In a tweet on Sunday 12/3/17, Trump criticized the Department of Justice and the FBI for "destroying" former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's life for lying to the FBI, whereas, Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for destroying emails after receiving a subpoena from Congress. The prosecution of Michael Flynn is clearly politically motivated just as the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Mr. Trump made reference to the system as being "rigged" or that there was a "double standard." He also stated in a subsequent tweet that the FBI's reputation is "in tatters." Based on the FBI's handling of my public corruption complaints against officials with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the US District Court in San Jose and the City of San Jose over the past several years, the President's criticism seems justified.
I just recently received a response from the Department of Justice stating that they received my last complaint dated July 24, 2017 and that it is being reviewed. I have received no response from the FBI. My first complaint with the FBI is listed in my post on 9/27/15. My most recent complaint with the Department of Justice is posted below. The Department of Justice and the FBI are not the independent entities that they claim to be. Many of their decisions as to what public corruption crimes they will or will not investigate or prosecute are politically motivated. In my public corruption complaints, I make allegations of serious criminal misconduct against the federal court officials and San Jose city officials. Those San Jose city officials include Mayor Sam Liccardo and the City Council members. Several federal judges are also implicated. The evidence that these officials conspired to obstruct justice is indisputable and overwhelming. Yet, the Trump administration continues to be plagued with the dubious Trump-Russia collusion investigation while the very real collusion between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the US District Court and the San Jose City Council has not been investigated. This lends credibility to the President's claim that the system is "rigged' or that there is a "double standard." See my post on 7/31/17 that compares the Trump-Russia collusion case and collusion between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the US District Court and the City of San Jose.
Certainly many of the criticisms of President Trump by some members of Congress and the media are legitimate. But I believe that he was elected President because, unlike the members of Congress, he is willing to forego political correctness and speak out against corruption and dysfunction in our government and stand up for what he believes is right, even if he offends a lot of people. The notion by some that Trump is a threat to our democracy is laughable, being that our democracy has been on life-support for years because of dysfunction and public corruption at all levels of government. Now it appears that the FBI and the Department of Justice can be added to that list of corrupt and dysfunctional institutions of our government.
Here is my latest public corruption complaint with the Department of Justice:
Frederick Bates
-----------------
Folsom,
CA 95630
(408) -------------
July
24, 2017
U.S.
Department of Justice
950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington,
DC 20530-0001
Re:
Public Corruption Complaint
To
Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to
request an investigation into my complaint of public corruption against
officials of the City of San Jose, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
relative to two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose in August 2006
and December 2015 for violating my civil rights. My first lawsuit resulted
after I was unlawfully denied a CCW permit following my medical disability
retirement from the San Jose Police Department. My second lawsuit resulted
after San Jose city officials refused to investigate my discrimination and
misconduct complaints against the City Attorney’s Office and three police
administrators relative to the denial of my CCW permit.
My allegation of public corruption against
San Jose city officials relating to my first lawsuit is in regards to a
stipulation of dismissal, the depositions of two police officials, and a motion
for summary judgment filed by the City of San Jose. As to the stipulation of
dismissal, San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora
Frimann, and former Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson conspired with my
former attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to obstruct justice by stipulating to the
dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis without my knowledge or consent, then
misrepresented to the court that I had agreed to the dismissal. The dismissal
provided me no benefit whatsoever, and the clear purpose of the dismissal of
Younis was to sabotage my case because the evidence is incontrovertible that
Younis violated my constitutional rights. I have evidence strongly suggesting
that the dismissal of Younis resulted from a quid pro quo arrangement between
Kirchick and the San Jose City Attorney’s Office. The crimes implicated are
conspiracy, obstruction of justice, honest services fraud and bribery.
As to the depositions of the two police
officials, City Attorney Richard Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora Frimann, former
Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson, former Chief of Police Robert Davis, former
Assistant Chief of Police Tuck Younis and former Deputy Chief of Police Adonna
Amoroso conspired to present false testimony under oath in the depositions of
Younis and Amoroso in June 2007. Younis and Amoroso did, in fact, commit
perjury in their depositions. Several perjured statements from the depositions
of Younis and Amoroso were used by Doyle, Frimann and Dodson in support of the
City’s motion for summary judgment which was filed with the clear intent of
perpetrating fraud on the court. The district court granted the City’s summary
judgment motion, even though it is a total hoax based on a false premise and
the
Page
2
perjured
testimony of Younis and Amoroso. I have evidence to present proving that there
was a quid pro quo between Younis and San Jose city officials for his perjured
testimony. The crimes implicated are conspiracy, subornation of perjury and
perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice.
