Congressman-elect Sam Liccardo is unfit and unqualified to serve in Congress

 Sam Liccardo is unqualified to serve in Congress because of felonious and racist misconduct

By Fred Bates - November 10, 2024

Sam Liccardo was elected to California's 16th Congressional seat by defeating Evan Low in the November 5th election. The 16th Congressional seat was vacant due to the retirement of longtime Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. Liccardo has a long history of public corruption. He has been protected from accountability by the local media and local politicians like Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, as well as, by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. 

What specifically disqualifies Liccardo from being a Member of Congress is his role in an obstruction of justice scandal involving San Jose city officials, and judicial officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006. I sued the City and three police officials for the racist and malicious decision to deny me a CCW permit after I retired from the City's police department on a medical disability as a sergeant. I'm black/African American. 

During the initial litigation of my lawsuit, Liccardo was a member of the San Jose City Council that ordered the City Attorney's Office, under the leadership of City Attorney Richard Doyle, to perpetrate fraud on the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The fraud was in the form of a motion for summary judgment filed in 2007 based on several false claims. In order to facilitate the City's summary judgment motion, the City Attorney's Office with the backing of Liccardo and the City Council, instructed police officials (Deputy Chief Adonna Amoroso and Captain Tuck Younis) to commit perjury in their sworn depositions and a declaration in support of the City's motion. Liccardo and City officials then paid off my attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to stipulate to the dismissal of Younis from my lawsuit without my authorization or a settlement agreement, in order to prevent the courts from being able to rule on Younis' decision to deny me a CCW permit in clear violation of my rights. Liccardo and City officials had secured Younis' participation in this scheme to obstruct justice by offering him a promotion (quid pro quo) from Captain to Assistant Chief of Police with the understanding that he would provide false testimony related to the issuance of my CCW permit. Younis was also ordered by City officials to violate his subpoena to appear and testify in a small claims case I filed against the City of San Jose in 2005, prior to my federal lawsuit. This is tampering with a witness.

It is clear that U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte was a participant in this conspiracy of San Jose city officials to obstruct justice in order to cover up the racist and bigoted conduct of the City. Judge Whyte granted the City's motion for summary judgement in 2008 with the knowledge that it was based on several false statement of facts and law, and the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of defendant Tuck Younis. Judge Whyte also made an erroneous ruling that my lawsuit was precluded on the basis of collateral estoppel. When I filed a motion for relief from Judge Whye's clearly erroneous judgment in 2013 based on fraud, he along with other court officials and the attorney for the City, Richard North, conspired to hold a hearing on my motion, without my knowledge, after deliberately misstating the grounds for my motion as challenging "Costs Taxed" awarded to the City instead of fraud. Judge Whyte dismissed my motion for relief in the phony hearing. At the very least, it suggests that Judge Whyte received a quid pro quo from San Jose city officials. Sam Liccardo, who at the time was a councilmember, played a role in this criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Sam Liccardo is further unfit for office based on comments made to me by Senior Deputy San Jose City Attorney Matthew Pritchard in 2021. Pritchard who was speaking on behalf of Sam Liccardo (who was now mayor) and the rest of the City Council, said that the City did not care that I was black and that I grew up in the South during Jim Crow. He told me that the judgments of the courts in my lawsuit were clearly erroneous as they relate to the issue of collateral estoppel. Pritchard stated that I would lose on my efforts to obtain relief because the courts never change their decisions, even ones that are clearly erroneous. He said that the courts do not have to follow the law, and that the law is whatever the courts say it is. These comments by Pritchard coupled with the fact that City officials refused to investigate my racial discrimination complaints, as is required by City policy, is proof that the decision to deny me a CCW permit was malicious and racist.

