Post #71 - July 20, 2022 - by Fred Bates
Access to the courts is a right that is as precious as the right to vote and the right to freedom of speech
Access to the courts is a constitutional right that is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Access to the courts falls primarily under the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If access to the courts is a right protected by the First Amendment, then what does access to the courts mean? Clearly, it means the right to file a lawsuit and motions when appropriate in order to vindicate your rights. As evidence of this fact, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., citing the US Supreme Court in BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, opined that the First Amendment right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - which includes the filing of lawsuits - is "one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights." For access to the courts to be meaningful, however, courts must be impartial and adhere to the rule of law and precedent. Meaningful access to the courts means that judges will apply the law to the facts. This impartiality aspect of meaningful access is also reflected by the Fifth Amendment due process clause. In Marshall v. Jerricho, the US Supreme Court held that the due process clause guarantees a litigant a tribunal that's impartial and disinterested.
One direct way an individual is denied access to the courts occurs when a court declares a litigant to be vexatious and/or harassing because they file multiple lawsuits that are allegedly without merit. After declaring a litigant to be vexatious and/or harassing, the court issues a pre-filing screening order; meaning that any new lawsuit filed by the declared vexatious litigant must be reviewed and approved by a judge. Pre-filing screening orders are supposed to be rare because the right of access to the courts, as ruled by the US Supreme Court, is "precious."
I discuss the right of access to the courts above in order to bring up an egregious ruling by US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in a lawsuit I filed in 2020 against the City of San Jose. Judge Freeman ruled that I was a vexatious and harassing litigant in response to a motion by the City; then subjected me to a pre-filing screening order restricting my access to the courts. The lawsuit filed in 2020 is the most recent of three lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose, three police administrators and other City officials. My first two lawsuits were filed in order to vindicate my rights that were violated based on the racist and discriminatory conduct of San Jose city officials after I retired from the City's police force. I am black/African American. The details of the racist and discriminatory conduct are discussed at length in many of my prior posts. This latest lawsuit filed in 2020, in which Judge Freeman declared me a vexatious and harassing litigant, is an independent action in equity that seeks to overturn the judgment in my first lawsuit that was filed in 2006. I am seeking to overturn that judgment because it is the product of fraud and bias; and because the courts failed to follow the Constitution, federal statutory law, and precedent. These claims might sound exaggerated, but they are absolutely true. It is one of the most remarkable cases of public corruption in recent memory.
Judge Freeman's decision to declare me a vexatious and harassing litigant in her ruling on my independent action in equity does not remotely follow the precedent for a vexatious litigant as set by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit's precedent setting cases set guidelines for a vexatious/ harassing litigant at the filling of 30 plus lawsuits up to 600 lawsuits. Not only must there be numerous lawsuits filed, but the claims in the lawsuits must be 'wholly fanciful or patently without merit.' The three federal lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose were over a period of sixteen years. Clearly, this is not an inordinate number of filings as established by Ninth Circuit precedent. Furthermore, the claims I make against the City are supported by facts and evidence and are not 'wholly fanciful or patently without merit.' The claims in my independent action in equity that are the basis for overturning the judgment in my first lawsuit are particularly noteworthy as you will see below.
As I stated above, my independent action in equity seeks to overturn the judgment in my first lawsuit against the City of San Jose based on fraud, bias, and the failure of the courts to follow the law. My claim of fraud is based on the fact that the courts granted the City's motion for summary judgment, even though it was totally fabricated. My claim of fraud is also based on the fact that one of the three police officials mentioned above was dismissed from my first lawsuit without my authority in order to prevent the district court from ruling on his actions that violated my rights. My claim that the courts were biased during litigation is based on the fact that the district court ruled in favor of the City, even though the City admitted that the three police officials I sued violated my due process rights that are enshrined in state law. My claim of fraud and bias is based on the fact that the district court falsified court dockets, staged a fake hearing with a fraudulent transcript and civil minutes that are contradictory, all for the purpose of denying a Rule 60 motion I filed in 2013 seeking relief from the judgment in my first lawsuit. My claim of bias is also based on the blatantly biased comments of one of the judges (presumably William Fletcher) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during the hearing of my appeal of the district court's ruling in my first lawsuit. During that hearing, Judge Fletcher asked why I was making this a federal case. He also asked why I didn't just drop the "darn thing" after a small claims action I filed against the City of San Jose that was dismissed without being actually litigated. That same small claims court judgment was given collateral estoppel effect in clear violation of federal law. Collateral estoppel is commonly referred to as issue preclusion. With rare exceptions, collateral estoppel means that an issue litigated and decided in a prior court proceeding cannot be litigated in a subsequent court proceeding. When determining the collateral estoppel effect of a judgment entered in a state court, federal courts are required by 28 USC Section 1738 (the full faith and credit act) to follow the preclusion law of the state where the judgment was rendered. Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion does not apply to judgments rendered in small claims courts in California per state preclusion law because of the informal nature of proceedings in small claims courts. Judge Fletcher, who made the biased statements during the appeals hearing, also stated that he doubted that collateral estoppel was applicable. Furthermore, there is no record from the small claims court that states what was litigated and decided. Ninth Circuit precedent states that if the record is inadequate, it will not consider collateral estoppel on appeal. Yet, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment giving collateral estoppel effect to the small claims court judgment, even though, there is no record whatsoever that shows that the issue I raised was actually litigated and decided. But most importantly, as already noted, collateral estoppel does not apply to issues litigated and decided in small claims court in California. The failure of the courts to adhere to the rule of law and precedent in this instance is in itself a denial of meaningful access to the courts.
More compelling evidence that the courts have denied me meaningful access to the courts is the words of Matthew Pritchard, one of the attorneys for the City of San Jose assigned to my cases. In a phone conversation with me relating to my independent action in equity, Mr. Pritchard boasted that the City would win because the courts never change their decisions, even if they are wrong. Mr. Pritchard stated that there was no doubt that the courts' decisions were wrong in my case on the issue of collateral estoppel. He said that I should accept the courts' decisions even though they are wrong because he accepted court decisions that were wrong when he was a Public Defender. Mr. Pritchard told me that the law is whatever the courts say it is. It should also be noted that in my appeal of the district court's ruling on my independent action in equity that is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the City also states in its answering brief that collateral estoppel does not apply to small claims court judgments in the State of California.
There cannot be any evidence more definitive than what's presented here that proves Judge Freeman's declaration that I am a vexatious and harassing litigant, along with the pre-filing screening order, is an egregious abuse of discretion that denies me the meaningful access to the courts that I am entitled to under the First Amendment. It is morally repugnant that Judge Freeman and the courts have rejected my many claims that are supported by facts and the law, while at the same time accepting the City's repeated false claims as true. This is one of the worst cases of racism and public corruption because denying a black citizen access to the courts is every bit as bad as denying a black citizen the right to vote. I will protest this denial of my access to the courts in much the same way as black voting rights activists protested in the South during the 1960's. Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are meaningless if citizens are denied meaningful access to the courts in order to assert those rights when they are violated by the government. Below are links to two of my prior posts that provide additional details about this matter:
No comments:
Post a Comment