G
EORGE
E.
M
C
D
ERMOTT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN ALL CASES BUT DENIED
VS.
P
ETITIONER
K ENNETH J.
MACFAYDEN; J AMES J.
L OFTUS
M ARIAM M.
FUCHS , J EFF H OUSTON .
R
ESPONDENT
’
S
10 – 10236
CASE
_10-A662
P ETITIONER ' S MOTION FOR AN E MERGENCY P ETITION FOR AN E XTRAORDINARY W RIT T O
C
HIEF
J
USTICE
R
OBERTS SEEKING A PETITION
/
SEEKING A EMERGENCY WRIT OF
PROHIBITION
, /
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
,
ALLOWED UNDER COURT
R
ULE
.
19,20,21 & 22
Comes now petitioner, George McDermott, through the motion practice to petition the
Honorable Chief Justice John Roberts of The United States Supreme Court 1 , to intervene on petitioner's behalf to stop the lawlessness that is taking place in Maryland’s Seventh Judicial Circuit Courts and the
Maryland appellate courts, against Petitioner and others. This court is fully aware that petitioner was granted IFP status in this court, The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and The United States District
Court. After 18 years of continuing judicial abuse in Maryland’s State and Federal judicial system which action is presently before this Honorable court for the 4th time as evidenced by the case caption.
Petitioner has been forced into near poverty status because of the courts repeated failure to provide the services for the monies paid to the court previously as a contractual agreement for these honest services and judicial case administration, free of fraud and mismanagement by the court clerks, exceeding their allotted authority.. This court is fully aware that Hanson v Denckla , 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78
S Ct 1228. void has no force and effect.
1 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
1

"Procedural due process," on the other hand, "imposes constraints on governmental decisions
[that] deprive individuals of `liberty'or `property' interests within the meaning of the Due Process
Clause." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). D
1. Justice Roberts petitioner [Att.1] has received a recent unsigned invalid order, July 20, 2011, from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals case number 307-2010 term. In the footnote of order court references petitioners request June 22, 2011 for certified copy of the deed of trust from circuit court file transferred to the appellate court[Att 2 a-g] the order acknowledges petitioner’s request on July 12, 2011 of certain certified documents which this and inferior court refused to certify and authenticate, the undersigned order further goes to allegedly dismiss claims on appeal Case # 307 2010 term, which is pertaining to matters presently before this court. Inferior courts sham, unsigned order and makes a clear reference in its footnote, page 2 [Att.1b] that a fourth appeal from the underlying case in this action CAE
– 10 – 07351 has now been given a new appeal number case # 736 of the 2011 term. This latest appeal is also a false order issued by judicial officer/ cohort of the dishonorable Judge Thomas P Smith involving constitutional jurisdiction question of law, as to what court has jurisdiction. This court through case 10 – 10236 or the inferior state courts . Which are operating under color of law.
2
2. Chief Justice Roberts . The courts can't have it both ways, the order of July 20, 2011 purports to say that and I quote, page 2, paragraph 1. ("In this court order dated April 14, 2011, appellant was directed to file corrected briefs and record extracts on or before May 23, 2011, as of the date of this order, appellant has not file corrected briefs and record extracts or motions requesting an extension of time to file the same."). The statement is factually and legally incorrect; and refuted by video evidence posted @secretjustice.com where appellant hade discovered, that court clerks had purposely trashed the appellate court file and were purposely
2 The unclean hands doctrine “refuses recognition and relief from the court to those guilty of unlawful or inequitable conduct pertaining to the matter in which relief is sought.” Manown, 89 Md. App. at 511. It is “not applied for the protection of the parties nor as a punishment to the wrongdoer.” Adams v. Manown, 328 Md. 463, 474-75, 615 A.2d 611 (1992). Rather, it protects the integrity of the court and the judicial process by denying relief to those persons “whose very presence before a court is the result of some fraud or inequity.” Manown, 89 Md. App. at 511; see also Niner v. Hanson, 217 Md. 298, 309, 142 A.2d 798 (1958).
2

not posting pleadings that had been hand carried and delivered to the court by petitioner. See,
(secretjustice.com program 311). The fact that lower court clerks offices is operating with unclean hands, covering up crimes between court insiders and respondents.
3.
Justice Roberts in this court’s most recent opinion in the matter of case # 10-188 Schindler
Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk. This court made it very clear in its opinion, 601 F. 3d 94, reversed and remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and
SCALIA, KENNEDY, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
BREYER and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. 1 Cite as: 563 U. S. (2011). 3 Justice Roberts [Att. 3 - 4]. Petitioner has recently requested the
FBI investigate destruction of documents in Maryland Courts of Appeal. And this court is now asked to take judicial notice under FER Rule 102 & 201 (d,e,f) is also Rule 1005 as unsigned orders and title are public documents.
.
4. Petitioner must now outline for the record why a claim asserting relief under US Code -
Section 3732: against the United States judicial system and state judicial systems . What he
3
Held: A federal agency’s written response to a FOIA request for records constitutes a “report” within the meaning of the
FCA’s public disclosure bar. Pp. 4–14. (a) “[R]eport” in this context carries its ordinary meaning. Pp. 4–8. (1) Because the FCA does not define “report,” the Court looks first to the word’s ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
,
557 U. S. ___, ___. Dictionaries define “report” as,for example, something that gives information. This ordinary meaning is consistent with the public disclosure bar’s generally broad scope, see, e.g., Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v.
United States ex rel. Wilson , 559 U. S, as is evidenced by the other sources of public disclosure in §3730(e)(4)(A), especially
“news media.” Pp. 4–6.
Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts should never be confused with efficiency or even the constitutional means of the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the inherent powers of the courts. Courts exist to do justice, to guarantee liberty, to enhance social order, to resolve disputes, to maintain rule of law, to provide for equal protection, and to ensure due process of law. They exist so that the equality of individuals and the government is reality rather than empty rhetoric
Judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla ,
357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
3 Void
3

believes to be RICO Conspiracy by and between lower courts court officers and administrative personnel, law enforcement agencies of State and Federal Governments whose nonresponsiveness to the code of laws and court rules that our judges have taken an oath to uphold and defend victim's constitutional rights. Inferior judges are further compounding their crimes by fabricating false orders
4
under the pretense of law, and yet even further compounding their crime by ordering these mailing these unsigned orders to unsuspecting citizens in violation of mail fraud statutes under Title 18 of the United States criminal code, while these officers of the courts, deliberately misrepresentation of court rules and statutes to deprive our citizens of their fair and equal access to the courts of law of this nation as conferred under both United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution and our Declaration Of Rights which guarantees our citizens the right to a valid order in the original form , see Md’s Atty Gen. letter/response of February 22,
2011.[Att 5] see e.g. Redman v. Chance, 32 Md. 42, 52 (1870).
Hon.Chief Justice John Roberts petitioner will NOW defer to the video record created
@secretjustice.com which now has 323 programs highlighting his court visits and victims stories available on the World Wide Web . As evidence, under FRE Rule 410 . Inadmissibility of Pleas,
Plea Discussions, and Related Statements for your court to review and as evidence that every effort has been made by the petitioner and other victims to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate legal authorities; which all have issued knowingly refused to respond or asserted false claims, asserting either lack of legal jurisdiction
5
or in the alternative that their agencies are
5
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44, 45.
It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott , 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to
4

not subject to compliance with subject rules or FOIA written requests as they are purportedly exempted from compliance which the courts recent opinion of this court as recent case cite as:
563 U. S. (2011) 1 GINSBURG, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No.
10–188 _ SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES EX
REL. DANIEL KIRK. Facts which the petitioner asserts that numerous officers of the court have violated 31 U.S.C. § 3732 : intent and purpose to deprive petitioner legally afforded rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
5. [Att.4] Clearly illustrate just how State and Federal Agencies have failed to comply with numerous legal written request under FOIA statutes. Respondents and court insiders are in violation of false claims act on the record before for asserting that their agency has no jurisdiction over, bankruptcy fraud, corporate fraud, mortgage fraud by lenders, and or obstruction of justice by court insiders. [Att 2 a-g] clearly illustrates that respondents in this case deliberately put false, misleading documents into the court record, May 4 2010; before the Hon.
Christine Dixon Mittelstaedt, [Att.3a-g] Documents reveal no legal transfer of title or assignment of deed from Washington. Federal savings bank to M&T bank Corp. or alleged successor trustee
Friedman and McFadden's agents as required to make transfer verifiable and authenticated or legally enforceable before this court, or any other court under Title 15 USC 1691, known as the federal truth in lending statutes. Respondents should be sanctioned for committing fraud on the
US District Court, United States Court of Appeals, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, and the Circuit Court for Prince George's County Maryland under FRCP Rule 11. States (3) On the
Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b). be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh , 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
5

