US Supreme Court 8 Justices, the Supreme Court and Judge Rudolph Contreras Are in Default-passing the Due Date to Respond to the Amended Complaint Seeking to Impeach Them

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12, 2018 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the federal defendants have 90 days to file the responsive pleading to a complaint. The US Supreme Court's 11 defendants, Judge Contreras and his staff, all missed the due date. According to the Court's record, the Plaintiff, Yi Tai Shao, a California attorney in practice of law for 22 years, filed her Affidavits to request enter default against the US Supreme Court's 11 defendants on October 16, 2018. Ms. Shao further filed her Affidavits to request enter default against Judge Rudolph Contreras and Jackie Francis on October 24, 2018.

This lawsuit was filed with the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia in the case number of 1:18-cv-01233 against 66 defendants allegedly seeking a declarative relief to impeach 27 judicial officers crossing the federal and state courts, including eight Justices of the United States and Judge J. Clifford Wallace, the designer of the American Inns of Court. In addition, 5 courts are sued. They are US Supreme Court, California Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal in the Sixth District and Santa Clara County Superior Court.

There are 11 defendants at the US Supreme Court, including the court itself, two supervising Clerks, and eight Justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Stephen Beyer, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayer and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who are retired weeks after he was served with the Summons in this proceeding.

Judge Rudolph Contreras and his then case administrator Jackie Francis were added as defendants in the amended complaint (See the docket, ECF 16) on June 29, 2018. As shown on the last sentence of the first entry of the court's docket, this complaint was docketed 10 days after its filing. The docket date is shown as May 31, 2018 and the filing date is May 21, 2018. Summons for Judge Contreras was issued two weeks later following adding his name as a defendant. The case's short name was Shao v. Kennedy, et al., instead of Shao v. Roberts, et al. in the beginning, which was changed later. According to Wikipedia, the first named defendant Chief Justice John G. Roberts was the one who appointed Judge Contreras to have the second concurrent judicial seat at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Contreras

According to the court's record, Judge Rudolph authorized filing for the motion of Defendant BJ Fadem (child attorney of Ms. Shao's daughter) on July 30, 2018 when such motion has no proof of service attached and no stamp of receipt of the Clerk's Office. (See, 1:18-cv-01233, ECF No. 38) The same motion was re-authorized on August 1, 2018 with a stamp of receipt added on the cover of the motion that was not in existence in ECF 38. (See, 1:18-cv-01233, ECF No. 41)

The US Supreme Court's 11 defendants were served on the First Amended Complaint on July 16, 2018; Judge Contreras and his staff, on July 24, 2018.

Ms. Shao's complaint also sued Google and YouTube, alleging their hacking into her internet and computers following her radio shows about judiciary corruptions that were published in February 2018 on YouTube. After Ms. Shao requested default entries against the US Supreme Court Justices, Ms. Shao's residence was burglarized at least 4 times, while Judge Contreras is withholding default entries against himself the US Supreme Court defendants. Judge Contreras previously denied recusal and continues being the presiding judge for this case.

The Court's records show the Clerk's Office had entered default against Ms. Shao's ex-husband Tsan-Kuen Wang (ECF 76) and his attorney David Sussman (ECF 77) two months ago.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Ms. Shao sued the US Supreme Court Justices alleging their failure to rule on her three requests for recusal on January 8 and February 26 of 2018. As shown on the Supreme Court's website that the court published two of the requests for recusal in the case number of 17-613, these requests for recusal alleged the Justices' financial conflicts of interest with the American Inns of Court, a well known facts published on its own website at https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/Awards_and_Scholarships/Temple_Bar_Scholarships/Temple_Bar.aspx.: The 8 Justices "sponsored" their clerks to receive Temple Bar Scholarship (see "previous scholars and reports") where the qualification of such scholarship requires the clerks' judicial position (see the section of "How are Temple Bar Scholars selected?"). The scholarship includes "air transportation, lodging, and a modest stipend". (See "What are the costs?")

As shown on the docket of 17-613 of the US Supreme Court's website that any one may click open the court file, Ms. Shao's Petition for Writ of Certiorari alleged the issue that judges who are members of the American Inns of Court should be required as a matter of due process to disclose their social relationship with lawyers who are members of the Inns of Court and who are appearing before the judges. See the first page in the Petition No. 17-613, "Questions Presented". Ms. Shao alleges judiciary corruptions that are derived from her lost of child custody. See the Mothers of Lost Children's Amicus Curie motion granted by the US Supreme Court that was published by the Supreme Court on its website in the dockets of 17-256 and 17-613 for the same motion.

SOURCE Yi Tai Shao