Post 2/23
I started this blog for the purpose of exposing a cheating scandal involving the San Jose City Attorney's Office, the US District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The facts are that the San Jose City Attorney's Office under the auspices of current and former San Jose city officials engaged in criminal misconduct relative to a lawsuit I filed against the City in federal court. At the very least, there is the appearance that several court officials, including two judges, were paid off based on actions they took in my case that were biased in favor of the City. Several City officials including Mayor Liccardo are now engaged in a cover-up of this scandal. Several current and former City officials were given financial rewards in the form of promotions and lucrative jobs outside the City for their roles in this scandal. As is stated in my blog's title, justice is for sale.
Here are the details of some of the cheating in my case. The US District Court allowed the San Jose City Attorney's Office (the City) and my attorney to file a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of a police administrator from my lawsuit that violated my rights, and also committed perjury on two separate occasions. The evidence is indisputable and overwhelming that the police official in question, Tuck Younis, was paid off (quid pro quo) with a promotion from Captain to Assistant Chief (Younis is now Chief of Police of Los Altos, CA). The evidence is compelling that my attorney, Stuart Kirchick, was paid off as well. The City then filed a fabricated motion for summary judgment at the urging of the US District Court. In its motion, the City changed initial claims it made to the court that were true to claims that were false. The district court granted the City's motion knowing that the City's claims were false, and knowing that the court's ruling was inconsistent with the real facts and the law. Therefore, the ruling is a void judgment. When I filed a Rule 60 motion seeking to have the court vacate its void judgment, the court falsified its docket by mischaracterizing my motion as regarding "Costs Taxed." The court held a phony hearing on my mischaracterized motion after I was told that there would be no hearing, and that I did not have to appear on the scheduled hearing date. During the phony hearing, the City was granted a default judgment by way of a "motion to dismiss" because I followed the court's instructions and did not appear for the hearing. The verbatim account of the City's motion to dismiss was fraudulently omitted from the transcript and other records of the court, or it was made ex parte (in secret). The City's motion to dismiss is a mystery. The court has refused to provide me details surrounding this mystery motion. The court then entered a phony judgment that the court had denied my Rule 60 motion on the merits. The Civil Minutes of the hearing by the court clerk (Jackie Garcia) totally contradict the account of the hearing in the transcript by the court reporter (Lee-Anne Shortridge). It was if they witnessed two totally different hearings. The district court then refused to notify me of its phony ruling causing me to miss the deadline to file an appeal. It was necessary to petition the court for an extension of the deadline, which it did reluctantly. In a ruling dated July 21, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's phony judgment based on the district court's written order which differs from the default judgment the district court entered during the hearing on my Rule 60 motion. The default judgment the district court entered because I did not appear for the hearing at the instructions of the court is the only final judgment by law, because it was the first final judgment entered and it terminated the case. The second final judgment the district court entered based on the court's written order claiming to have decided my case on the merits is a void judgment. It should also be noted that the default judgment the court entered is void as well because it is based on fraud. This outright cheating by the courts is appalling because its sole purpose is to protect the bigoted and malicious conduct of San Jose city officials that flagrantly violated my constitutional rights. As my case stands today (8/23/15), I have petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing on my appeal.
I have a message for the courts and the City of San Jose that I will be echoing in days to come. Here is the message: I cannot be legally bound by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirming the district court's void judgment. It is unmistakable that the district court's judgement is void because it gave preclusive effect to a small claims judgment the City won against me. This is a clear violation of 28 USC Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit Act) which commands, dictates, requires federal courts to use state court judgments in the exact same manner as courts from the rendering state. Since the small claims judgment is from California, the district court was required to follow the preclusion law of California. As a general principle, small claims judgments in California have no preclusive effect, with one rare exception. There has to be a record that is sufficiently clear that the issue sought to be precluded was "actually litigated" and determined. There was no litigation at all on the issue I raised in small claims court. The court made an immediate ruling that it had no authority to grant the compensation I was seeking and ended the proceeding that lasted about two minutes. There is also no record at all as to what transpired in the small claims hearing. Therefore, my lawsuit cannot by law be preclued on the basis of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel. Federal courts have a lot of discretion as it relates to most matters, but they have no discretion at all when it comes to following the Full Faith and Credit Act. The district court is in clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Act (28 USC Section 1738) which implements the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Because of the court's violation of the law, I will not voluntarily comply with its order or the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court's order. If it means I have to engage in acts of civil disobedience, so be it. The courts and the City knows that I'm standing on solid ground with this issue. What the courts and the City are doing is outright cheating! It is despicable that the City of San Jose can use taxpayer dollars to buy a judgment in the federal courts.
My post on July 12, 2015 consisted of an open letter to San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo and the San Jose City Council. The purpose of my letter was to encourage Mayor Liccardo and the City Council to open an investigation into the criminal misconduct by the City Attorney's Office based on the cheating noted above. The mayor and councilmembers were each contacted by email on June 29 referencing this matter. Only one councilmember acknowledged receiving my email, but failed to state if the City Council would take any action. I also brought this matter to the attention of Mayor Liccardo with a posting on his facebook page on or about July 12. He has not responded to that posting, which he has now removed. This is clear evidence that Mayor Liccardo is a conspirator in the cover-up of this cheating scandal. This constitutes the criminal acts of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
This is the biggest cheating scandal in the history of the Silicon Valley. Yet, the local media has failed to report it to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment