Same results with a personal visit to the Supreme court: No signatures of Justices either in Lightfoot v Bowen heard by all 9 justices in conference, nor in Rhodes(Taitz) v MacDonald 10A56 supposedly denied by Thomas. Please report it to Public Integrity Unit of DOJ, Congress and Senate, demand criminal investigation
Posted on | August 10, 2010 | No Comments
False notice of denial in Fine v Baca 09-1250, denial of access to Taitz files
InboxX
Reply |joseph zernik to me, Josh, aaronklein21
show details 12:08 AM (17 hours ago)
Hi Orly:
My guy went to SCOTUS, but they denied him access to your two files, under claim that they were in Chambers.
That excuse is far-fetched, since the court is now in recess.
I believe that the clerk is now more cautious, after the complaints filed with US Attorneys Office regarding false court records at SCOTUS, and is simply violating First Amendment rights to access court records – to inspect and to copy.
However, the guy did obtain a new record, which was missing from the Richard Fine files before, and is a new, unsigned, no name of signer notice of denial of his petition for rehearing on July 26, 2010 in Fine v Baca (09-1250).
This notice is void on its face. Moreover, it appears as a record that was retroactively inserted in the file.
Comments
Leave a Reply












29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 