Sam Liccardo is unfit and unqualified to be a Member of Congress because of the felony obstruction of justice crimes that he committed or pressured other City officials to commit. He is also unfit and unqualified because of the malicious and racist personal attack against me by police officials that he condoned and covered up. The personal attacks also include a malicious criminal investigation of me Liccardo and City officials ordered the police department to open in 2018 based on an email I sent to Liccardo and the San Jose City Council. Now that Liccardo has been elected to Congress, he should suffer the same fate as George Santos. He should be expelled from Congress because his criminal misconduct undermines our judicial system and democracy, but it is also an automatic disqualification to serve in Congress. His misconduct is far more egregious than the allegations against Santos. 

Sam Liccardo is unfit to be a Member of Congress

 By Fred Bates - October 30, 2024

Sam Liccardo is unqualified for Congress because of felonious and racist misconduct

Sam Liccardo is the former mayor of San Jose, California. He is currently running against Evan Low for California's 16th Congressional District seat being vacated by retiring Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. Liccardo is unfit and unqualified to be a Member of Congress because of his long history of corruption as mayor of San Jose and as a councilmember. What specifically disqualifies Liccardo from being a Member of Congress is his role in an obstruction of justice scandal involving San Jose city officials, and judicial officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006. I sued the City and three police officials for the racist and malicious decision to deny me a CCW permit after I retired from the City's police department on a medical disability as a sergeant. I'm black/African American. 

During the initial litigation of my lawsuit, Liccardo was a member of the San Jose City Council that ordered the City Attorney's Office to perpetrate fraud on the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the form of a motion for summary judgment in 2007 based on several false claims. In order to facilitate the City's summary judgment motion, the City Attorney's Office with the backing of Liccardo and the City Council instructed police officials (Deputy Chief Adonna Amoroso and Captain Tuck Younis) to commit perjury in their sworn depositions and a declaration in support of the City's motion. Liccardo and City officials then paid off my attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to stipulate to the dismissal of Younis from my lawsuit without my authorization or a settlement agreement in order to prevent the courts from being able to rule on Younis' decision to deny me a CCW permit in clear violation of my rights. Liccardo and City officials had secured Younis' participation in this scheme to obstruct justice by offering him a promotion (quid pro quo) from Captain to Assistant Chief of Police with the understanding that he would provide false testimony related to my case. Younis was also ordered by City officials to violate his subpoena to appear and testify in a small claims case I filed against the City of San Jose in 2005, prior to my federal lawsuit. This is tampering with a witness.

It is clear that U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte was a participant in this conspiracy of San Jose city officials to obstruct justice in order to cover up the racist and bigoted conduct of the City. Judge Whyte granted the City's motion for summary judgement in 2008 with the knowledge that it was based on several false statement of facts and law, and the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of defendant Tuck Younis. Judge Whyte also made an erroneous ruling that my lawsuit was precluded on the basis of collateral estoppel. When I filed a motion for relief from Judge Whye's clearly erroneous judgment in 2013 based on fraud, he along with other court officials and the attorney for the City, Richard North, conspired to hold a hearing on my motion, without my knowledge, after deliberately misstating the grounds for my motion as challenging "Costs Taxed" awarded to the City instead of fraud. Judge Whyte dismissed my motion for relief in the phony hearing. At the very least, it suggests that Judge Whyte received a quid pro quo from San Jose city officials. Sam Liccardo, who at the time was a councilmember, played a role in this criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Sam Liccardo is further unfit for office based on comments made to me by Senior Deputy San Jose City Attorney Matthew Pritchard in 2021. Pritchard who was speaking on behalf of Sam Liccardo (who was now mayor) and the rest of the City Council, said that the City did not care that I was black and that I grew up in the South during Jim Crow. He told me that the judgments of the courts in my lawsuit were clearly erroneous as they relate to the issue of collateral estoppel. Pritchard stated that I would lose on my efforts to obtain relief because the courts never change their decisions, even ones that are clearly erroneous. He said that the courts do not have to follow the law, and that the law is whatever the courts say it is. These comments by Pritchard coupled with the fact that City officials refused to investigate my racial discrimination complaints, as is required by City policy, is proof that the decision to deny me a CCW permit was malicious and racist.

