U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman's Ethics Are Questionable

 Post #68, January 11, 2022

"Adherence to the rule of law and precedent is the most important attribute of a judge" - Words of Judge Beth Labson Freeman

Judge Beth Labson Freeman is a United States District Court judge in the Northern District Court of California - San Jose Division. Judge Freeman is presiding over a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose and three former San Jose police administrators for discrimination based on my disability and race. I am black/African American. When Judge Freeman went through her confirmation process in the Senate, she apparently was given a list of questions to answer by then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. At the time of her nomination for U.S. District Court Judge, Judge Freeman was a Superior Court Judge for the County of San Mateo California.

One of the questions asked of Judge Freeman was: What is the most important attribute of a judge, and do you possess it? Her response was that she believed that the adherence to the rule of law and precedent is the most important attribute of a judge. She said that respect for litigants, fairness, and an open-minded review of the evidence presented in each case is fundamental. Judge Freeman said that a judge should always set aside personal views and fairly and impartially apply the law to the facts presented in a case. She further stated that she believed she possess the above attributes and that she has applied them throughout her 12 years as a state court judge. 

At the very least, Judge Freeman is dishonest. At its worst, however, Judge Freeman is corrupt and unfit for office, and her ethics are questionable. I say these things about Judge Freeman based on her conduct during litigation of the lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose. That lawsuit is an independent action in equity for relief from judgment. What my independent action in equity attempts to accomplish is to have the court set aside the judgment in a prior lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose because the judgment was the product of fraud on the court and bias by the presiding judge, Ronald M. Whyte. I will not get into all of the details of that lawsuit because they are covered in prior posts in this blog. But I will say that there was criminal misconduct on the part of court officials, San Jose city officials, and my very own attorney. That is a fact! 

Judge Freeman dismissed my independent action in equity on a motion to dismiss by the City of San Jose based on the meritless defense that my claims were within the law-of-the-case doctrine. Judge Freeman's ruling in this instance is wholly inconsistent with her response that the most important attribute of a judge is adherence to the rule of law and precedent. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60(b) clearly states that a court is not limited in its power to entertain an independent action for relief from judgment. Perhaps of equal importance, U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the case of United States v. Beggerly clearly establishes that an independent action in equity is appropriate in order to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. Certainly, a judgment procured based on fraud and bias on the part of a judge is a grave miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it is well settled that the law-of-the-case-doctrine does not apply outside the confines of the same lawsuit. The preclusion doctrine that would normally apply outside the confines of the same lawsuit, i.e., in a new lawsuit, is the claim preclusion and issue preclusion aspects of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court made it very clear in the Beggerly case that when there are incidents of injustice that are sufficiently significant, res judicata should be waived.    

 My independent action in equity is a new lawsuit that was filed with all of the requirements or characteristics of a new lawsuit: filing fees, a complaint, notice to the defendants, an answer to the complaint from the defendants, and a motion to dismiss by the defendants. An independent action in equity allows a court to review the claims in a prior complaint or lawsuit de novo or anew based on FRCP 60(b) and U.S. v. Beggerly. My independent action in equity is not the same case as the case whose judgment I'm seeking to overturn. Therefore, the law-of-the-case-doctrine does not apply. Even if the law-of-the-case-doctrine applied, my independent action would fall within one of the exceptions to the doctrine. That exception is a clearly erroneous judgment. The judgment that my independent action seeks to set aside was clearly erroneous because Judge Whyte failed to follow the mandate of 28 U.S.C. Section 1738, the Full Faith and Credit Act, which implements the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Also, the fraud perpetrated by Judge Whyte, my attorney, and attorneys for the City of San Jose, all officers of the court, prevent the law-of-the-case doctrine from being applied as well. Fraud on the court vitiates everything. 

Judge Freeman's conduct during the litigation of my independent action in equity is inconsistent with everything she told Senator Grassley during her confirmation for U.S. District Court Judge. She did not have an open mind when reviewing the evidence, and it is clear she did not set aside her personal views and fairly and impartially apply the law to the facts presented in my case, despite giving her assurances that she would do so. Perhaps the most shocking of Judge Freeman's actions is that she not only dismissed my independent action in equity by deliberating misconstruing the law; but she also granted the City of San Jose's motion to declare me a vexatious litigant. This was done despite the fact that San Jose city officials engaged in serious criminal misconduct during litigation of the lawsuit, in which, I'm seeking to overturn the judgment. Think of it this way. San Jose city officials violated my constitutional rights; they conspired with the courts and my attorney to cover up their bigoted, racist, and retaliatory acts by committing several obstruction of justice crimes during litigation; yet, Judge Freeman sees me, a black person, as the one abusing the judicial system for simply standing up for my rights. This is truly egregious and evil because Judge Freeman has permitted San Jose city officials to abuse the judicial system by using it as a weapon to oppress me because I am black, and because I retired from the police department because of a medical disability.

Based on her egregious actions and rulings on my independent action in equity, Judge Freeman is an imposter posing as a legitimate judge. She joins the ranks of the other phony judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose Division, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who have refused to protect the integrity of our judicial system and uphold our Constitution. They all have failed to display the one attribute that Judge Freeman say is most important for a judge: Adherence to the rule of law and precedent.