6. The attachments furnished to the court clearly reflects that lower court clerk’s office have additionally refused to authenticate or validate any of unsigned court pretense orders required under 2000 E. sign Act. Or the CM/ECF electronic filing system requirements.[Att. 1-4]
The question of law being raised to this court Is whether, as the clerk of the court stated, March
9, 2011, pronouncing this court does not recognize the constitution’s of the individual states.
And that of state of Maryland or the enumerated rights and liberties afforded under petitioner state constitution and declaration of rights. If this is so, could the Chief Justice, of this court please provide the case law and prevailing statutes, which court would use to support the deputy court clerk's contention as assertions are clearly in conflict with the Constitution and Rule of
Law. See [Att 1 & 2 ]. As prime examples of false claims asserted by court insiders against the victims.
In conclusion petitioner respectfully request that this court issue an order to compel the
Maryland Seventh Judicial Circuit Court judges to comply with FOIA requests properly written and served on their offices. As video records and court dockets will attest further the petitioner is entitled to emergency relief in the form of an injunction be issued against the dishonorable
Judge Thomas P Smith, Circuit Court for Prince George's County Maryland to cease and desist his interference in cases assigned to other judge originally but hijacked by Judge Thomas P.
Smith. And that complicity by appellant courts [Att.1] & [Att 2a-g] concealing crimes of Judge
Smith only adds insult to injury by superseding this courts, legal judicial authority and simultaneously furthering fraud on this court while at the same time assessing fraudulent monetary judgments against the victim/petitioner knowing his actions are in response to the fraud on the court and the peace and justice of the United States by respondents and court insiders. [Att.6] A copy of this motion will be delivered to all members of the Maryland
6

delegation on Capitol Hill June 13, 2011 seeking their assistance in setting up the meeting with the deputy director of the US Justice Department's civil rights division and FBI superiors to find out why US citizens who are victimized by court corruption cannot and are not allowed to file criminal complaints against judicial officers and court insiders for fraud on the court, false claims, mail fraud, and extortion against citizens. Petitioner and other citizens who have been victimized by their corrupt courts acting under color of law and authority; and in direct violation
6 of Brady v. Maryland Material in United States District and State Courts’ that all the courts have an obligation to divulge exculpatory evidence to defendants which the courts and respondents are deliberately withholding from petitioner. Namely valid court orders denying relief [Att.6] exemplifies what a valid verifiable electronic signature is; which petitioner has never, Never received in any case.
7
Respectfully submitted,
George Edward McDermott/second class citizen
143 North Huron Drive
Forest Heights, MD 20745
301 996-9577
Attachments in support of motion
1.
2.
3.
4.
July 20 order from court of Maryland Courts of Special Appeals App. 1-2
Secretive documents and title filed by respondents may fourth 2010 evidencing broken chain of title, and fraud on the court by respondents App. 3-9
July 12 2011 motion to the Maryland Courts of Special Appeals App. 10
July 12 2011 FOIA request to the FBI regarding court fraud App. 11-12
6
Treatment of Rules, Orders, and Policies In July 2004, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the local rules of the U.S. district courts, state laws, and state court rules that address the disclosure principles contained in Brady v. Maryland.
1 Brady requires that prosecutors fully disclose to the accused all exculpatory evidence in their possession. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have elaborated the Brady obligations to include the duty to disclose(1) impeachment evidence,2 (2) favorable evidence in the absence of a request by the accused,3 and (3) evidence in the possession of persons or organizations (e.g., a
7
Void Orders Can Be Attacked At Any Time
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95
US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed
914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
7