Sam Liccardo is unfit and unqualified to be a Member of Congress because of the felony obstruction of justice crimes that he committed or pressured other City officials to commit. He is also unfit and unqualified because of the malicious and racist personal attack against me by police officials that he condoned and covered up. That includes a malicious criminal investigation Liccardo and City officials ordered the police department to open in 2018 based on an email I sent to Liccardo and the San Jose City Council. If Liccardo is elected to Congress, he should suffer the same fate as George Santos. He should be expelled because his criminal misconduct undermines our judicial system and democracy, but it is also an automatic disqualification to serve in Congress.  

For years, Sam Liccardo's corruption and criminal misconduct has been covered up by the local media, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. It's high time he is exposed and held accountable for the fraud and hypocrite that he is. 

Why I Will Not Be Voting In the 2024 Presidential Election

Fred Bates - Tuesday, October 29, 2024 

Our system of government is corrupt and dysfunctional, and I refuse to give it legitimacy by 

casting my vote

On November 5th, I will not be voting in the 2024 Presidential Election, just as I haven't voted in any recent elections. One of my primary reasons for not voting is that this country is a joke! I mean this in all sincerity. During this election cycle, both presidential campaigns have spent a great deal of time on hateful rhetoric that has overshadowed their policy proposals. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said, "let no man drag you so low as to hate him." He also said we must learn to live together as brothers, or we will perish together as fools. It appears that the Republican and Democrat parties have decided to dishonor Dr. King's legacy by being fools with their hateful rhetoric that is clearly destroying our nation. 

Democrats are making the claim that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, and Republicans are saying the same about Kamala Harris. Both parties are wrong. Democracy is not on the ballot this year and has not been on the ballot for years because of widespread public corruption. What I find so disappointing is that many Americans appear to be buying into this rhetoric by both parties when it comes to this fraudulent claim about democracy being on the ballot. The lack of civility by both parties during this election cycle disgusts me. I want no part of this embarrassment. 

It's not that I have a thing against voting. I have a more personal reason for not voting. Not voting is my form of non-violent protest against the racist and discriminatory manner in which I have been treated by San Jose city officials, the US District Court in San Jose, and the 9th Court of Appeals; and the refusal of Congress and other authorities with the responsibility of oversight to do anything about it. This entire blog has been devoted to exposing the appalling conduct of these officials during litigation of three federal lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose for discrimination based on my race and disability. I'm black/African American. So far, I have not been able to get any government officials at any level to open an investigation into my allegations that these officials committed several public corruption crimes, many of them felonies. Here are some of the officials I have made formal complaints to, all to no avail: former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte, former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Dianne Feinstein, VP and former Senator Kamala Harris, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, former Attorney General William Barr, Chief Justice John Roberts, former Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Sidney R. Thomas, Santa Clara County California District Attorney Jeff Rosen, and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. This, however, is not a complete list of all the officials I have made complaints to regarding the misconduct of San Jose city officials and the federal courts.

As you can see, the officials that have failed to take action on my complaints are Democrats and Republicans. Not a single one has had the integrity or courage to provide oversight of the corrupt 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose for their egregious misconduct that has undermined democracy, and the rule of law. This is governmental corruption at its worst. It does not matter who wins the presidency, or which party takes control of the House and Senate, it will not save democracy. Democracy simply cannot flourish if our judiciary operate with no accountability and refuses to adhere to the rule of law and precedent. However, I acknowledge that democracy cannot exist without an independent judiciary. But democracy requires a balance between an independent judiciary and oversight of the judiciary that provides accountability. This principle applies to all three branches of government. So far, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose have treated me with the same lack of regard for my constitutional rights as Bull Connor did for black voting rights activists in Birmingham in 1963. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court have engaged in misconduct with impunity. I refuse to give legitimacy to a corrupt system of government by casting my vote. Below are links to some of my other blog posts that provide details about the misconduct of San Jose city officials and the federal courts:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: The Backstory to My Lawsuits Against the City of San Jose! (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: San Jose City Officials and Federal Court Officials Engaged in Criminal Misconduct During Litigation of My Lawsuits Against the City (crnctz.blogspot.com)

It's our Federal Judiciary that poses the greatest threat to Democracy, not January 6th or Donald Trump

 May 9, 2024 - by Fred Bates

Back in March of this year (2024), three federal Court of Appeals judges, J. Michael Luttig, Beryl Howell, and Reggie Walton criticized Donald Trump and January 6th participants either directly or indirectly as a result of the criminal cases being pursued against Trump. 

