Origins of the right are
in the Common Law, and it is essential for the safeguard of court integrity. The right was re-affirmed by the
US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. The
decision states that such right is essential for the public “to keep a watchful eye on government”.
The denial of the right to access judicial records of the Court is reliably documented:
The January 22, 2011, declaration of Mr George McDermott from the State of Maryland detailed his most
recent attempt to access the judicial records of the US Supreme Court. [1] His recent attempt pertained to a list
of seven (7) cases, all of them petitions and applications originating in cases of individuals against government
or against large corporations:
z Page 2/6 January 25, 2011

• The oldest of the seven cases, Witham v Christian County, Missouri, dated from 2007, and pertained to
alleged abuse of individual by government.
• Several of the cases pertained to the Habeas Corpus petition of the former US prosecutor Richard Fine in
2009-2010. Fine was imprisoned for 18 months in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California, with
no valid records for his arrest and booking.
• The most recent case, Windsor v Mist of the Maid Corporation, was purportedly decided by the US
Supreme Court only days prior to McDermott’s visit, in January 2011.
The office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court flatly denied McDermott’s request to access any of the
requested court records.
2. When paper court files were inspected, no signed orders or decisions were ever found in them.
• Mr McDermott provided in July and August 2010 two additional declarations of previous attempts to
discover signed, valid records of judicial orders or decisions of the Court in the paper court files. [2-4] In
the July and August 2010 McDermott was permitted access to a few paper court files.
No signed judicial records were ever discovered in those files.
• Mr McDermott states that he had previously inspected other paper court files of the US Supreme Court,
beyond those listed in his declarations, referenced above. [1-4]
In no case has he found any signed judicial records in the paper court files of the Court.
3. The First Amendment right to access electronic judicial records is entirely denied by the office of Clerk
WILLIAM SUTER.
• McDermott’s failure to discover any signed orders or decisions in the paper court files, even when access
was permitted, left open the possibility that the Court maintains valid, signed electronic judicial records.
Therefore, in January 2011 McDermott also attempted to access the electronic records of the Court.
The office of the Clerk WILLIAM SUTER flatly denied McDermott’s request to access any of the
Court’s electronic file records. [1]
• Previous requests by this writer to inspect the electronic records of the Court, remain unanswered.
• No evidence as found that public access was ever permitted to the electronic records of the Court.
• The Supreme Court has also established over the past decade an electronic online public access system.
However, the online system provides no access to signed judicial or clerical records of the Court.
Moreover, detailed review of the online public access system of the Court shows the dockets, journals,
and orders lists incomplete and/or contradicting each others. [5-11] Upon review, a reasonable person
would conclude that the office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER never deemed the online records valid records
of the Court.
• Request, which was duly filed with the Court under Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) to correct the false online
records in the case, was “returned” by the office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER with no Due Process,
through a letter by unauthorized staff of the Court. [12,15]
4. The Due Process right for notice and service is also denied by the office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER.
The Due Process right for Notice and Service is a cornerstone of Fair Hearings.
The office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER routinely provides applicants and petitioners inadequate and/or false
notice and service regarding the disposition of their cases:
• In lieu of due notice and service, the office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER issues letters, which are not
accompanied by any signed judicial record and which claim that petitions or applications were “denied”,
or in other cases, that papers, which were duly filed, were “returned”. [13-16]
• The letters by the Office of the Clerk are at times unsigned, signed by unauthorized court personnel, or
signed in a false and misleading fashion. [13-16]
z Page 3/6 January 25, 2011

