You are on page 1of 6

Human Rights Alert

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

Fax: 323.488.9697; Email:

10-07-21 Rhodes v MacDonald at the US Supreme Court - Failure of Associate Justice

Thomas to dispose of matter before him

Rhodes v MacDonald was litigation originating from claims of ineligibility of US President Barack Obama
for his office, relative to claims pertaining to his place of birth.

In response for an Application for Stay of Execution (of sanctions) in Rhodes v MacDonald, submitted to the
US Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Applicant Orly Taitz was served by the US Supreme
Court with a purported order denying the application, albeit, such order was unsigned by Associate Justice
Thomas, and was not authenticated by a Clerk of the US Supreme Court.

Consequently, Applicant Taitz filed the motion, copied below, requesting the Chief Justice of the US Supreme
Court “for verification of signature of Justice Thomas.”

If Attorney Taitz were served by first class mail with an order of the US Supreme Court that was not
signed by a judge, and was not authenticated by a clerk, then it was a void, not voidable court record.
There simply is no other way to consider such paper.

Her motion should not have been for verification of signature... The notion is an oxymoron; you
cannot verify a non-existing verification. 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, such that require "full faith and credit" - pursuant to US Constitution,
Article IV, Section 1, Act of May 26, 1790, and Act of March 27, 1804.

Alternatively, since an unverified, unattested order was in fact failure to dispose of judicial matter, her
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
Court Counsel served, with no authority at all, a notice of denial of the Application by former US
prosecutor Richard Fine for Stay of Execution (ongoing, 17 month solitary confinement with no
warrant and no entry of judgment/conviction in the case).

Complaint was consequently filed alleging public corruption by US Supreme Court Counsel Danny
Bickell. [1]

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
z Page 2/6 July 21, 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.



Posted on | July 20, 2010 |
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
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
z Page 3/6 July 21, 2010

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 website 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
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
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 Bickel, 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. Bickel 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.
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
z Page 4/6 July 21, 2010

cases were held for nearly a month, when it was told to the applicants, that the documents are undergoing Anthrax scan. It is highly
improbable, 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
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

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
z Page 5/6 July 21, 2010

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
Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070
0031 (70) 3268070
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531
Regional Office – Americas / Bureau régional – Amériques / Oficina regional – Américas
137, rue St-Pierre
Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 3T5
Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757
001 (514) 289-
Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590

Laura Vericat Figarola

Secretaria Barcelona
Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª
08029 Barcelona, España
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

/s/ Orly Taitz
Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
z Page 6/6 July 21, 2010