In a piece published in The Atlantic, Luttig, who is retired, commented that the Supreme Court had "dangerously betrayed" democracy when it reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to bar Trump from the ballot based on the insurrection ban under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Luttig described Section 3 as a safety net for America's democracy that automictically disqualify oath-breaking insurrectionists against the Constitution from holding public office. Luttig pushed back on the notion that barring Trump from the ballot is undemocratic stating that disqualification is not antidemocratic; rather it's the insurrection that is antidemocratic.  

My criticism of Judge Luttig begins with the ridiculous claim that January 6th was an insurrection, when it is clear that was a protest gone wrong. In other words, it was a riot. Nothing more and nothing less. My next criticism of Luttig is the silly notion that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision was correct. The U.S. Supreme Court got it right by ruling that Congress has the exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates. 

D.C. Circuit Judge Beryl Howell, who correctly referred to January 6th as a riot, stated that it was based on "big lies," and that the country was turning to authoritarian rule. Howell said that many of the January 6th defendants that disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election were misled by big lies. Howell stated that we are having a very surprising and downright troubling moment in this country when the very importance of facts is dismissed or ignored, and that's risky business for all of us in our democracy. Howell said that "the facts matter."

Judge Reggie Walton, who also sits on the D.C. Circuit like Judge Howell appeared on CNN to speak out against threats against the judiciary and respond to comments former President Donald Trump made about the daughter of the judge, Juan Merchan, presiding over his New York criminal trial. Trump called Judge Merchan's daughter a "Rabid Trump Hater" on his social media platform Truth Social. Judge Walton said that it is disconcerting to have someone making comments about a judge, and it's particularly problematic when those comments are in the form of a threat, especially if they are directed at one's family. Judge Walton added that judges do their jobs because they are committed to the rule of law and they [judges] believe in the rule of law, and the rule of law can only function effectively when we have judges who are prepared to carry out their duties without the threat of potential physical harm. 

These judges are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Their words ring hollow! As I already stated, Judge Luttig comments about January 6th and the 14th Amendment are nonsensical. His claim that the U.S. Supreme Court "betrayed democracy" by striking down the Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing Trump from the ballot lacks credibility. How the U.S. Supreme Court has "betrayed democracy" is by failing to rein in rogue judges in the lower federal courts. This entire blog has been devoted to exposing corruption in the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has undermined our Constitution and democracy. 

Judge Howell stated that January 6th was based on big lies and that the country is turning to authoritarian rule. I disagree with Judge Howell that January 6th was based on big lies. Since Judge Howell didn't specify what the "big lies" were, I am assuming that she was talking about claims that the election was stolen because of fraud. It used to be widely accepted that there was fraud in every national election. Couple that with the large number of irregularities that occurred in the 2020 presidential election that were not adequately investigated, how can you say with a straight face that it is a 100 percent certainty that the election was not stolen. 

Judge Howell's comment that the country is somehow turning to authoritarian rule because of January 6th is intellectually lacking. It's judges in our federal judiciary, in particular, that are the authoritarians. Just read the posts in this blog Judge Howell and you will learn something about authoritarian rule. Judge Howell claimed that we are in a troubling moment in this country because the importance of facts is dismissed or ignored, and that's risky business for all of us in our democracy. Again, Judge Howell, it's federal judges like you that all too often dismiss or ignore the importance of facts. Unlike what Judge Howell proclaims that "the facts matter," the facts quite often do not matter in our federal judiciary. She, of all people, should know this.