• After receiving such falsely signed “denial” letter from the office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER, Applicant
Dr Orly Taitz filed a request under Taitz v Macdonald (10-A56), specifically requesting to be served a
signed judicial order pertaining to denial of her application. The request remains unanswered. [17]
5. Combined, Conduct of the Clerk WILLIAM SUTER of the Supreme Court of the United States
allegedly violates the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all in the United States.
Conditions that were established by the office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER are alarming:
• Both the US Constitution and ratified International Law hold the Supreme Court of the United States the
highest national tribunal for protection of rights. The office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER denies
applicants, petitioners, and the public at large the right to know, which cases were duly reviewed by the
Court, and which ones were not. Therefore, denial of access to valid judicial records and denial of valid
notice and service undermine the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all in the United States.
• Conduct of office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER regarding cases originating in the Habeas Corpus petition
of former US prosecutor Richard Fine should be deemed as effective denial of Access to Justice. As part
of the 2010 UPR of Human Rights in the United States, the HRC Outcome Report called upon the United
States to restore the Habeas Corpus right in the United States. [21]
• Conduct of office of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER in cases originating in allegations of corruption of the
lower courts should also be deemed particularly offensive. As part of the 2010 UPR the HRC Report
referred to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession”. [22]
6. Therefore, the US Congress should initiate impeachment of Clerk WILLIAM SUTER of the Supreme
Court of the United States
For all the reasons stated above, the US Congress is respectfully requested to initiate impeachment
proceedings against Clerk WILLIAM SUTER of the Supreme Court of the United States.
____
Additional corrective measures are urged:
1. The US Congress should enact laws to restore the integrity of the clerks of the US courts.
The implementation of electronic court systems with no foundation in the law is central to conditions, which
today prevail in the offices of the clerks of the US courts:
• The implementation of electronic records amounted to a sea change in court procedures and court records.
Regardless, the US Supreme Court to this date failed to publish rules pertaining to the operation of its own
electronic court systems, or the electronic court systems of the US district courts and US courts of appeals.
Conduct of court proceedings with no published rules is alleged as serious violation of the Due Process
and Fair Hearings rights.
• The US Congress to this date failed to enact federal rules of electronic court systems as well.
• In contrast, the US Congress enacted laws pertaining to electronic systems in other branches of
government, presidential directives were issued, regulations were promulgated, and specific applications
were implemented for securing the validity and authenticity of e-government. [23-29]
The US Congress should perform its duties and initiate corrective actions:
a) Enactment of federal rules of electronic courts:
The Judicial Branch remains an exception, with no legal foundation for the authentication and
validation of its electronic systems and electronic records.
The evidence shows that the clerks of the courts today do not deem themselves accountable for the
integrity of electronic records of the online public access and case management systems of the courts.
z Page 4/6 January 25, 2011

Publication of uncertified, unauthenticated records and false, invalid online dockets is commonplace
in the US courts. Under such circumstances, deliberately invalid judicial proceedings are conducted,
which undermine the powers of the Executive and Legislative Branches and the frameworks of
democratic government. In the past couple of years alone the US courts have conducted invalid
judicial proceedings pertaining to banking regulation, healthcare reform, and management of the
armed services. [31-33]
Therefore, the US Congress should perform its duties and establish federal rules of electronic court.
The requirement for publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic
verification) of all electronic court systems should be part of such rules, or separately enacted.
b) Restoring key provisions of the Salary Act of 1919, which placed the clerks of the US courts
under the authority of the US Attorney General:
When the Salary Act was passed, conditions in the US courts were described in the US Congress
as "a burlesque", and conduct of the clerks were central to it. [30] The Salary Act was later
credited as a key measure in restoring the US courts’ integrity. The Act restored the checks and
balances between judges and clerks, which were the reason for instituting the offices of the
clerks centuries ago - as a cornerstone in the safeguard of court integrity.
By the mid 20th century the clerks were again placed under the authority of the judiciary.
2. The public at large, and computing professionals in particular, should perform their civic duties
The public at large and computing professionals, in particular, should perform their civic duties and
“keep a watchful eye” on electronic court records. No other measures could substitute for public scrutiny
in the safeguard of the integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
___
Notice of this request was given to the United Nations Human Rights Council, in view of the pending
final vote on the 2010 UPR of Human Rights in the United States.
In case additional information would be needed in this matter, beyond that which is provided in the
linked reports, I would be happy to provide any help possible.
Your attention to these matters is kindly requested.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
____
CC:
United Nations Human Rights Council, Working Group on the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States.
____
LINKS:
[1] 11-01-22 Declaration of George McDermott in re: Attempt to Access US Supreme Court Paper and Electronic Records to
Inspect and to Copy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47455844/
[2] 10-07-28 Declaration of George McDermott in Re July 26, 2010 Attempt to Discover US Supreme Court Records in Fine v Baca
(09-A827)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47460703/
[3] 10-08-10 Declaration of George McDermott in re: Fine v Baca (09-A1250) – records obtained from the paper file of the US
Supreme Court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36471702/
[4] 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 Kennedy
z Page 5/6 January 25, 2011

