The new Jim Crow - our Federal Judiciary's lack of regard for the civil rights of Black plaintiffs

February 19, 2026 - By Fred Bates

Federal judges view of civil rights today is the real Jim Crow 2.0

    Federal courts played a pivotal role in eliminating discrimination and racism during and after the Jim Crow era. The Jim Crow era ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Probably, the best known of the federal court cases dealing with civil rights is Brown v. Board of Education decided in 1954. Brown v. Board of Education found that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. It overturned the "separate but equal doctrine" of Plessy v. Ferguson handed down in 1896. Subsequent to the Brown case, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, federal courts have handed down many other decisions eliminating discriminatory practices in voting, housing, education, transportation, employment, healthcare and other segments of society. This points out how important federal courts were to eliminating discrimination and racism against blacks and other marginalized citizens. 

    My opinion that federal judges today view civil rights in the same way as segregationists during Jim Crow is based on my litigation experience with the US District Court in San Jose, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. My opinion is also formed based on my observation of other civil rights cases decided by federal judges. The federal courts' disdain for civil rights cases is unmistakable. After the commendable efforts of the federal courts to eliminate racism and discrimination beginning with Brown v. Board of Education and continuing through perhaps the early 2000's, they have taken a dim view of individual civil rights cases, particularly those filed by pro se (self-represented) litigants.  

   My litigation experience with the US District Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court is documented extensively in a report that I submitted to the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Department of Justice. My litigation experience began with a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006 for discrimination based on my disability and race. I'm black/African American. The report shows with clarity that the discrimination I suffered at the hands of San Jose city officials was malicious, retaliatory, and was meant to cause me financial loss and extreme emotional pain and suffering. These City officials treated me with a total lack of respect and dignity that showed no sensitivity for my experiences as a black person that lived in the South during Jim Crow. It is one of the most flagrant cases of civil rights violations and bigotry imaginable because San Jose city officials admitted during litigation that they violated California law and city policy. Yet the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals conspired with the City to obstruct justice in order to cover up the City's racist decision to violate my civil rights. Please click on the website below to read the report and other documents that are proof that many of our federal judges have absolutely no regard for civil rights just as segregationists had no regard for the civil rights of blacks in the South during Jim Crow. 

    https://corruptioninourfederalcourts.com/

Chief Justice John Roberts and the Justices of the Supreme Court are engaged in a criminal cover-up

 February 16, 2026 - by Fred Bates

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices of the Supreme Court are committing an impeachable offense by covering up criminal misconduct that occurred in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose

        The Supreme Court poses a greater threat to the Constitution, democracy and the rule of law than the President and Congress combined because it covers up criminal misconduct and corruption in our lower federal courts. In February of 2025, I sent a report to each of the Justices of the Supreme Court documenting criminal misconduct by officials with the City of San Jose, my former attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of a discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose. I am black/African American. The report presents indisputable facts and evidence that my attorney (Stuart Kirchick) conspired with the attorney for the City of San Jose (Michael Dodson) to perpetrate fraud on the US District Court in San Jose with the specific intent to obstruct justice. The fraud consisted of a joint case management statement making false claims as to facts, and a joint stipulation of dismissal of a defendant without my consent and without a settlement agreement. That defendant had clearly violated my constitutional rights to due process that are enshrined in California law. The report presents evidence that judges and court officials in the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were complicit in the fraud by my attorney and San Jose city officials. 

    The report presents evidence that the US District Court in San Jose knowingly and intentionally violated the Constitution, federal statutory law and precedent of the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The specific intent of the court was to obstruct justice by covering up the discriminatory and racist decision of San Jose city officials to deprive me of my due process rights when denying me a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the San Jose Police Department as a sergeant. The report presents evidence proving that San Jose police officials committed perjury in their depositions, and in a declaration in support of the City's motion for summary judgment. Irrefutable evidence is also presented in the report that a judge and court officials in the US District Court in San Jose falsified docket entries in order to stage a fake hearing, without my knowledge, with a fake transcript and civil minutes on a motion for relief I filed. These are very serious felonies that completely undermine our judicial system, our democracy, and the rule of law.

    Despite the overwhelming evidence of the fraud and criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials, my attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Robert and the eight other Justices of the Supreme Court refused to take any action on a complaint report I sent to each detailing the misconduct of the above officials. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari I filed in 2023 that documents the fraud by the City of San Jose, violations of the law and precedent by the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as bias by both courts.

    Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court's blatant cover up of the criminal obstruction of justice by the City of San Jose, my attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is impeachable under the US constitution. Below is a link to my website with a copy of the report and letters I submitted to the Supreme Court and Congress in February 2025 documenting the criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials, my attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

https://corruptioninourfederalcourts.com/

    

The 'World's Greatest Deliberative Body' fails to deliberate - The Government Shutdown

 November 5, 2025 - by Fred Bates

(This blog is dedicated to exposing a cheating scandal involving the City of San Jose, my attorney Stuart Kirchick, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination. However, I sometimes comment on issues that I believe are important but unrelated to the purpose of this blog. The government shutdown is one of those issues)

Government shutdowns are antithetical to the role of elected government officials, and they hurt ordinary citizens

    The government shutdown shows that we are governed by fools and reprobates. During the government shutdown in 2018, I wrote a post pointing out that the government shut down was evidence of politicians' disdain for average American citizens. The statement can be applied to this current government shutdown as well. Government shutdowns can usually be blamed on both political parties. However, based on the objective facts, this shutdown can be blamed on the Democratic Party. I don't say this because I dislike the Democratic Party and I like the Republican Party. I have disdain for both parties. Even though I must say the radical ideology of the Democrats on abortion, transgenderism, climate change, open borders, their hypocrisy and double standards, and their defund the police and soft-on-crime polices makes them a lot less appealing to me than Republicans. I will expound upon Democrats' hypocrisy and double standards at another time. 

    Now let's look at the objective evidence that Democrats are to blame for the government shutdown. The shutdown is the result of the budget deadlock between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. There are always differences of opinions between the parties, and sometimes within the parties themselves, on how to prioritize spending. But that's no reason to shut down the government. The Senate is known as the 'world's greatest deliberative body.' This suggests to me that the Senate functions in a way that allows all of it members to participate in the legislative process and that there is extensive debate on potential legislation, including spending bills. Because of the shutdown, obviously, there is no deliberation in the Senate that will facilitate a resolution to the budget deadlock. Democrats have voted at least 14 times against a Continuing Resolution (CR) proposed by Republicans to reopen the government and resume the debate on the spending bill, with the hope of reaching a compromise. The CR does not give an advantage to either party. It is a resolution to reopen the government and continue to fund the government at the current spending level until November 21, 2025, and to resume the debate on a full year spending bill. 

    It makes no sense to me for the Democrats in the Senate to vote against reopening the government and continuing the debate on a spending bill. This runs counter to the Senate's reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. The government shutdown shows disrespect for the American people who elects Senators and Representatives to govern and to keep the government open at all times.  This shutdown by Democrats is for political theater and, quite possibly, was a stunt to influence yesterday's elections in which Democrats dominated. If this was Democrats' purpose for shutting down the government, the shutdown is a big success for them, but a failure for everyday Americans dependent on the government for paychecks and social services. 

Federal Judges should maintain the same constitutional standard as they impose on President Trump

October 17, 2025 - by Fred Bates 

Federal judges hold Trump to a higher standard when enforcing the Constitution 

    About two weeks ago, I read an article by Jordan Rubin a legal reporter for MSNBC regarding a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge William Young against the Trump administration's targeting of noncitizen pro-Palestinians for exercising their right to free speech. Judge Young sits on the bench for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It's pretty clear to me Rubin is a Trump hater and lack objectivity when it comes to his opinions about the President. The title of Rubin's article is "Judge's novel free speech opinion doubles as broad indictment of Trump." The purpose of this post is not to talk about Rubin's Trump derangement. I will focus on Judge Young's ruling that the Trump administration's deportation of certain noncitizens espousing pro-Hammas and pro-Palestinian views on Ivy League universities, namely Harvard, violated their First Amendment right to free speech.  

    I disagree with Judge Young's ruling because I believe the government has the authority and an obligation to restrict speech in certain situations that is intended to promote or incite violence that endangers the safety of Jewish students on college campuses, as happened in this case. Remember when Trump was impeached for allegedly inciting the riot on January 6th; even though he urged protesters to act peacefully and patriotically? I mention this as food for thought. 

    Judge Young framed his opinion as a response to a postcard he apparently received, dated 19/June 2025, from an anonymous source stating: "TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS.... WHAT DO YOU HAVE?" Judge Young responded with: "Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States -- you and me -- have our magnificent Constitution. Here's how that works out in a specific case --.

