April 21, 2026 - By Fred Bates
Here's something for the courts to think about
In November 2025, six Democratic Members of Congress (Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly; Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow) all with backgrounds in the military or national security released a video urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders. In their message, the lawmakers stressed that military members' oath is to the Constitution and not to any leader, namely President Donald J. Trump. The six lawmakers stated that military members have a duty and obligation to refuse unlawful orders and that they must refuse unlawful orders. However, the six lawmakers did not identify a single order from President Trump to the military that they believed was unlawful because it violated the Constitution or any statutory law passed by Congress. The lawmakers' message to military members is technically correct but lacks sufficient guidance on how to determine what is an unlawful order from one that is controversial, but otherwise lawful. This was clearly a partisan stunt, but it brings up an important corollary. Do litigants in federal court have the same right to refuse patently unlawful orders and judgments by judges? The answer is a resounding YES! I bring up this question because of a situation I am dealing with based on a racial and disability discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006 in the US District Court in San Jose.
In their rulings in my lawsuit, judges in the US District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals knowingly and intentionally violated the Constitution, federal statutory law, the precedent of the US Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when dismissing my lawsuit based on collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion. The City of San Jose claimed a defense of collateral estoppel as to my claim against the City based on a judgment the City won against me in small claims court in California. Collateral estoppel is commonly referred to as issue preclusion. It means that an issue actually litigated and decided in a prior lawsuit cannot be litigated in a subsequent lawsuit. But there are rules that federal courts must follow when applying collateral estoppel or issue preclusion to judgments rendered in a state court. Federal courts must follow the preclusion law of the state that rendered the judgment. This requirement is mandated by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that is implemented by the full faith and credit act passed by Congress, 28 USC Section 1738. There is also Supreme Court precedent and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent that apply in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose that further invalidates the judgments of the courts' dismissal of my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. Supreme Court precedent states that 28 USC Section 1738 is a command by Congress to federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to a state court judgment as would the courts in the state where the judgment was rendered. Ninth Court of Appeals' precedent states the burden is on the party [the City of San Jose] asserting collateral estoppel to produce a record that pinpoints what was litigated and decide in the state court; and that if there is no record that pinpoints what was litigated and decided, the court will not consider collateral estoppel on appeal.
In the small claims case that the City won against me, there was no actual litigation and the City presented no record that pinpoints what was litigated and decided in the small claims court. For this reason alone, the City's collateral defense has no merit, not only under California preclusion law, but under federal preclusion law as well. Another, perhaps more important reason that the City's collateral estoppel defense has no merit is that under California's preclusion law judgments rendered in small claims court are not given collateral estoppel or preclusive effect because of the informal nature of small claims proceedings. Therefore, federal courts cannot give preclusive effect to judgments rendered in small claims courts in California for this reason as well. It is unmistakable that the judgments of the federal courts dismissing my lawsuit against the City of San Jose violates the Constitution, federal statute 28 USC Section 1738, precedent of Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judgments are not only unlawful but are not enforceable.
The corollary to Members of Congress' proclamation that military members have a duty and obligation to refuse unlawful orders and that they must refuse unlawful orders is that I have the same duty and obligation to refuse the unlawful judgments and orders of the courts in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose. Not only do I refuse the unlawful judgments and orders of the courts, but I also reject them in their entirety. Long before the six Members of Congress issued their proclamation to military members declaring that they are obligated to refuse unlawful orders and that they must refuse unlawful orders, I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2015 stating that I would not obey its unlawful mandate in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose. So far, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refuse to vacate the unlawful judgments in my lawsuit against the City. So, this brings up the problem of how you force a federal court to reverse or vacate a judgment that is clearly unlawful? At some point is force and violence justified? Something for the courts to think about. Below are links to posts pertaining to the letter I sent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
Message to the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL!