Judge Walton, as noted above, finds comments about judges to be problematic. He seems to equate Trump's claim that Judge Merchan's daughter is a "Rabid Trump Hater" as some type of threat. That's nonsense. However, I agree that any credible threat against a judge or a family member of a judge is unacceptable and should be addressed by law enforcement. I covered this same subject in one of my posts in this blog. On the other hand, judges are not exempt from criticism. It appears that Judge Walton might be a little thin-skinned. But criticism of government officials is an acceptable practice in a democracy. 

My biggest issue with Judge Walton is his claim that judges do their jobs because they are committed to the rule of law and that judges believe in the rule of law. That simply is not true. One of the primary reasons for this blog by me is that judges in the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals showed utter disdain for the rule of law when making rulings against me in my lawsuits against the City of San Jose filed in 2006 and 2015. In a phone call with Senior Deputy San Jose City Attorney Matthew Pritchard, he told me judges did not have to follow the law. He said that the law is whatever judges say it is. How's that for authoritarian rule? Pritchard also said that I would lose because judges never change their decisions, even if they a clearly wrong. That is precisely what happened in my two lawsuits. For Judge Walton to make such bold claims that judges are committed to the rule of law, and they believe in the rule of law is totally dishonest and hypocritical. 

Judges Luttig, Howell, and Walton knew with absolute certainty that the claims they were making, as discussed above, were disinformation. The real betrayal of democracy by the U.S. Supreme Court is its failure to provide adequate oversight of subordinate federal judges that are the real authoritarians that often times dismiss or ignore important facts and are not committed to the rule of law. It is our federal judiciary that poses the greater threat to democracy, not January 6th and Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court Covers up Corruption in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court in San Jose!

Post #78 - December 18, 2023 - by Fred Bates

The Supreme Court fails to Address a Cheating Scandal in the Ninth Circuit

In a post on September 5, 2023, I wrote about a petition for a writ of certiorari that I filed in the Supreme Court. My petition sought a review of the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court in San Jose dismissing an independent action in equity I filed in 2020. My independent action in equity sought to set aside the judgment against me in a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006 for discrimination based on my disability and race. I am black/African American. The grounds for my independent action were based on claims that the judgment in my lawsuit is based on fraud, bias by the courts against me, and the courts' misapplication of the law. 

My petition for writ of certiorari was filed on July 28, 2023. I submitted additional facts and exhibits to support my petition that were received by the Supreme Court Clerk's Office on September 15, 2023. The Clerk's Office refused to file the supporting evidence I submitted. The papers and exhibits I submitted were returned to me with the dubious claim that they were not properly submitted according to the filing rules of the Supreme Court. My petition was denied on October 2, 2023.

My petition for a writ of certiorari and supporting evidence present an irrefutable case of fraud, bias, and an intentional misapplication of the law by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court in San Josee. It is unmistakable that the Supreme Court is engaged in a cover-up of the egregious misconduct of the courts in my lawsuit based the denial of my writ of certiorari. 

My petition for a writ of certiorari, the supporting evidence I submitted, and the response letter of the Supreme Court Clerk's Office can be accessed at the links below:

 

Petition for writ of certiorari

Supreme Court of the United States

Letter sent to the Supreme Court Clerk's Office and Response letter from Clerk's Office                                                                                             

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZwsSUBJBWuWGj9XWO23JI1qxxwG5BMvR/view?usp=sharing

To access the audio recording of the appeals hearing, click on the link below that will bring up the website for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Type in case number 08-16757 and click on "search." Click on "listen" under the heading "Audio" on the case information line that appears to download the recording: 

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/.