    Judge Young went on to make some less than flattering comments about Trump and what Judge Young believes is Trump's lack of regard for the free speech rights of those whose speech he "disdains." He called the President a bully that misunderstands the country he serves as commander-in-chief, and that he is fixated on bragging and retribution, primarily on issues of speech. A case can be made that Judge Young's comments have some credibility. Certainly, government retribution for speech is directly forbidden by the First Amendment. Unlike Judge Young, I'm not convinced that is what happened in this case with pro-Palestinian or pro-Hammas protestors on college campuses around the country. 

    Judge Young opined that the effect of the Trump administration's targeting of noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation strikes fear into "similar situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals," and unconstitutionally chills their freedom of speech.   I believe Judge Young's ruling will be overturned on appeal in the Court of Appeals, if not there, definitely on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    My problem with Judge Young's claims about Trump is that he is holding the President to a standard that many federal judges do not maintain themselves. In other words, there is a different standard for President Trump that is higher than that of federal judges. 

    I give you an example of how our "magnificent Constitution," using the words of Judge Young, has not worked out in a specific case, a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination in 2006. I am black/African American. During the litigation of my lawsuit, judges and court officials in the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the City of San Jose to perpetuate fraud on the court with the filing of a motion for summary judgment based on claims that were totally false and contradicted admissions the City made in its answer to my complaint for damages. The courts granted the City's summary judgment motion, thereby dismissing my lawsuit based on the City's fraudulent claims, and based on the unconstitutional application of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) to a small claims court judgment the City won against me in the State of California. 

    When determining the preclusive effect of a judgment rendered in a state court, the full faith and credit act (28 USC Section 1738) commands that federal courts give to a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as would the courts of the state where the judgment was rendered. 28 USC Section 1738 is not a suggestion; it is a mandate or a command that federal courts must follow. Every single federal judge knows about the requirement of the full faith and credit act. The first question a federal judge must answer when determining the preclusive effect of a state court judgment is: Will courts in the state that rendered the judgment give preclusive effect to that judgment? Stated differently, they must look first to the preclusion law of the state that rendered the judgment. This requirement for collateral estoppel or issue preclusion is supported by Supreme Court precedent. It is without any doubt that under California preclusion law collateral estoppel does not apply to judgments rendered in small claims courts because of their informal nature. It is not debatable that the courts violated the requirements of the full faith and credit act and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution by giving preclusive effect to the small claim's judgment in my lawsuit. 

    Furthermore, there was no litigation in my small claims case. The small claims court commissioner made a ruling that he could not grant the compensation I was seeking without hearing any testimony or addressing any issues in my complaint. Also, there is no record from the small claims court that pinpoints what was litigated and decided. Even if this was a formal proceeding where collateral estoppel would normally apply, it would not apply under the precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which requires a record that pinpoints what was litigated and decided in the state court. The burden was on the City of San Jose to produce that record. I present all of these facts and laws regarding collateral estoppel to show that the courts had a blatant lack of regard for our "magnificent Constitution."

    Showing further disregard for our magnificent Constitution is the actions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when I appealed the unlawful judgment of the district court granting the City's motion for summary judgment. During the hearing, the court said it was doubtful that collateral estoppel applied because there had to have been actual litigation. But this point is moot because as I pointed out already, collateral estoppel does not apply to judgments rendered in small claims courts in California. Therefore, the full faith and credit act that implements the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution prohibits federal courts from applying collateral estoppel to judgments rendered in small claims court in California. End of story! Yet, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court with the knowledge that the judgment was in violation of 28 USC Section 1738 and the U.S. Constitution.

    The disregard for the Constitution by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals went even further during the hearing on my appeal. During the hearing, Judge William Fletcher made blatantly biased comments that violated my Fifth Amendment due process right to an impartial tribunal. He stated he was going to cut to the chase. He asked why I was making this a federal case; and why I didn't just drop the darn thing [my lawsuit], after my unsuccessful small claims case. This is shocking since it was Judge Fletcher who stated he was doubtful about collateral estoppel. He also discredited the City's claim that there was no evidence to support my Monell Claim. This blatant lack of impartiality by Judge Fletcher, alone, makes the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unconstitutional and unenforceable by law. 