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306238/
[5] 10-04-21 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) US Supreme Court online docket showing March 12 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304940/
[6] 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 the Application.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306342/
[7] 10-07-25 Taitz v Macdonald (10-A56) at the Supreme Court of the United States Records of Denial of the Application
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/
[8] 10-08-01 Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Clerk in the US Supreme Court, in re: Fine v
Baca (09-A827)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35193676/
[9] 10-08-13 Fine v Baca (09-1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States, online Order Lists pertaining to denial of petition for Writ of
Certiorari
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36483347/
[10] 10-08-13 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A927), Fine v Baca (09-1250), and Fine v Baca (10-A24): October 2009 Term Journal of
the Supreme Court of the United States - Validity, or lack thereof
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36476926/
[11] 10-08-13 Fine v Baca (09-1250) Petition for Writ of Certiorari: Online docket
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36481927/
[12] 10-04-18 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/
[13] 10-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Zernik’s Declaration Re Danny Bickell and Filing at the US Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30366354/
[14] 10-04-23 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) US Supreme Court - docket showing no Motion to Intervene, no ruling
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430465/
[15] 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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
[16] 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 Court “Staff Attorney” Danny Bickell.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36466636/
[17] 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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34657461/
[18] 10-11-25 William Suter - Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States - Evidence of Public Corruption
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44034212/
[19] 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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44817092/
[20] 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/doc/47146842/
[21] 10-11-10 United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Working Group: Outcome Document of the 2010 UPR of
the United States: Wg.6 9 l.9 USA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42157366/
[22] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR)
of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
[23] 00-06-30 E-Sign Act (2000)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516104/
[24] 03-01-07 E-Government Act (2002) HR2458 Final - USA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46429557/
[25] 04-08-28 DHS _ Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12_ Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors - USA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46428296/
[26] 11-01-08 NIST-CSRC-Guidance on E-Sign Implementation in Federal Agencies
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516618/
[27] 05-08-05 m05-24- Office of Management and Budget: Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments and Agencies in re:
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 - USA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46428607/
[28] 06-09-07 Tumbleweed Validation Authority Secures FIPS 201 Certification - USA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46427903/
[29] 10-09-28 Innovative Uses of SCAP-Developing a Government-Funded SCAP-Validated Application/ Internal Revenue
Service /National Security Agency - USA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46426854/
[30] 02-00-00 Messinger, I Scott: Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts, Federal Judicial Center (2002)
z Page 6/6 January 25, 2011

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34819774/
[31] 11-01-10 Request for investigation/impeachment proceedings, in re: US Judge JED RAKOFF and Clerk RUBY KRAJICK,
US District Court, Southern District of New York, Conduct of Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America
Corporation (1:09-cv-06829)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46616530/
[32] 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and
Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/
[33] 11-01-13 Press Release: Commonwealth of Virginia v Sebelius in the US District Court – Constitutional Challenge to the
Obama Health Care Law – Appears as Deliberately Invalid Litigation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46836277/
____
Human Rights Alert 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 County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses
on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in
the United States.

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
_____
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES?
* "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important
speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable
from courts of third world nations."
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute
http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert
_____
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated
relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are
convicted."
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
_____
WHAT DID THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
* "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/