.

page counter []
"...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* "Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy". KNBC (October 16, 2008) * "Innocent people remain in prison" LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * Los Angeles County is "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud." FBI (2004) * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000) * "Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008) * "Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión" LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006) * Condado de Los Angeles es "el epicentro de la epidemia de bienes raíces y el fraude de la hipoteca." FBI (2004) * "... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron." Prof. David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * "Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes." Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)

Thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain locked up more than a decade after official, expert, and media report documented that they were falsely prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in the largest court corruption sandal in the history of the United States...

Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/

Nuestro derecho a acceso los expedientes publicos, nuestra libertad y nuestros derechos humanos fundamentales están todos conectados en las caderas!

10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations

In summer 2010, the staff report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States, noticed and referenced the Human Rights Alert April 2010 submission, pertaining to "corruption of the courts, the legal profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

10-07-21 Rhodes v MacDonald at the US Supreme Court - failure of Associate Justice Thomas to dispose of matter before him


10-07-21 Rhodes v MacDonald at the US Supreme Court  - Failure of Associate Justice Thomas to dispose of matter before him.

Litigation originated from claims of ineligibility of US President Barack Obama for his office, pertaining to place of birth.

In response to an Application for Stay of Execution (of sanctions) submitted to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Applicant Orly Taitz was never served by the US Supreme Court with a purported order denying the application.

The Applicant then filed the motion requesting the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court for verification of signature of Justice Thomas.

Her motion should not have been for verification of signature...  There is no legal foundation for such motion... Her motion should have been for Due Process of Law -notice and service by the US Supreme Court of orders and mandates that are verified by a Justice of the US Supreme Court and attested by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, and require "full faith and credit".

Alternatively, in the absence of a verified, attested order, motion should have been for Justice Thomas to comply with the Code of Conduct of US Judges, and expediently dispose of judicial matters brought before him.

See also similar conduct by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), where complaint was consequently filed alleging public corruption by US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell.
[1]
Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO

LINKS:
[1]
10-07-01-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleged-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-Rights-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO

LINKS:
[1]
10-07-01-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleged-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-Rights-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

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. 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.


MOTION -REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS WAS SUBMITTED TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSPosted on | July 20, 2010 | 

No.
In The 
Supreme Court of the United States

Rhodes
v
MacDonald

REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IN RE 

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions originally submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA  92688
949-683-5411

ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS

REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IN RE 

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION as to the sanctions originally submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas

Background of the request and statement of facts

1 On July 8 2010 Application for stay of sanctions 10A524 was docketed with the Supreme Court and addressed to Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas.

2. On July 16, Friday 2010, around 9PM EST Applicant Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq (hereinafter Taitz)  checked the electronic docket of the Supreme court, it showed no answer from Clarence Thomas.

3. On the same day Taitz has issued a press release, stating that there is no answer from Justice Thomas. Above press release was sent to some 28,000 media outlets and  some 300,000 individuals.

4. On Saturday July 17, 2010 Taitz started getting comments on her web site from some Obama supporters  gloating about the fact that Justice Thomas dismissed her application. Originally, Taitz dismissed those as a dumb joke, but as those comments continued, she checked the electronic docket of the Supreme Court and to her amazement found, that somebody made a new entry on Saturday July 17, 2010, and backdated it for Thursday the 15th of July, stating that Justice Thomas dismissed her application.

5. On Saturday the court was closed, Justices and clerks were not there, therefore the applicant has reasonable belief and suspicion, that above entry was not authorized.

6. There appears to be a pattern of docket entries made or deletions of entries from the docket  done when the Supreme Court is closed.

7. On January 7, 2009 Your Honor reviewed another application for stay filed by Taitz on behalf of her clients: 08A524 Lightfoot v Bowen. Your Honor distributed above application  to be heard in the conference of the full court on January 23, 2010.

8. This case was followed by a number of citizens with great interest, as it dealt with Barack Hussein Obama�s illegitimacy to US presidency.

9. Some 360,000 US citizens have filed a petition by Net world Daily magazine, that was addressed to Justices, asking them to hear the case on the merits.

10. Before inauguration, on January 19, 2010 Application 08A524 was on  the docket of the Supreme Court.

11. On January 21, 2009, when Supreme Court was reopened for business after inauguration, and two days before the scheduled conference, application was not there, it was deleted by someone, as if it never existed.

12. Numerous outraged citizens, including members of the media and state representatives, called the Supreme Court and demanded to re-enter the application on the docket.

