October 17, 2025 - by Fred Bates
Federal judges should maintain the same constitutional standard they impose on Trump
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. Judge Young stated that the Trump administration's actions violated the First Amendment, as well as his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution" as commander-in-chief. He stated that Trump's "palpable misunderstanding that government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans' freedom of speech; " it is at this juncture that the judiciary has robustly rebuffed the president and his administration." Judge Young said, "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," Young asked, finally. "Is he correct?"
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 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 court 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.
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 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. Unlike Judge Young's stated, "sense of duty," the judges in my case had no "sense of duty."
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?"
For more details about my claims against the federal judiciary, see my website at the link below:
www.cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com
No comments:
Post a Comment