Thursday, 21 March 2019
According to the court’s records, for the 6th time (17-82, 17-256, 17-613, 18-344, 18-569 and 18-800), on Feb. 25, 2019, the Supreme Court Justices did not rule on Attorney Yi Tai Shao’s Request for Recusal filed in 18-800, and de-filed Ms. Shao’s motion for judicial notice of the Amicus Curiae motions of Mothers of Lost Children for 18-569 that the Supreme Court also failed to decide. As shown by the court’s docket of 18-800, the Supreme Court removed all pages following the Page 15 of the Request for Recusal but stated on Page 15: “Additional material for this filing is available in Clerk’s Office.” (See http://www.supremecourt.gov; entered docket search of 18-800, click on “Request for Recusal”, P.15) For the very same reason, Ms. Shao sued the Supreme Court seeking declarative relief of impeaching the Justices which is pending appeal with the D.C. Circuit with the case number of 19-5014. Despite pending default entries, Judge Rudolph Contreras sua sponte dismissed the case as against these Justices at the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON (PRWEB) March 21, 2019
In May 2018, California attorney Yi Tai Shao filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with the case number of 1:18-cv-01233, seeking a declarative relief to impeach Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Beyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayer, and two supervising Clerks, Jeff Atkins and Jordan Bickell, based on the Supreme Court’s failure to decide on her Requests for Recusal since September 2017 and de-filing of the Amicus Curiae motions of Mothers of Lost Children (in Petitions No. 17-82, 17-256, 17-613). Moreover, default was sought against each of them in October 2018 (1:18-cv-01233). Yet. Judge Rudolph Contreras unilaterally dismissed the lawsuit sua sponte against the Supreme Court Justices pending the default requests in January 2019. The case is pending appeal with the D.C. Circuit with the case number of 19-5014.
In the same lawsuit where Judge Contreras was presiding, James McManis, Michael Reedy and McManis Faulkner, LLP were also sued for allegedly aiding and abetting the Supreme Court to violate the First Amendment in not to rule on Ms. Shao’s Requests for Recusals, de-filing Amicus Curiae motions of Mothers of Lost Children, and altering Requests for Recusals. Such aiding and abetting was allegedly based on their relationship with the Supreme Court Justices through the American Inns of Court.
Wisconsin Supreme Court held in State v. Allen, 2010 WI 10 at Page 35 (2010) that: “An examination of recusal practice at the United States Supreme Court reveals that even while the Court has, as a matter of tradition or general practice, left recusal decisions to individual justices, the Court appears always to have retained jurisdiction over recusal motions and maintained the authority to guarantee a fully qualified panel of justice. At least once, the members of the Court have, by majority vote, curtailed another sitting justice (Justice William O. Douglas) from participation in the court’s decision.”
On March 19, 2019, Ms. Shao filed a Petition for Rehearing on 18-800 alleging that the Supreme Court Justice ignored the lawsuit of 1:18-cv-01233 and ignored 28 U.S.C. §455(a) that requires them to recuse themselves when there are objective conflicts of interest, but continued not ruling on the Request for Recusal in 18-800, continued removing the Appendix from Request for Recusal in 18-800, continued de-filing the Amicus Curiae motion of Mothers of Lost Children, and further participated in the vote to deny certiorari in 18-800.
According to the Court’s records, 18-800 is an appeal from California Sixth District Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Ms. Shao’s appeal from the vexatious litigant orders that James McManis obtained from Santa Clara County Court in June 2015, in the case of Shao v. McManis Faulkner, LLP, James McManis and Michael Reedy with the case number of 2011-1-cv-220571 with direct conflicts of interest. California Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on July 10, 2018 without giving Ms. Shao a notice. Court documents allege the dismissal as being fraudulent, as a result of direct conflicts of interest.
According to the court’s records, Santa Clara County Court issued an order of May 27, 2016 to use the prefiling vexatious litigant order to stall Ms. Shao from filing any motion at the family court to modify her parental deprival status, according to the court’s records. Court document allege such application of prefiling vexatious litigant order on existing family case violated California Supreme Court's decision in Shalant v. Girardi(2011) 51 Cal.4th 116. As a result, Ms. Shao has been separated from her daughter for 8 years.
The Request for Recusal in 18-800 that the Justices of the Supreme Court failed to decide includes discussion of the conflicts of interest arising from Ms. Shao's default requests against them in 1:18-cv-01233, and their alleged financial interest with American Inns of Court because of the Justices' sponsoring their clerks to receive Temple Bar Scholarship. The Justices did not deny such Request for Recusal but failed to decide that prompted rehearing to be filed on March 19, 2019.
Attorney Yi Tai Shao owns Shao Law Firm, P.C. and has practiced litigation in California since 1996. She has sought judicial relief from her alleged injustice for 8 years, facing major issues of the courts' conflicts of interest, from Santa Clara County Court to US Supreme Court.