13. On January 22, 2009 Taitz received a phone call from a stays clerk, Danny Bickell, who asked Taitz to tell her supporters  not to contact the Supreme Court, he stated that application was never deleted. Taitz responded that she has affidavits and screen shots from her supporters, showing that the case disappeared. At that time Mr. Bickell stated that it was a computer problem, that affected all the cases. Taitz responded, that this statement is not true either, as she has an affidavit from Attorney Theresa Ward, ESq, member of the bar of the Supreme Court, who could see other cases on the docket, but Taitz case was not there. Ms. Ward called the Supreme Court and complained. At that point Mr. Bickel stated that the case will be re-entered within an hour and asked Taitz to contact her supporters and ask them not to contact the Supreme Court, as the problem was fixed. Above conversation happened on January 22, at the end of the day, while the conference of all nine justices was supposed to be the next morning.

14. On January 23, 2009 all nine justices supposedly discussed the case.

15. On January 26, 2009 it was announced that the justices decided not to proceed with oral argument.

16. On March 9, 2009 Justice Scalia was giving a lecture and signing his books in Los Angeles.

17. Taitz attended the lecture, asked Justice Scalia questions during Q and A and later at the book signing asked Justice Scalia, why the case was not heard in oral argument, why wasn't it heard on the merits. To her amazement, Justice Scalia had no clue the case even existed, he could not remember one word, one thing about the case. When Taitz asked Justice Scalia about other similar cases, he could not remember a thing either, even though he was supposedly the Justice, who referred some of those cases to the conference in the first place, which means that he supposedly read those cases more than once.

Argument

Currently, there is a clear pattern of entries being made on the docket of the Supreme Court, or entries or even cases deleted, when the court is closed and the Justices and the clerks are not there. While it is not uncommon for the clerks to make entries a day or two after the order was made, it is uncommon to do it when the court is closed. It is more unlikely for such entry to be made on an inauguration day, when all the Justices were not there and could be seen on TV attending the inauguration. Supreme Court is not a city bus, when one can go in and out any time he feels like. Supreme Court has tight security, and there were situations where cases were held for nearly a month, when it was told to the applicants, that the documents are undergoing Anthrax scan. It is highly imptobable, that someone would be working in the Supreme Court, when it is closed, particularly on inauguration day.

It is also of concern, that Justice Scalia could not remember any of the cases dealing with legitimacy of Barack Obama, particularly in light of the fact that at the lecture he gave on March 9, 2009 he stated that the Justices pick for oral argument cases not based on beauty of writing or legal argument, but based on importance to the country. What can be more important than legitimacy of a person sitting in the position of the president and Commander in Chief?

Of Additional concern is the fact that in both cases unexplained activity happened, when the cases were to the detriment of Mr. Obama, stating that he was not eligible to the presidency due to the fact that he had foreign allegiance and citizenship and due to the fact that he refused and still refuses  to unseal his original birth certificate, and the short version received does not show the name of the hospital or doctor or signatures. Taitz also provided information, that the social security number used by Mr. Obama, 042-68-4425, was issued in the state of CT, while he resided in Hi, and it was issued to an elderly individual, born in 1890.

Points and authorities

Taitz cannot provide any points and authorities, as nothing like that ever happened in the Supreme Court and Taitz is requesting your Honor to review the above Motion as the matter of first impression.

Relief requested
1. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert (to be identified at a later date)  and view the orders pertaining to her cases and verify and clarify,  that there is a valid signature of Justice Thomas and his clerk on the denial of application 10A56, entered on the Docket on Saturday 17, 2010.
2. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert and verify that there genuine signatures of all nine Justices on the denial of her case 08A524 discussed in conference on January 23, 2009.
3. Taitz is requesting your Honor to grant her and her computer security expert  (to be identified at a later date) access to the electronic docket of the cases pertaining to her and her clients, in order to ascertain who made an entry in the docket 10A56 on Saturday, July 17, 2010 and who deleted the Application 08A 524 from the docket of the Supreme Court and whether such person was authorized to make such changes to the docket.

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

07.20.10.

Certification

I certify that true and correct copy of the above was served on

Kumar Neal Katyal
Acting Solicitor General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania ave, N.W.
Washington DC 20530-0001

Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR
Assistant US Attorney
P.O.Box 1702
Macon, GA 31202-1702
US Commission

on Civil Rights  
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20425 C

Public Integrity Section
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
International Criminal bar Hague
BPI-ICB-CAPI

Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070
0031 (70) 3268070
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531
Email: info@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org

Regional Office "Americas / Bureau Regional  Ameriques / Oficina Regional Americas
137, rue St-Pierre
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H2Y 3T5
Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757      
001 (514) 289-8757
Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590
Email: admin@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org

Laura Vericat Figarola
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Secretaria Barcelona
laura_bpi@icab.es

Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1-2-
08029 Barcelona, Espana
Tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24

United Nations Commission for
Civil Rights Defenders
Orsolya Toth (Ms)
Human Rights Officer
Civil and Political Rights Section
Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
Email: ototh@ohchr.org

Signed
/s/ 

Orly Taitz
Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine