William Windsor is a victim of racketeering in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The case of William Windsor: Alleged racketeering in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia, is enabled by the large-scale fraud in the electronic record systems of the U.S. Courts (PACER and CM/ECF).
William M. Windsor is trying to find out: Is this honest litigation, or is this a hoax? Clerk James Hatten is saying: None of your businessâ€¦
Corruption of the U.S. courts is the tight link, connecting abuse of Human Rights and the Economic Crisisâ€¦
So far I have never seen a letter such as the one William M. Windsor just received. Clerk James Hatten of the US Court, Northern District of Georgia, is flaunting the corruption.
In previous cases archived by me, no written records were provided to document the corruption, or letters were provided by low level, or unauthorized court personnel. Here a signed letter was provided by Clerk of the U.S. Court James Hatten.
The sequence of events in this case was clear and simple:
- On May 17, Windsor went to the Office of the Clerk and submitted a request â€˜to access court recordsâ€ in his cases. [i] — Figure 1: Pro Se Defendant Windsorâ€™s May 13, 2011 request to see his own court records.
- On May 17, Windsor was not permitted to access any of the papers in his cases.
- The May 27 letter by Clerk Hatten establishes that Windsor is not permitted to access the authentication records in his case. (NEFs Notices of Electronic Filing). [ii] — Figure 2: Clerk Hattenâ€™s May 27, 2011 letter stating â€œwe do not provide copies of the NEFs,â€ the electronic authentication records.
Obviously, such conditions undermine any notion of Civil Rights or integrity in the US court system.
The reason that Clerk Hatten is denying Windsor the right to see his own case court papers is obviousâ€¦
In a series of cases in the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia, and the US District Court, DC, William Windsor has attempted to protect his rights against alleged financial fraud, judicial corruption, and abuse of his rights. The cases were previously opined by me (Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO)) as cases of simulated litigation and racketeering in the US courts: [iii,iv]
- In the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Judge Orinda D. Evans, Judge William S. Duffey, Jr, and Clerk James Hatten conducted litigation founded on simulated docket, simulated minutes, orders, and judgments.
- In the US District Court, DC, Judge Richard J. Leon and Clerk Mayer-Whittington denied Plaintiff Windsor the right to file papers in court with no due process at all.
Dr. Joseph Zernik
Dr Zernikâ€™s opinions regarding large-scale fraud in the state and US courts have been internationally recognized
In recent years, Dr Zernik has gained has gained substantial experience in analysis of large government and corporate record keeping systems: [v]
- His opinions in such matters were reviewed and adopted by the United Nations official Staff Report, as part of 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States.
- His opinions in such matters were supported by law enforcement and computer science experts.
- Papers he authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in an international computer science journal with an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada.
- His opinions in such matters were selected for presentation in international computer science and criminology conferences.
The electronic records systems of the US courts PACER and CM/ECF are large-scale fraud on the people
â€œThe fraud is made possible by the electronic records systems of the US courts, PACER and CM/ECF. NaÃ¯ve people believe that the records, which are published online by the US courts are true court records,â€ says Dr Zernik.
The large-scale fraud in PACER and CM/ECF was previously opined as primarily directed against pro se filers non-attorney individuals, who come to the US courts in efforts to protect their rights. The essence of the fraud is in the online publications of simulated, fake court records. The courts themselves do not consider such records as valid and effectual, unless they are duly authenticated. However, pro se filers are routinely denied access to the electronic authentication records (NEFs), which would have enabled them to distinguish between valid and void court records. [vi]
â€œYou can think about it as a check where the signature is blacked out, or missingâ€¦ In fraud experts lingo, the case of PACER and CM/ECF is a Shell Game Fraud, or Confidence Trick,â€ says Dr Zernik, â€œWe are preparing to ask US Attorney General to start an investigation. It is an unheard of case of organized fraud by the Judiciary on the People.â€ [vii]
Corruption of the US courts is the tight link connecting abuse of Human Rights and the Economic Crisis.
