Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10-07-25 Taitz V Macdonald (10-A56) at The Supreme Court of The United States - Records of Denial of The Application S

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    100 views7 pages
    William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz Los Angeles, July 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to certify the online dockets of Applications pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the dockets from the Court’s own case management system. [1] Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively. Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that were not favored by government. In the former – Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles Superior Court judges of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”), which necessitated the signing by the California governor of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for all such judges. Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. However, no warrant was ever issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. In the latter – Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her. In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel Danny Bickell. However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the dockets and the respective letters by Danny Bickell. Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and ambiguous in both design and operation. Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. 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. LINKS [1] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-Dockets-by-William-Suter-Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/ [2] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-in-Application-s http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/ [3] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-Records-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-s http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/

    Original Title

    10-07-25 Taitz v Macdonald (10-A56) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Records of Denial of the Application s

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz Los Angeles, July 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to certify the online dockets of Applications pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the dockets from the Court’s own case management system. [1] Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively. Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that were not favored by government. In the former – Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles Superior Court judges of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”), which necessitated the signing by the California governor of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for all such judges. Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. However, no warrant was ever issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. In the latter – Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her. In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel Danny Bickell. However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the dockets and the respective letters by Danny Bickell. Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and ambiguous in both design and operation. Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. 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. LINKS [1] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-Dockets-by-William-Suter-Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/ [2] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-in-Application-s http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/ [3] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-Records-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-s http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    100 views7 pages

    10-07-25 Taitz V Macdonald (10-A56) at The Supreme Court of The United States - Records of Denial of The Application S

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz Los Angeles, July 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to certify the online dockets of Applications pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the dockets from the Court’s own case management system. [1] Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively. Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that were not favored by government. In the former – Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles Superior Court judges of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”), which necessitated the signing by the California governor of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for all such judges. Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. However, no warrant was ever issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. In the latter – Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her. In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel Danny Bickell. However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the dockets and the respective letters by Danny Bickell. Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and ambiguous in both design and operation. Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010. 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. LINKS [1] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-Dockets-by-William-Suter-Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/ [2] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-in-Application-s http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/ [3] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-Records-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-s http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7

    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: 2010.07.25
    17:53:13 +03'00'
    Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

    10-07-25 Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56) – Records of the US Supreme Court

    The following Court records are attached herein:


    1) Online public access system of the Court: Opening page for dockets search
    2) Online public access system of the Court: Docket in Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56)
    3) July 15, 2010 letter by Counsel Danny Bickell
    4) Online public access system of the Court: Log - 2009 Term Court Orders

    Review of the records, listed above, raised the following concerns:


    1) Regarding online Docket entry noting a July 15, 2010 Denial of the Application by Justice Thomas:
    a) Local Rules of the Court, Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices, states:
    6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy
    means, of the disposition made of an application.
    However, the July 15, 2010 letter was neither by the Clerk nor by an authorized Deputy Clerk, but by
    Counsel.
    b) The signature on the letter appeared false on its face: It noted in the signature box:
    by
    Danny Bickell
    Staff Attorney
    However, the graphic signature showed:
    William K Suter
    d) Log of 2009 Term Orders failed to list the July 15, 2010 denial by Justice Thomas.

    Therefore, the records as a whole were deemed vague and ambiguous.


    On July 25, 2010 request was submitted to the Clerk of the Court William Suter by Human Rights Alert
    (NGO) - to certify the online docket, and provide copy of the docket in the Court’s own case
    management system in the case.
    7/25/2010 Untitled Document

    Docket

    The automated docket system is the Court's case tracking system. It contains information about cases, both pending and
    decided. The docket provided on this page contains information regarding the status of cases for both the current Term and
    the prior Term. The Court's Term begins on the first Monday in October and ends on the preceding day the next year. The
    October Term 2008 begins on October 6, 2008. Information on the docket is updated on the day after an entry is made on
    the docket.

    Users can search for cases by using a Supreme Court docket number, a lower court docket number, or a case name. The
    format for Supreme Court docket numbers is "Term year-number" (e.g., 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001.). Word searches can also
    be accomplished.

    Questions Presented. Internet users can review the Questions Presented in granted and noted cases simply by clicking on
    the hyperlink located within the Docket's case summary information for a particular case. For example, when a user
    accesses the docket information for case number 07-330, a hyperlink will appear just beneath the decision date within the
    case summary information. Once the hyperlink is clicked, the user will be linked to a .pdf file setting forth the Question(s)
    Presented in the case.

    Search for: Search

    Recent Filings in Original Nos. 1, 2 & 3

    Case Distribution Schedule

    Delivery of Documents to the Clerk's Office

    On-Line MERITS BRIEFS

    Special Master Reports

    1/1
    7/25/2010 Untitled Document

    M, SUPREME COURT
    ...9' OF THE UNITE!) STATES

    No. 10A56
    Title: Orly Taitz, Applicant
    v.
    Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et
    al.
    Docketed:
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-15418)

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
    Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.

    ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~


    Attorneys for Petitioner:
    (949) 683-
    Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
    5411
    Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
    Party name: Orly Taitz
    Attorneys for Respondents:
    (202) 514-
    Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General
    2217
    Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Party name: Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.

    1/1
    SupreJne Court ofthe United States
    Office of the Clerk
    Washington, DC 20543-{)OOl

    July l[j, 2010

    M•. Orl)' Talt.z


    29839 SanUo Marl'''l.II Pkwy
    Rancho SanUo Mupnta, CA 92688

    Roo: Orl)' T.. t~


    ., T'bn_ D. Macl>ozWd, CoIonJ,I GIUnlOD Com.andfor, Fort
    BenntnJ,etll1.
    Appbc:llbDa No, 1QA66

    on. appbc:llQ;lll. .... a _,. ... tM aloo' .....trdad _ ftq . . .


    p..... nted to J....uca T'bom... who 011 July U. 2010, denied tba app1lcabDa.

    Soneerely,

    \\llliam K. Sutu, auk

    Danny BlCkeU
    Slaff AIUlme)'
    7/25/2010 Untitled Document

    M, SUPREME COURT
    ...9' OF THE UNITE!) STATES

    2009 Term Court Orders

    The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order
    will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on
    each Monday that the Court sits, but "miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.
    Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are
    posted on the day of issuance or the next day.

    Caution: These electronic orders may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed
    versions. Moreover, all order lists and miscellaneous orders are replaced within a few months by paginated versions
    of them in a preliminary print of the United States Reports, and one year after the issuance of the preliminary print by
    the final version of the orders in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and
    electronic versions of orders, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between order lists or
    miscellaneous orders and any later official version of them, the later version controls.

    07/22/10 Miscellaneous Order


    07/21/10 Miscellaneous Order
    07/16/10 Miscellaneous Order
    07/16/10 Miscellaneous Order
    07/01/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/29/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/28/10 Order List
    06/21/10 Order List
    06/17/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/17/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/17/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/15/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/14/10 Order List
    06/10/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/09/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/08/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/07/10 Order List
    06/01/10 Miscellaneous Order
    06/01/10 Order List
    1/3
    7/25/2010 Untitled Document
    05/25/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/24/10 Order List
    05/20/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/20/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/20/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/19/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/17/10 Order List
    05/12/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/12/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/12/10 Miscellaneous Order
    05/03/10 Order List
    04/28/10 Rules of Appellate Procedure
    04/28/10 Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
    04/28/10 Rules of Civil Procedure
    04/28/10 Rules of Criminal Procedure
    04/28/10 Rules of Evidence
    04/27/10 Miscellaneous Order
    04/26/10 Order List
    04/22/10 Miscellaneous Order
    04/19/10 Miscellaneous Order
    04/19/10 Miscellaneous Order
    04/19/10 Miscellaneous Order
    04/19/10 Order List
    04/16/10 Miscellaneous Order
    04/16/10 Miscellaneous Order
    04/05/10 Order List
    03/29/10 Order List
    03/24/10 Miscellaneous Order
    03/22/10 Order List
    03/19/10 Miscellaneous Order
    03/15/10 Miscellaneous Order
    03/08/10 Order List
    03/01/10 Order List
    02/22/10 Order List
    02/19/10 Miscellaneous Order
    02/16/10 Miscellaneous Order
    02/16/10 Miscellaneous Order
    02/12/10 Miscellaneous Order
    2/3
    7/25/2010 Untitled Document
    02/04/10 Miscellaneous Order
    02/04/10 Miscellaneous Order
    01/25/10 Order List
    01/19/10 Order List
    01/15/10 Miscellaneous Order
    01/12/10 Miscellaneous Order
    01/12/10 Miscellaneous Order
    01/11/10 Miscellaneous Order
    01/11/10 Order List
    01/08/10 Miscellaneous Order
    12/14/09 Order List
    12/08/09 Miscellaneous Order
    12/07/09 Miscellaneous Order
    12/07/09 Order List
    12/03/09 Miscellaneous Order
    12/03/09 Miscellaneous Order
    12/03/09 Miscellaneous Order
    11/30/09 Order List
    11/19/09 Miscellaneous Order
    11/18/09 Miscellaneous Order
    11/16/09 Miscellaneous Order
    11/16/09 Order List
    11/09/09 Order List
    11/05/09 Miscellaneous Order
    11/02/09 Order List
    10/27/09 Miscellaneous Order
    10/27/09 Miscellaneous Order
    10/20/09 Miscellaneous Order
    10/20/09 Miscellaneous Order
    10/20/09 Miscellaneous Order
    10/20/09 Order List
    10/13/09 Order List
    10/05/09 Order List

    3/3

    You might also like