Complaint for damages

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_0iV0uSmmOrYffL2oNwdr3pjcwrBcJDH/view?usp=sharing 

City's answer to complaint for damages

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ftjxsThPrJNdzt9_GM0b_T3o5_fiL3BA/view?usp=sharing    

Transcript of hearing on the City's summary judgment motion

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h5s7U7NCQWx3ZEBFZUtwCSAJRwP_mgnt/view?usp=sharing   

Docket entries for Rule 60 motion

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uaLp-IXxitEbxfk9uvUvbDxzYmO3wrOQ/view?usp=sharing  

Rule 60 motion

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PwIudPiZgaR0p0lJ8chqTX550JwyZxvC/view?usp=sharing   

Transcript of hearing on Rule 60 motion

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19SwkGhWTcQ0q79aQavtD18ke32yFnOCw/view?usp=sharing  

Civil minutes of hearing on Rule 60 motion

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hSjCPISCkP4vRx_hZjPs6zpyuJWcMaJD/view?usp=sharing

                           

                                                                                                               

 

The Ball is in the Supreme Court's Court - My Petition for Writ of Certiorari

 Post #77 - September 5, 2023 - by Fred Bates

This should be one of the easiest decisions of the Supreme Court to grant certiorari. 

If you have read any of my prior posts, you probably know that the purpose of this blog is to expose a cheating scandal involving the City of San Jose, the U.S. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of lawsuits I filed against the City for discrimination based on my race and disability. I am black/African American. I make some very serious allegations that the above officials committed several criminal acts related to public corruption, and that the judgments in each lawsuit that favor the City of San Jose are based on fraud, bias, and the Courts' violation of the Constitution, statutory law, and precedent. It is my intent to present indisputable evidence very soon supporting my allegations of cheating and criminal misconduct against these officials. Please keep checking my blog for the evidence that I will present. 

The focus of today's post, however, is a petition for writ of certiorari I filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of the judgment in the latest lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2020, an independent action in equity, seeking to set aside the judgment in the first federal lawsuit I filed against the City in 2006. My independent action in equity is based on claims mentioned above, fraud, bias, and the Courts' violation of the law. 

In post #72 on July 21, 2022, I stated (promised!) that I would pursue justice in this matter at all costs. My petition for writ of certiorari cost me a substantial amount of money. But I am also willing to sacrifice my freedom, or even my life, in peaceful non-violent protest if it comes to that point. At the time of post #72, the District Court's judgment on my independent action in equity in favor of the City of San Jose was on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since that time, the Ninth Circuit rubber stamped the judgment of the District Court by affirming it in April 2023. Thus, my petition for writ of certiorari. Below is a link to post #72:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: The Hill I Will Die On! (crnctz.blogspot.com)

Below is information about my petition for writ of certiorari and how to access it:

Docket # No. 23-53. Title: Frederick Bates, Petitioner v. City of San Jose, California, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To Access my petition, click on the text below:

   Supreme Court of the United States

Below is a link to post #3 of my blog dated September 27, 2015, and post #74 dated October 20, 2022, that detail the criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials and the Courts. I stand by these allegations:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Complaint Letters to the FBI and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: San Jose City Officials and Federal Court Officials Engaged in Criminal Misconduct During Litigation of My Lawsuits Against the City (crnctz.blogspot.com)

Democracy Requires an Independent Judiciary Free from Violence and Intimidation that Adheres to the Rule of Law

 Post #76 - January 11, 2023 - by Fred Bates

An independent judiciary does not mean judges are above scrutiny or oversight

    In his annual year-end report on December 31, 2022, Chief Justice Roberts thanked Congress for strengthening judicial security. Chief Justice Roberts was referring to a law Congress recently passed increasing security and privacy protections for federal judges and their families. The act was named after the son of federal judge Ester Salas. Salas' 20-year-old son was killed in 2020 while at home in New Jersey by a deranged former litigant who was dissatisfied with Judge Salas' ruling in his case. The suspect found Judge Salas' address online. The killing of Judge Salas' son was a barbaric act by a truly despicable person. An attack on a judge or a family member of a judge by anyone based on a judge's decision(s) is an attack on democracy and our constitutional republic. To have a properly functioning judiciary, it is imperative that judges are able to carry out their constitutional responsibilities without fear of violence or intimidation. 