â€œCorruption of the US courts is the often overlooked core issue in the current economic crisis,â€ says Dr Zernik, â€œUnless integrity of the courts is restored, conditions are not going to improve anytime soon.â€
Without honest courts, there is no way to restore honest Banking Regulation and prosecute those who are criminally accountable for the ongoing crisis. [viii]
[i] 11-05-17 Affidavit of William M Windsor in re: Denial of access to court record in the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia, (1:09-CV-01543), (1:09-CV-02027), and (I:06-CV-0714)
[ii] 11-05-27 In re: William Windsor (1:06-cv-0714, 1:09-cv-01543, and 1:09-MI-0220) US Court, Northern District of Georgia – denial of pro se Defendantâ€™s access to court records s
[iii]  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
 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
 11-11-12 PRESS RELEASE: Maid of the Mist Corporation Et Al v Alcatraz Media, LLC, Et Al (1-09-Cv-01543) Simulated Litigation – Fraud in the US Court, Northern District of Georgia
 11-05-26 Windsor v Evans et al (1:10-cv-00197) in the US Court, District of Columbia – Willful Misconduct by US Judge Richard Leon to cover up corruption of the US Court, Northern District of Georgia
 11-05-30 PRESS RELEASE: Judge Richard Leon, US District Court, DC master of the â€œLeave to file deniedâ€
 11-06-02 DRAFT Request for US Attorney General Eric Holder’s Investigation of the Integrity, or lack thereof, of Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts
 11-06-02 PRESS RELEASE: Eric Holder, US Attorney General is requested to investigate the integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic records systems of the US courts draft published for comments
[iv] Simulated Litigation, Simulated Minutes, Orders, Judgments, Dockets are used here in the sense established in the Texas Penal Code:
Texas Penal Code
Â§ 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:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
- submit to the putative authority of the document; or
- 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.
[v] 11-05-08 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
[vi]11-05-20 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)
[vii] 11-06-02 PRESS RELEASE: Eric Holder, US Attorney General is requested to investigate the integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic records systems of the US courts draft published for comments
[viii] 11-04-21 PRESS RELEASE: “In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures” – Because of widespread corruption of the justice system, they are effectively immuneâ€¦
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
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.
Windsor notes: One of the key issues about all of this is that by denying pro se parties access to this information while autiomatically sending it all to the attorney for the opposing party, the courts are grossly viiolatinbg the rights of due process. Pro se parties are denied access to the information that will enable them to pr0ve records that are false and orders that are void.
About NEFs (Wikipedia):
The Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) is part of the system established by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts through the dual docketing and access systems of PACER & CM/ECF. The NEF purportedly provides the authentication of the service of an electronically-filed pleading or other filing by parties, or of service of the electronically-filed orders and judgments of the courts, upon attorneys in the case who have been permitted by the court to participate in electronic filing in CM/ECF. Therefore, for such parties, the NEF replaced the traditional certificate of service or proof of service. Likewise, the graphic hand-signatures in traditional certificates of service were replaced in NEFs by digitally encrypted,alphanumeric “checksum” strings. Effectively, the NEF today is the evidence of entry of court minutes, orders, and judgments, and therefore, it is of critical significance.
Sources of information
For example, the most explicit definition of the power and effect of NEF in the Central District of California, one of the most populous in the U.S., including Los Angeles County, remained in the “Unofficial Manual” of CM/ECF as follows (Rev 07, 2008, page 13):
L. The Notice of Electronic Filing
The system will present you with a Notice of Electronic Filing (â€œNEFâ€) screen and will also e-mail you a copy of the NEF. The Notice of Electronic Filing (â€œNEFâ€) is your proof that the document has been E-Filed. You should print the screen to a piece of paper or a PDF (or both) before proceeding, because you will need to attach the NEF as the last page of the courtesy copy that you submit to the Court. The NEF includes a â€œdocument numberâ€ and a link. Be sure to note that document number, as you will need it if you need to e-mail a proposed order to the Court. The NEF also includes an â€œElectronic Document Stampâ€ which is a string of letters and numbers which Court staff can use to verify the authenticity of the NEF. The NEF also contains the path and file name of the document you uploaded and any attachments.
A more specific definition is found in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing. 
