George McDermott

143 N. Huron Dr.

Forest Heights, MD 20745
phone 301-839-5816 cell 301-996-9577
e-mail @secretjusticepr@yahoo.com

January 18,2011

To the clerk ofthe Supreme Court ofthe United States, William Suter:

Attached you will find a formal request to review seven, case files in your possession. I will be
on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, July 19 2001 and would appreciate if the court could have these
records available for inspection. I plan to be at the court around 1:30 PM.

Attached is a list of the case files and formal request to your office, I am doing research
for my petition to this court. Under application number 10 - A662 I would also like to see this
case file. In conjunction with the other 7 requested files,

I contacted the administrative office of the United States court. As of today and was put
in contact with the head of the IT department of Mr. Clay McClay, who informed me that. My
question regarding request for the name of the FOIA compliance office or officer within the
court, administrative offices could not be answered. And I quote (lithe United States Federal
Court System is not subject to FOIA TITLE 5 PART I CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II § 552
(a) (1) (2) (A) (B) (C) (D), it would be greatly appreciated. If the clerk's office could provide a
copy of the legislative order exempting the Federal Courts compliance under five USC 522.'

In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution
of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process. If the clerk could be so
kind as to identify where one might locate the original petition filed in the Brady case with this
court and the current location of the case file, as a defendant myself. I believe it would be very
important to read the concurring and dissenting opinions in this case, as well as the petition
which the Court granted, setting forth this landmark case in preparation for my petition. [Att 11
formal request review and copy court files. [Att 21 This court's order granting extension of time

If all or any part of this request is denied, I request that I be provided with a
written statement of the grounds for the denial. If you detennine that some portions of the
requested infonnation or if the requested records are exempt from disclosure, please
provide me with the portions that can be disclosed, I thank you for your time and
attention in this matter. And I will be at your office, January 19,2000 and 2 PM

I .
Keepmg a "watchful eye" on the US court. The public at large and computing professionals, in particular, must assume their
civic duties in ongoing monitoring the integrity of electronic court records. The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial
records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First
Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court said that the right was necessary for the public "to keep a watchful eye on
government". Today, the public must keep a watchful eye particularly on electronic court records. No other measures could
substitute for public scrutiny of court records in safeguarding the integrity ofthe courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.