    Judge Young claims against President Trump is a hypocritical double standard. As I have clearly proved above with the actions of the judges in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose, it is judges who misunderstand their roles as impartial arbiters obligated to adhere to the rule of law and precedent. In his ruling, Judge Young finds that the Trump administration's actions violated the Constitution, as well as his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution." The judges in my lawsuit are guilty of violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, just as Judge Young accuses Trump of doing.  

    Judge Young stated in his ruling that the judiciary has robustly rebuffed Trump and his administration's efforts to seek retribution for speech it dislikes. While the judiciary has been able to provide oversight of the Trump administration's alleged overreach as it relates to issues of free speech and due process, there has been no meaningful oversight of the judiciary's blatant violation of my constitutional rights during the litigation of my lawsuit. The lack of regard for the Constitution by the judges in my case is not a one-off. During a conversation with San Jose Senior Deputy City Attorney Matthew Pritchard in 2021, he said that judges do not have to follow the law. The law is whatever the judges say it is. Pritchard also said the courts do not change their rulings, even if they are clearly erroneous. So far, the courts have refused to change the clearly erroneous and unconstitutional judgment in my lawsuit by denying my many attempts to obtain relief.

    Just as judge Young accuses Trump of being a bully and chilling free speech of noncitizens, judges in my case acted as bullies as well. They repeatedly denied me relief from a clearly erroneous and unconstitutional judgment by simply stating that the courts had repeatedly rejected my claims, without actually addressing the merits of my claims. Speaking of chilling free speech, one judge declared me to be a vexatious litigant and subjected me to a pre-filing screening order. Judge Young stated that he only had his "sense of duty." Unlike Judge Young, the judges in my case had no "sense of duty." They violated their oath of office and the Canon of Ethics for federal judges by covering up racism and bigotry of the City of San Jose. 

    In the final statements of his opinion, Judge Young makes the comment: " I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected." Judge Young asked, "Is he correct?" The same fear that Judge Young has about Trump is the same fear I have about federal judges; particularly, in light of the comments by Matthew Pritchard that judges do not have to follow the law, and that the law is whatever judges say it is. Just as Judge Young asks, I ask, "Is he [Pritchard] right?"

    My message to Judge Young is that in order for the Constitution to be "magnificent," federal judges must hold themselves to the same standard as President Trump.  

For more details about my claims against the federal judiciary, see my website at the link below:

www.cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is not wrong that George Santos' prison sentence should be commuted

 August 27, 2025 - by Fred Bates

    In a letter dated August 4, 2025, to Pardon Attorney Edward Martin, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene requested that the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice urge President Trump to commute the sentence of former Congressman George Santos. Santos, who was expelled from Congress in 2023, is serving seven years in federal prison for campaign related crimes of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. 

    Among other things, Rep. Greene alleged that many of her colleagues have committed far worse offenses that Santos. but have faced zero criminal charges. Rep. Greene is absolutely right! In March of this year, I filed an ethics complaint against Congressman Sam Liccardo for his role in a scheme to obstruct justice during a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination when Liccardo was a councilmember and Mayor of the City of San Jose. I am black/African American. During this scheme to obstruct justice, Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council directed attorneys for the City to perpetrate fraud on the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by filing a motion for summary judgment based on several false claims. Liccardo and City leaders also directed two police officials to commit perjury in their depositions, and in a declaration in support of the City's fraudulent motion for summary judgment. One of those police officials, a defendant in my lawsuit, was dismissed by a fraudulent stipulation between my attorney and the City without my consent or a settlement agreement. That same police official was bribed by City officials with a promotion from Captain to Deputy Chief of Police in return for his perjured testimony relative to my lawsuit. My attorney was also paid off by the City of San Jose for his role in the criminal scheme of the City to obstruct justice. Liccardo was at the forefront of this scheme by the City that included the crimes of perjury, subornation of perjury, tampering with a witness, bribery, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. 

    So far Congressman Liccardo has faced zero criminal charges based on my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics, and on a report documenting the obstruction of justice that occurred in my lawsuit that I submitted to the Supreme Court, and leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate. Liccardo's crimes are far worse than those that former Congressman Santos is serving time for. Many, if not all, are felonies that undermine the judicial process, democracy, and the rule of law. To see the report that I submitted to the Supreme Court and Congress, as well as a copy of my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics against Congressman Liccardo, access my website at the link below:

www.cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com

Abuse of judicial independence by federal judges is a far greater threat to democracy and the rule of law than threats to the judiciary

 May 15, 2025 - By Fred Bates

Justice Sotomayor's call for "fearlessly independent" courts reeks of politics!