    In an article published on January 2, 2023, former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich stated that we cannot tolerate intimidation of our judiciary. Brnovich noted that he played a leading role in urging Congress to pass the legislation noted above that protects federal judges and their families. Brnovich mentioned in his article the threats made against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and US District Judge Aileen Cannon last year. He criticized the Democrat-controlled Congress for its lack of outrage and failure to act swiftly in passing legislation protecting federal judges after the threats against Justice Kavanaugh and Judge Cannon because they were appointed by a Republican President. You might remember that an armed subject was arrested in Justice Kavanaugh's neighborhood in an apparent attempt to assassinate the Justice. As for Judge Cannon, Brnovich contends that rhetoric from the left was close to inciting violence against the Judge after she ruled in favor of a Special Master in the case involving former President Donald Trump and the Justice Department regarding allegations that he stored top-secret documents illegally at Mar-a-Lago. Brnovich accused the Biden Department of Justice of looking the other way when Republican-appointed justices or judges are targeted for potentially illegal protests. 

    Brnovich also stated in his article that everyone in our society should condemn any attempts to subvert our democracy with intimidation tactics or violence against federal judges or Justices on the Supreme Court. At the heart of Brnovich's article is the importance of an independent judiciary. Chief Justice Roberts too has pointed out the importance of an independent judiciary in condemning violence and criticisms directed towards federal judges. It should be easy for everyone to agree with Chief Justice Roberts and Mark Brnovich about the importance of an independent judiciary and the need to protect our judges. 

    However, Chief Justice Roberts and Mark Brnovich failed to emphasize that an independent judiciary does not exempt judges from protests and does not exempt them from oversight. In our constitutional republic or democracy, the right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances is inviolable. That includes lawfully protesting the decisions of non-elected judges. The right to protest is as necessary to democracy as an independent judiciary. To his credit Brnovich stated that from its inception, America's judiciary has had its shortcomings by deciding cases wrongly. He said that many of the cases decided wrongly have been reversed, or they have yet to be overturned, implying that cases decided wrongly will ultimately be reversed. He said that such is life in the Constitutional Republic in which we live. Brnovich said that justice may take time, but it ultimately prevails.

    While I agree with much of what Brnovich wrote in his article, I take exception to his suggestion that cases decided wrongly will at some point be overturned and that justice ultimately prevails. That is far from the truth. I make this claim based on my personal experiences with the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of three lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose and several City officials for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. Every single decision by the courts in my lawsuits were biased against me and were intentionally decided with a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and precedent. None of the unlawful rulings of the courts have been reversed despite my many efforts to obtain relief. It is no big secret that the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are plagued by corruption, dysfunction, and bias, just as many of our other federal courts. Also casting doubt on Brnovich's position that justice ultimately prevails are the words of Matthew Pritchard, an attorney for the City of San Jose who represented the City during my attempts to obtain relief from the judgments in my lawsuits that were decided wrongly. Mr. Pritchard boasted that the City would win because the courts never change their decisions, even if they are wrong. 

    Just as acts of violence and intimidation against federal judges should be condemned by everyone in society, so should the corruption, dysfunction, and bias that appears to have infected our federal judiciary. Congress was right in passing legislation providing more security for our federal judges. However, Congress has fallen short of its constitutional obligation to provide oversight over our federal judicial system. Rather, the judicial branch has been allowed to operate independently without any accountability whatsoever, using its independence as a shield to hide its corruption and to decide cases wrongly. Even though violence and intimidation of federal judges subverts democracy, the far greater threat to democracy is a corrupt, dysfunctional, and biased judiciary that does not adhere to the rule of law and precedent when deciding cases. Below are links that provide additional information about my claims against the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Additional information will be provided in future posts on my blog. 

 A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: San Jose City Officials and Federal Court Officials Engaged in Criminal Misconduct During Litigation of My Lawsuits Against the City (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman's Ethics Are Questionable (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - No Honor and No Integrity (crnctz.blogspot.com)