5.
6.
February 22, 2011 response from Maryland Atty. Gen. App. 13-14
July 19, 2011 electronic order sent to petitioner by victims lawyer App. 15
Rule 14-305. Procedure following sale (a) Report of sale.- As soon as practicable, but not more than 30 days after a sale, the person authorized to make the sale shall file with the court a complete report of the sale and an affidavit of the fairness of the sale and the truth of the report.
(b) Affidavit of purchaser.- Before a sale is ratified, unless otherwise ordered by the court for good cause, the purchaser shall file an affidavit setting forth (1) whether the purchaser is acting as an agent and, if so, the name of the principal (2) whether others are interested as principals and, if so, the names of the other principals; and (3) that the purchaser has not directly or indirectly discouraged anyone from bidding for the property.
(d) Exceptions to sale.- (1) How taken.- A party, and, in an action to foreclose a lien, the holder of a subordinate interest in the property subject to the lien, may file exceptions to the sale.
Exceptions shall be in writing, shall set forth the alleged irregularity with particularity, and shall be filed within 30 days after the date of a notice issued pursuant to section (c) of this Rule or the filing of the report of sale if no notice is issued. Any matter not specifically set forth in the exceptions is waived unless the court finds that justice requires otherwise. (2) Ruling on exceptions; hearing.- The court shall determine whether to hold a hearing on the exceptions but it may not set aside a sale without a hearing. The court shall hold a hearing if a hearing is requested and the exceptions or any response clearly show a need to take evidence. The clerk shall send a notice of the hearing to all parties and, in an action to foreclose a lien, to all persons to whom notice of the sale was given pursuant to Rule 14-206 (b).
(e) Ratification.- The court shall ratify the sale if (1) the time for filing exceptions pursuant to section (d) of this Rule has expired and exceptions to the report either were not filed or were filed but overruled, and (2) the court is satisfied that the sale was fairly and properly made. If the court is not satisfied that the sale was fairly and properly made, it may enter any order that it deems appropriate.
(f) Referral to auditor.- Upon ratification of a sale, the court, pursuant to Rule 2-543, may refer the matter to an auditor to state an account. (g) Resale.- If the purchaser defaults, the court, on application and after notice to the purchaser, may order a resale at the risk and expense of the purchaser or may take any other appropriate action.
The law of void judgments and decisions
Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders
A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh , 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also
Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b). Prather v Loyd , 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla , 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283,
78 S Ct 1228.
8

A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44,
45.
It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott , 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S
Ct 1194. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh , 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
No Opportunity to Be Heard
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick , 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.
"A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861: "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists."
People v. Greene , 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1
Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void.
Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4
Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman
(1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914;
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
"If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) "A void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect." ( Jordon v. Gilligan , 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir.
1974)) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." ( Lubben v.
Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27 , 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).).
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370.
Federal judges issued orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in federal courts.
After Judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen corruptly seized and started to liquidate Stich's assets, Judge Jones issued an unconstitutional order barring Stich from filing any objection to the seizure and liquidation.
9

Void Orders Can Be Attacked At Any Time
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v.
Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565;
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274,
23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
U.S. v. Holtzman , 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) ("Portion of judgment directing defendant not to import vehicles without first obtaining approval ... was not appropriately limited in duration and, thus, district court abused its discretion by not vacating it as being prospectively inequitable." Id at 722.);
The Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in
Statements to Others.
(a) In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (2) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client(b) The duties stated in this Rule apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.
(b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. (c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse (e)
Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (d), a lawyer for an accused in a criminal case need not disclose that the accused intends to testify falsely or has testified falsely if the lawyer reasonably believes that the disclosure would jeopardize any constitutional right of the accused.
Rule 2-505. Removal.
(a) Grounds.- (1) Prejudice.- In any action that is subject to removal, and on issues from the Orphans' Court, any party may file a motion for removal accompanied by an affidavit alleging that the party cannot receive a fair and impartial trial in the county in which the action is pending. If the court finds that there is reasonable ground to believe that the allegation is correct, it shall order that the action be removed for trial to a court of another county. Any party, including a party who has obtained removal, may obtain further removal pursuant to this
Rule.
(2) Disqualification of all judges.- In any action in which all the judges of the court of any
10

county are disqualified to sit by the provisions of the Maryland Constitution, any party, upon motion, shall have the right of removal of the action to a court of another county or, if the action is not removable, the right to have a judge of a court of another county preside in the action.
(b) Designation of court and transmittal of record.- The Circuit Administrative Judge of the court ordering removal shall designate the county to which the case is to be removed. When the court orders that the action be removed for trial to a court of another county, the clerk shall transmit the record to that court within five days from entry of the order, unless the court ordering the removal extends the time. The record shall consist of all the original papers filed in the action and a copy of the docket entries.
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
I. George McDermott, do hereby certify that on July 25, 2011, I served a complete copy of P ETITIONER ' S MOTION FOR AN E MERGENCY P ETITION FOR AN E XTRAORDINARY addressed as shown below by US first-class prepaid mail to:
Kenneth MacFadyen
102 East Redwood Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
__________________
George McDermott
11