AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@eart hlink.net, c=US Date: 2011.08.18 20:37:42 +03'00'

I, Joseph Zernik, the undersigned, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:

1.

My name is Joseph Zernik. I am over the age of 21, am competent to

testify, and have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein. 2. 3. 4. My address is 2231 South Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301. I have experience with corrupt judges. I would welcome the opportunity to testify before a grand jury about

my experiences. 5. I have gained substantial experience over the past decade in

examining electronic records of the California and US courts. 6. A report, which I have authored, was reviewed by the professional

staff of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States. The same report was incorporated by reference into the official UPR Staff Report, with a note referring to corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California. 7. A scholarly paper, which I have authored on the subject of fraud in the

electronic records of the US courts, was peer-reviewed and published in a computer science journal with an editorial board listing scholars from six (6) European nations and Canada.
1/4

8.

An abstract on the subject of fraud in the electronic records of the US

courts, which I authored, was peer-reviewed and published by the 16th World Criminology Congress. 9. The same papers were peer-reviewed and selected for presentations in

an international computer science conference in Europe and the 16th World Criminology Congress in Japan. 10. My opinions in such matters were also re-affirmed by opinion letters

of well-recognized fraud experts and a computer science scholar, including, but not limited to: a. James Wedick, an FBI-veteran, who was decorated by the US Congress, by FBI Director, and by US Attorney General for his achievements in law enforcement, and b. Professor Eliyahu Shamir, a well-recognized computer science expert, who made seminal contributions to computer science in the field of language analysis (co-author of the Pumping Lemma). 11. I have examined electronic records, which are publicly accessible, in

the case of Maid of the Mist Corporation et al v Alcatraz Media, LLC, et al (1:09Cv-01543) in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia. 12. In my opinion, the case referenced in 11, above, in the US District

Court, Northern District of Georgia, is replete with electronic records that are false
2/4

and deliberately misleading, and the case as a whole amounts to fraud on Mr William Windsor by the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia. 13. I have examined paper records, copies of which were provided to me

by Mr William Windsor in the case of Windsor v Evans et al (1:10-cv-00197) in the US Court, District of Columbia. 14. Under the practices of electronic filing in the US courts, the paper

records, which were provided to me by Mr William Windsor in the case, referenced in 13, above, are false and deliberately misleading, and the case as a whole amounts to fraud on Mr William Windsor by the US District Court, District of Columbia. 15. In my opinion, PACER (the electronic system for public access to

court electronic records) and CM/ECF (the electronic system for case management and electronic case filing), which were implemented by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, enable the routine conduct of simulated litigation of cases before the US courts. 16. The term Simulated Litigation as used in 15, above, refers to

litigation, where conduct is documented, as defined in the Texas Penal Code, 32.48. 17. In pertinent parts, Texas Penal Code, 32.48, says:
Texas Penal Code 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.

3/4

(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: (1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or (2) cause another 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. (b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.

18.

Based on reviews, which I have conducted, of cases from multiple US

district courts across the United States, the practice of simulated litigation today is widespread in the US courts, particularly in cases, where individuals try to protect their rights against abuse by government, or large corporations. FURTHER SAITH AFFIANT NOT. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of August 2011.

_____________________________ Joseph Zernik

4/4