Post #72 - July 21, 2022 - by Fred Bates (follow-up to Post #71 on July 20, 2022)
According to Wiktionary, a 'hill to die on' means: An issue to pursue with wholehearted conviction and/or single-minded focus, with little or no regard to the cost.
In post #71, I explained that access to the courts is guaranteed under the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I discussed how US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman had declared me a vexatious and harassing litigant and subjected me to a pre-filing screening order denying me access to the courts based on three lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose and three police officials. My first two lawsuits were in response to the racist and discriminatory violation of my civil rights by San Jose city officials after I retired from the police department. I am black/African American. My third lawsuit, an independent action in equity, seeks to overturn the illegitimate judgment in the first lawsuit. I explained how Judge Freeman's ruling was inconsistent with the standard for vexatious/harassing litigants set by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent because my three lawsuits over sixteen years was not an excessive amount of litigation. Furthermore, the claims in my lawsuit were not "wholly fanciful" or "patently without merit."
Judge Freeman's vexatious/harassing litigant declaration and pre-filing screening order against me was a direct and in your face way of denying me access to the courts that has a secondary intent of silencing my speech decrying the fraud on the court being perpetrated by San Jose city officials and the courts. The vexatious/harassing litigant declaration and pre-filing screening order are retaliatory and malicious; and are meant to inflict emotional pain and suffering. A more subtle way the courts have denied me "meaningful access" to the courts is their intentionally erroneous rulings that not only violate the law and precedent, but they also deprive me of my constitutional rights to due process.
As I stated in my post on July 20, 2022, there are three basic claims I make in my independent action in equity that was filed in 2020 seeking to overturn the judgment in my first lawsuit against the City of San Jose that was filed in 2006. The first claim, based on fraud, is that the district court dismissed my lawsuit by granting the City's motion for summary judgment that was fabricated; and that the City and my attorney entered a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of an individual defendant (Tuck Younis) without my authorization. It should be noted that the City admitted in its answer to my lawsuit that Younis violated my due process rights that are established by the California Penal Code. I also made the claim that the district court held a phony hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed in 2013 that also sought relief from the judgment in my first lawsuit. Relative to that phony hearing were fraudulent docket entries, a transcript, and civil minutes. My second claim, based on the courts' violation of the law is that the courts failed to follow 28 USC Section 1738 (the full faith and credit act) by giving collateral estoppel effect to a small claims court judgment from the State of California. Under California preclusion law, collateral estoppel does not apply to judgments entered in small claims court. Therefore, 28 USC Section 1738 prohibits federal courts from giving collateral estoppel effect to judgments entered in California's small claims courts. There are other compelling reasons for not applying collateral estoppel in my case that were discussed in my post on July 20, 2022. My third claim, based on the lack of impartiality of the courts, is that the courts were blatantly biased during the litigation of my first lawsuit. Evidence of bias is that the courts ruled in favor of the City of San Jose despite the fact that the City admitted that many of the allegations in my lawsuit were true in their answering document. Also, my claim of bias is based on comments by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge William Fletcher during the hearing on my appeal of the district court's decision granting the City's summary judgment motion. Judge Fletcher asked why I was making this a federal case; and he asked why didn't I just "drop the darn thing," referring to my lawsuit. The flagrant lack of impartiality by the courts makes their rulings unconstitutional.
Currently, my case is pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am appealing Judge Freeman's erroneous ruling dismissing my independent action in equity based on the law-of-the-case doctrine, as well as the malicious and retaliatory vexatious/harassing litigant declaration and pre-filing screening order. My message to Judge Freeman, Judge Fletcher, and all of the other judges in the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that violated my rights in much the same way that Bull Conner violated the rights of black voting rights activists in 1963 is this: I will die on this hill! This is not a threat of violence; nor is it meant to be belligerent or menacing in any way. When I say I will die on this hill, it only means that I will pursue justice in this matter with wholehearted conviction and a single-minded focus, with little or no regard to the cost for me. The only just outcome is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reverse Judge Freman's entire ruling on my independent action in equity. I refuse to accept anything less. Below is the link to Post #71:
No comments:
Post a Comment