My allegation of public corruption
against officials of the United States District Court relate to a scheme by
court officials to conduct a fake hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed in
February 2013 seeking relief from the order granting the City’s motion for
summary judgment.
In
order to carry out this scheme, Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia and another
court official (initials “bw”) falsified docket entries by mischaracterizing my
motion as pertaining to “costs taxed.” My motion had nothing to do with “costs
taxed.” The basis for my motion was that attorneys for the City of San Jose
perpetrated fraud on the court with the filing of the City’s fabricated motion
for summary judgment; and on the failure of the courts to follow 28 U.S.C.
Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit Act) in their application of collateral
estoppel or issue preclusion to a small claims court judgment relied upon by
the City.
The
hearing on my Rule 60 motion was held on April 26, 2013 in front of Judge
Ronald M. Whyte. It is clear that the hearing was a total sham because I was
advised weeks earlier by Court Clerk Cita Escolano that no hearing would be
held on my motion. Escolano stated that my motion would be decided on the
papers submitted; and that the decision of the court would be sent to my
residence. Escolano also informed me that I did not have to appear in court on
the April 26, 2013 hearing date. I have a witness that will corroborate these
claims. Based on the instructions of Escolano, I did not appear for the
hearing.
According to the transcript of Court
Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, the court disposed of my Rule 60 motion during
the hearing by granting the City’s “motion to dismiss” made by Deputy San Jose
City Attorney Richard North because I failed to appear. However, no word for
word account of the motion to dismiss by the City appears in the transcript or
anywhere in the record. The City’s motion to dismiss is a mystery. It appears
that the City’s mystery motion to dismiss was either intentionally omitted from
the official transcript or it was made ex parte. Further confusing the issue is
the fact that the Civil Minutes of Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia contradicts
the official transcript of Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge. The Civil
Minutes shows that the court made a ruling during the hearing denying my motion
by finding that it was untimely and that no evidence was presented to support
my theories for relief. While there is uncertainty as to what happened during
the hearing, there is no uncertainty that the hearing and the judgment on my
motion, that is biased in favor of the City of San Jose, was rigged as a result
of a conspiracy involving Judge Whyte, Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia, Court
Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, Court Clerk Cita Escolano, and San Jose Deputy City
Attorney Richard North. The crimes implicated as to these officials are
conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction of justice.
It should be noted that I filed two
additional Rule 60 motions in September 2013 and May 2016 also seeking relief
from the judgment in my first lawsuit on the basis of the fraudulent
stipulation of dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis and on the courts’
misapplication of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. Even though relief
was mandatory based on the courts’ lack of discretion as it relates to these
two issues, my motions were denied by the district court just as my first Rule
60 motion filed in February 2013.
My
allegation of public corruption against San Jose city officials also pertains
to a vast conspiracy to cover up this public corruption scandal. It is
undeniable that current and former San Jose city officials refused to
investigate discrimination and criminal misconduct complaints I
Page
3
filed
against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and former police officials Davis,
Younis and Amoroso relative to the denial of my CCW privileges. Former City
officials I filed complaints with include Mayor Chuck Reed and the City Council
in 2010. My most recent complaints against the City Attorney’s Office were
filed with current San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo and members of the San Jose City
Council in June 2015 and October 2015. The refusal of City officials to
investigate my discrimination and misconduct complaints is clear evidence of a
cover-up. The City’s failure to investigate my complaints formed the basis of
my second lawsuit filed in December 2015. San Jose city policy and California
law mandates that an investigation be conducted into discrimination complaints.
It
is also clear that there is a vast conspiracy by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals to cover up this scandal and to punish me for exercising my
right to free speech with their biased and corrupt rulings in my two lawsuits.
It is indisputable that all of the rulings of the district court relative to my
first lawsuit are void judgments because, as noted above, the court did not
follow the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Act by failing to follow
California preclusion law in giving preclusive effect to a small claims
judgment from California. The district court also failed to follow the
requirements of FRCP 41 by permitting the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and
my former attorney to stipulate to the dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis
without my knowledge or consent, in clear violation of my absolute right as the
plaintiff.