It seems that a day never goes by without some federal judge making a statement regarding the importance of an independent judiciary and speaking out against threats to the judiciary. About a week ago, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke at an event hosted by the American Bar Association urging lawyers to stand up in the midst of threats. In March of this year (2025) she called for "fearlessly independent" courts at a Georgetown law event. In my recent posts, I acknowledged the need for an independent judiciary, and I denounced violence and threats against our federal judges. However, I opined that the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law is not violence and threats against federal judges. I stated that the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law is the lack of any guardrails or oversight of the judiciary from within the judicial branch itself or Congress.

All of this talk from federal judges about the importance of an independent judiciary and speaking out against threats to federal judges is obviously meant to be critical of President Trump. But a more subtle reason exists as well. Talk about an independent judiciary is a way for these federal judges to say that they want no oversight of the federal judiciary. They want to run the judicial system as they see fit, often times with a lack of regard for impartiality, justice, honesty, the Constitution, and the rule of law. They want total control or absolute power. This is what happens in totalitarian states, not a Constitutional Republic. When Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges like Justices Sotomayor and Jackson talk about an independent judiciary they are speaking about the absolute power of federal judges to make decisions without oversight or criticisms from the legislative and executive branches of government. The want blind obedience of their orders without any questions regarding their legality. But oversight is an important component of the separation of powers doctrine. Judicial independence does not mean federal judges operate without any guardrails. Just as the executive and legislative branches of government are constrained by oversight, the Constitution and the rule of law, so is the federal judiciary. The recent spate of federal judges extolling the virtues of an independent judiciary is all about politics. The truth is, however, that the abuse of judicial independence by federal judges poses the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law and not threats against judges or criticisms of their rulings. 

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and other federal judges come out in support of Chief Justice Roberts misleading claims about threats to democracy and the rule of law

 May 7, 2025 - By Fred Bates

The federal judiciary itself is the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law 

In my post on January 7, 2025, I explained that Chief Justice Roberts had made misleading claims in his 2024 Year End Report on the judiciary. I stated that he had exaggerated the threats that violence and intimidation against federal judges posed to democracy and the rule of law. In my post on February 14, 2025, I stated that we did not need any more lectures from Chief Justice Roberts regarding an independent judiciary. 

Recently, other federal judges have come out in support of Chief Justice Roberts claims about threats and intimidation against federal judges that threatens judicial independence and the rule of law. U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Julia Childs came out in support of Chief Justice Roberts 2024 Year End Report as president of the Federal Judges Association. In an interview, Judge Childs stated that judges are fair and neutral arbitrators of the law. She said that it is the job of judges to adjudicate the facts of the law with respect to any case. If you have read some of the posts from this blog, then you should have an idea that Judge Childs's claim that judges are fair and neutral arbitrators of the law is disinformation. Judge Childs correctly states that it is the job of judges to adjudicate the facts of the law with respect to any case. However, this blog is replete with evidence that judges failed to adjudicate the facts of the law with respect to a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. 

At the beginning of this month (May 2025) at a judicial conference in Puerto Rico, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson denounced what she called "relentless attacks" on the federal judiciary. She stated that efforts to intimidate judges were threatening the Constitution and the rule of law. Justice Jackson comments were directed at President Trump who has been a vocal critic of federal judges. It is clear her comments at the conference in Puerto Rico were politically motivated. Justice Jackson apparent concern for the Constitution and the rule of law is insincere. In March of this year (2025) I submitted a report to her and each of the Justices of the Supreme Court detailing a criminal scheme involving the City of San Jose, the US. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to obstruct justice during the litigation of the discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose just mentioned in the paragraph above. I have not received a response from Justice Jackson or any of the other Justices of the Supreme Court regarding my report. 

I believe most Americans like me are repulsed by threats of violence and intimidation against judges, whether at the federal, state or local level. However, violence and intimidation against judges is not the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law. The greatest existential threat to democracy and the rule of law is public corruption. The worst form of public corruption is corrupt federal judges who refuse to follow the law and lack impartiality. If you want to see an example of this judicial corruption, see the report in my post on March 14, 2025, or you can view it on this website: cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com.