Monday, October 31, 2016
If you have read any of my prior posts, you should know that the purpose of this blog is to expose cheating by the federal courts and the San Jose City Attorney's Office during litigation of a federal lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006 for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. US District Judge Ronald M. Whyte presided over the lawsuit. Judge Whyte is also at the center of another big corruption scandal as well. Judge Whyte is a renowned intellectual property jurist, and he holds many distinguished positions relative to his profession. However, it is unmistakable that Judge Whyte is corrupt and has very little respect for civil rights and the rule of law. His lack of regards for my civil rights, a black person, draws comparison to the lack of regard for civil rights of black people during Jim Crow. This comparison might seem hyperbolic, but I think it is a fair one. My comparison of Judge Whyte's conduct to that of segregationists during Jim Crow is about the moral equivalency of the blatant civil rights violations of blacks during that era and the blatant violation of my civil rights by Judge Whyte.
As noted in a prior post, Judge Whyte granted the City of San Jose a motion for summary judgment in my lawsuit that was a total fabrication, pure fiction, a complete hoax. He also allowed the City to conspire with my attorney to dismiss a defendant in that lawsuit without my knowledge or permission. That defendant, Tuck Younis, was the most important defendant in my case because he violated my rights knowingly. Younis also committed perjury in a deposition and in a declaration to the court. The law is perfectly clear that only I, the plaintiff, had the right to dismiss Younis from my lawsuit. My attorney, Stuart Kirchick, committed a serious ethical violation by agreeing to the dismissal of Younis from my lawsuit without my consent and without a settlement agreement. There is evidence that Kirchick was bribed by City officials and that the court approved of his misconduct as well.
Younis was also in contempt of court because he refused to appear twice after being subpoenaed in a prior small claims action I filed against the City. It just so happens that the judgment in that small claims action from the state of California is critical to the judgment of Judge Whyte in my federal lawsuit. There was no litigation in the small claims action because the Commissioner made a ruling implying that the small claims court lacked authority to grant the compensation I was seeking without allowing any testimony from me or the City. Judge Whyte dismissed my federal lawsuit against the City based on the collateral estoppel effect of the small claims judgment despite the fact that there was no litigation and no record of what occurred in small claims court. The law is well settled that collateral estoppel, aka issue preclusion, does not apply to judgments rendered in California's small claims courts. When determining the preclusive effect of state court judgments, the full faith and credit act, 28 USC Section 1738 requires federal courts to follow the preclusion law of the state where the judgment was rendered. Judge Whyte failed to do. Therefore, his judgment dismissing my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel is unconstitutional and is void by law.
Furthermore, the intransigence of Judge Whyte has shown in refusing to change his clearly erroneous and discriminatory judgment in my case mirrors the intransigence of white government officials in the South during Jim Crow in refusing to abandon their discriminatory policies against blacks. I have filed three motions with Judge Whyte seeking relief from his discriminatory judgment in my case, all to no avail. Judge Whyte and District Court officials went as far as staging a phony hearing on one of my motions after I was told there would be no hearing. Court officials falsified docket entries falsely stating that my motion pertained to "Costs Taxed" when it actually pertained to fraud on the court by the City's attorney and Judge Whyte's violation of the full faith and credit act. During the hearing, the City was granted a secret or ex parte motion to dismiss because I followed the court's instructions and did not appear for the hearing. The clear intent of Judge Whyte and court officials were to obstruct justice, a felony offense.
As far as I am concerned, Judge Whyte is a disgrace to the bench. It is reasonable to conclude that he was paid off by the City of San Jose. All of his prior cases should be examined because of his corruption. It is laughable that he won an award in 2009 for unquestioned integrity and commitment to the rule of law. Judge Whyte is taking inactive status (retiring) on November 1st of this year. The timing of his retirement is somewhat suspicious considering the scandals linked to him. As a result of his retirement, many of Judge Whyte's colleagues are falling all over themselves saying nice things about him on the US District Court website.
Here are some of the things being said about Judge Whyte. Judge Whyte is a great judge and a great man. Those who appeared before him saw how smart and fair and wise he is. He is intensely devoted to doing justice. Really?! He treated everyone with respect and dignity. One colleague of Judge Whyte stated that he possesses a model judicial temperament - an endearing blend of modesty, patience, intellect, and even-handedness. Another of his colleagues stated that for over two decades Judge Whyte has exemplified many of the best qualities of the judges of the Northern District: diligence, fairness, humility, modeling and inspiring the treatment of everyone involved in the justice system with courtesy and respect, and above all practicality. The common sentiment throughout these comments seems to be that Judge Whyte is fair or even-handed and that he is fair and just. This is comical because Judge Whyte refused to follow laws in my case that were mandatory; and he ruled in favor of the City, even though, all of the facts and evidence favored me. This claim by me is corroborated by the record in my case. It's the absolute truth. The complimentary comments about Judge Whyte by his colleagues are total baloney. They are nothing more than propaganda in order to make Judge Whyte look good. However, nothing is going to make Judge Whyte look good because of his egregious conduct in my case, and apparently several other cases. Judge Whyte may have made several important decisions relating to intellectual property litigation, but his best and most important decision has been to retire because he no longer has any integrity or honor.