As to my second lawsuit, Magistrate
Judge Nathanael Cousins dismissed by complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) even
though, the precedent he cited as authority unequivocally proves the claims in
my complaint. Judge Cousins also did not allow me the opportunity to amend my
complaint as is required by FRCP 15(a), and he denied my Rule 60 motion seeking
relief from his clearly erroneous judgment. Judge Cousins’ rulings show a
willful and wanton disregard for my due process rights and are evidence that he
is part of the courts’ conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Evidence of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals’ participation in the cover up of this scandal is compelling. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to take action on motions and letters I
filed in 2010, 2011 and 2012 seeking to vacate the orders of the Ninth Circuit
Court that affirms the clearly erroneous judgments of the district court in my
first lawsuit. No reasonable explanation was given for the court’s lack of
action. Further evidence of a cover-up by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is
that former Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski failed to take action on a complaint
I filed in May 2010 against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office. Judge Kozinski
responded to my complaint with false information that he had no authority to
consider complaints against state officials. He stated that I must file my complaint
against the City Attorney’s Office with state and local authorities. This claim
by Judge Kozinski is not credible because Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2 states that
the Chief Judge may initiate disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct by
attorneys before the Court of Appeals. Courts also have the inherent power to
initiate disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct by attorneys.
Additionally, the final appeal in
each of my two lawsuits was disposed of by summary affirmance of the district
court judgments with the outrageous claim that the issues I raised on appeal
was so unsubstantial that no further argument was required. The issues I raised
on appeal were that the district court rulings were biased; the court violated
the Full Faith and Credit Act; the court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing
based on my claim that I did not authorize the
Page
4
stipulation
of dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis; and that the district court failed to
follow precedent and federal law in dismissing my second lawsuit without leave
to amend. It is insane for the court to find that these issues are
unsubstantial. This is evidence of bias and a cover-up.
I am well aware that the Department of
Justice and the F.B. I. does not normally get involved in matters relating to
on-going litigation involving the courts because of the “separation of powers”
doctrine; and because of the importance of an independent judiciary that is
necessary to the proper functioning of government. However, this is one of the
most egregious cases of public corruption in recent memory. The criminal misconduct
by the courts and San Jose city officials has been brazen and persistent with a
total lack of regard for the truth, the Constitution and the rule of law. It is
undeniable that these officials falsified court records, created false
documents, and staged a fake hearing on one of my Rule 60 motions in order to
facilitate a judgment in favor of the City of San Jose. The evidence is
compelling that some of these officials were bribed in return for their
involvement, whereas others appeared to have been coerced into participating.
More appalling and detestable than the crimes committed, is the extent to which
San Jose city officials and the courts have gone in order to cover-up this
scandal. A criminal investigation is mandatory in order to restore credibility
to our judicial system and to protect our democracy.
It
should be noted that I filed a formal complaint with the F.B.I. and the U.S.
Attorney’s Office in San Francisco against San Jose city officials and the
courts for public corruption in letters dated May 24, 2014. It is apparent my
complaint was not taken seriously because it does not appear that an
investigation was initiated. I give caution that a failure of the government to
act on my current complaint will have consequences because I have no intentions
of honoring the judgments of the courts in my lawsuits because they are void by
law. This fact is not debatable. The only final outcome to this matter that I
will accept is that the judgments of the courts are reversed. And to make this
happen, I am willing to take some extreme measures, including engaging in civil
disobedience. But first I am willing to give the Department of Justice and Congress
an opportunity to address this matter.
Included with this letter are copies
of my May 24, 2014 complaint letter and an email dated July 17, 2015 that I
sent to the F.B.I. Also included are copies of a special motion and a motion
for recusal of Judge Whyte, copies of two posts from my blog that provides
additional facts about this scandal, and a copy of a letter I submitted to the
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee dated July 24, 2017. The special
motion and motion for recusal is undeniable proof that the judgments in my two
lawsuits against the City of San Jose show such contempt for justice that they
are a mockery. Additional information about the misconduct of San Jose city
officials and federal court officials can be found at the links below: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/
I am also
requesting a meeting with a representative from the Department of Justice in
order to provide additional facts and evidence relative to my complaint.
Sincerely,
Frederick
Bates
No comments:
Post a Comment