Posted on | July 29, 2010 | 14 Comments
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margaria PKWY, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603
Attn Mr. Danny Bickell
Clerk for Stays
Supreme Court of the United States
Via Certified Mail return receipt
Dear Mr. Bickell,
On July 8, 2010 my Application for Stay 10A56 was docketed by the Supreme Court. On July 16th at 6pm PST/9pm EST I checked the docket, there was no response from Justice Thomas.
On Saturday July 17, when the Supreme Court was closed, I started getting e-mails and comments on my web site, stating that Justice Thomas denied my application on Thursday, July 15th.
I checked the Docket and found that someone made a notation in the electronic docket on Saturday and backdated it for Thursday. Justice Thomas was in Utah at a time. Additionally, a log of orders on applications within the Supreme Court around July 15-17 showed other applications, but not mine.
Within a few days I called the Supreme Court and talked to the clerk’s office, to an employee by name Eric Fossum, and asked for a copy of the order or cover page of my application, where Justice Thomas signed the denial of my application. I was told, that there is no signature, no signed order and no signature on the cover of the application. When I asked Mr. Fossum, how do I know that Justice Thomas actually read the application or even saw it, if there is no signature, Mr. Fossum was very careful in responding that it was reviewed in chambers. He did not even state that it was reviewed by justice Thomas, he stated that it was reviewed in chambers, which might mean by the clerk, without Justice Thomas ever seeing it. Please, note that Rule 22 specifically require the Justice to note such denial, not the clerk and not someone who happened to be in court on Saturday or someone who happened to somehow enter the electronic docket on Saturday and make an entry.
SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. – RULES
..Part V. Motions and Applications
Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices
1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall
be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to
the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority
to grant the sought relief.
2. The original and two copies of any application addressed
to an individual Justice shall be prepared as required by
Rule 33.2, and shall be accompanied by proof of service as
required by Rule 29.
3. An application shall be addressed to the Justice allotted
to the Circuit from which the case arises. An application
arising from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces shall be addressed to the Chief Justice. When
the Circuit Justice is unavailable for any reason, the
application addressed to that Justice will be distributed to
the Justice then available who is next junior to the Circuit
Justice; the turn of the Chief Justice follows that of the
most junior Justice.
4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial
thereon. Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by
law to the Circuit Justice or is untimely under Rule 30.2,
the party making an application, except in the case of an
application for an extension of time, may renew it to any
other Justice, subject to the provisions of this Rule.
Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed
application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a
letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the
application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies
of the original application and proof of service as required
by Rule 29.
5. A Justice to whom an application for a stay or for bail
is submitted may refer it to the Court for determination.
As there is no signature of Justice Thomas affixed to the denial, it is clearly an erroneous entry in the docket and therefore, I am requesting an erroneous entry to be deleted from the docket and my Application for stay in Rhodes v Macdonald 10A56 properly submitted to Justice Thomas for review. I am also requesting information in regards to the identity of the person, who made the notation of denial on the docket of 10A56 on Saturday, July 17th.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
cc Chief Clerk William Sutton
cc Chief Justice John Roberts
cc Public Integrity Unit Department of Justice
cc Inspector General Department of Justice
cc Civil rights Commission
cc UN Raporteur for Civil Rights Defenders