Section 2: Definitions and Related Requirements: (page 5)
h. Notice of Electronic Filing (â€œNEFâ€) is an electronic notice automatically generated by the Electronic Filing System at the time a document is docketed. The NEF includes the time of filing and docketing, the name of the party and Filing User filing the document, the type of document, the text of the docket entry, the name of the party and Filing User receiving the notice. If a document is attached to the docket entry, the NEF will contain a Hyperlink to the filed document allowing recipients to retrieve the document.
Section 7: Consequences of Electronic Filing (page 11)
a. Electronic transmission of a document through the Electronic Filing System constitutes the filing of the document pursuant to Rule 5(e), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rule 49, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
b. The transmission of a NEF constitutes entry on the docket pursuant to Rules 58 and 79, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rules 49 and 55, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
Section 16: Notice of Court Orders and Judgments
a. Immediately upon entry of an order or judgment, the Clerk will transmit a NEF to Filing Users. Transmission of the NEF constitutes the notice required by Rule 77(d), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and Rule 49(c), FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. The Clerk will send paper copies of orders and judgments to non-Filing Users.
The General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California provided additional information, pertaining to the significance of the “electronic document stamp” in the process of entry: 
IV. Electronic Filing. (page 17)
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court. The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CMIECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.
Although such information is derived from disparate US courts, it can be assumed to be universally applicable, since the basic platforms of PACER and CM/ECF were universally implemented in all US courts.
As documented, above, in the texts from the US District Courts in California and Texas, the NEF today is the definitive record indicating the entry of minutes, orders, and judgments of the US courts. The listing of such minutes, orders, and judgments in the PACER dockets, in itself, is not necessarily indicative of entry of such judicial records as valid and effectual records of the court.
Examples have been recorded in various US courts of minutes, orders, and judgments, which were published in the PACER dockets, but were not authenticated as entered through the issuance of a valid NEF. Obviously, such minutes, orders, and judgments are not deemed valid and effectual by the US courts. 
Review (2010), published in and international, peer-reviewed computer science journal with Editorial Board listing scholars from six (6) European nations and Canada, opined large-scale computer fraud in the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF. The main points noted in the review were:
- All attestation/authentication records (NEFs – Notice of Electronic Filing) of judicial records (minutes, orders, judgments), which are required in order to render them such that command “full faith and credit”, are concealed from public access. Therefore, the public is unable to distinguish valid and effectual records from void, not voidable records, both being published by the courts in PACER.
- The NEF was opined as invalid as to form: It lacks a certification statement “I, the undersigned, hereby certify…”, it fails to state the name and authority of an individual, issuing the NEF as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
- The NEF bears no valid signature, either graphic or digital. Instead – it carries a machine generated encrypted “checksum” string.
As shown in Figures 1, 3, and 4, the system is amenable to manipulations, where invalid PACER docket notations correspond to records that were never deemed entered, valid and effectual US court records. However, to a naive reader, such notations would appear as valid court records.
Therefore, the system as a whole was opined as undermining the accountability of the Court clerk for integrity of court records.
- ^ PACER is a public-access system, to which access is permitted to any person, albeit for pay and after registration. CM/ECF is the Case Management/Electronic Court Filing system, available only to those permitted by a particular U.S. District or U.S. Court of Appeals.
- ^ a b Anderson’s Unofficial Manual for e-filing at the Central district of California. No Official Manual existed.
- ^ Official Manual of the Eastern District of California
- ^ Official Manual of the Southern District of California
- ^ Compilations of Local Rules of U.S. District Courts
- ^ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, April 1, 2010
- ^ [US District Court Central District of California: General Order 08-02, February 7.2008]
- ^ Zernik,J Motion to Intervene in Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al(10-56634)in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, January 7, 2011
- ^  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)
Figure 4:Invalid PACER docket notation, pertaining to Certificate of Mailing by the Clerk of the Court. The PACER docket notation was assigned no docket number, and no link to a record was provided. Therefore, in fact, there is no such document on record, and the document could not have been issued an NEF, and therefore was not deemed entered. US District Court, Northern District of Georgia, 2009