Post #63 (January 9, 2020)
On December 31st of this past year (2019), Chief Justice Roberts condemned social media for sometimes instantly spreading false rumors and information on a grand scale in his annual message summarizing the work of the federal judiciary. Many viewed Justice Roberts' message as a critique of President Trump that was a reminder of his rebuke of the President for making comments that 'Obama judges' had made biased rulings undermining Trump's immigration policies. Justice Roberts stated that we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. He said that we have an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. Justice Roberts further stated that an independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for. In a post on December 18, 2018, I opined that Justice Roberts had lost all credibility for rebuking President Trump for his criticism of federal judges while at the same time covering up abuse of power and criminal misconduct by courts in the 9th Circuit. I expressed outrage at Justice Roberts' bogus claim that federal judges were doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. I explained that Justice Roberts refused to take action on a complaint letter I sent to him accusing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose of blatant bias and criminal misconduct that favored the City of San Jose during the litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City.
In his message on December 31st, 2019, Justice Roberts again extolled the virtues of an independent judiciary. He also warned about the dangers of misinformation (fake news) in the internet era. Justice Roberts stated that because of social media's ability to spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public's need to understand our government , and the protection it provides is ever more vital. He said that we should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary because it is a key source of national unity and stability. But to his credit, Justice Roberts warned federal judges that justice is not inevitable. He said that we (judges) should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch. He further stated that as the New Year begins, and we turn to the tasks before us, we should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public's trust that we are faithfully discharging our solemn obligation to do equal justice under the law.
I again condemn Chief Justice Roberts for his blatant hypocrisy with his latest message warning about the dangers of fake news and the need for the public to understand our government and the protections it provides. Justice Roberts should not be the one to lecture Americans about the need to understand our government. Justice Roberts is well aware that it is our judicial officials that are more in need of understanding our government than regular Americans. He is well aware that many of our federal courts, particularly in the 9th Circuit, have suspended the Constitution and the rule of law, thereby, depriving many litigants of their civil rights resulting in significant financial losses. Many federal judges see the Constitution as being nothing more than a nuisance and treat many lawsuits for civil rights violations as being frivolous. Justice Roberts is aware of this fact. He is also aware that there is a case-fixing scandal involving the US District Court in San Jose, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and several San Jose city officials. Justice Roberts is well aware that the scandal involving these officials include conspiracy, obstruction of justice, bribery, fraud, subornation of perjury and perjury. Specific acts of criminal misconduct include falsifying court docket entries, creating false documents, the filing of a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal, the filing of a false declaration, holding a phony hearing on a motion, and fabricating a false transcript and civil minutes for that hearing. Justice Roberts is well aware that the evidence of the misconduct by these officials is indisputable since much of it is documented in the records of the courts involved. This scandal was brought to Justice Roberts' attention in a complaint letter I filed with him dated August 13, 2018.
In his message on December 31st, 2019, Justice Roberts noted that one of our founding fathers, John Jay, was injured in 1788 during mob violence started by a rumor (fake news). The injury suffered by John Jay limited his contributions to the Federalist Papers that were responsible for generating support for the Constitution which was ratified in 1788 and put into effect in 1789. The real fake news that Americans should be most concerned about is not the rumors or fake news on social media. Rather, it's the fake news that is being spread by Justice Roberts that paint a positive picture of our judiciary. Justice Roberts knows that our judiciary is corrupt and dysfunctional based on the complaint letter I sent him that is mentioned above. There is no disputing that fake news has the potential of causing mob violence just as Justice Roberts warns in his latest message. However, Justice Roberts ignores the greater potential for mob violence that could result from the flagrant violations of citizens rights by the federal courts that cause them significant financial losses and emotional distress. It is unmistakable that Justice Roberts is aware that the decisions by judges in many of our federal courts are inconsistent with his message that it is their duty to judge without fear of favor and to decide each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch. Justice Roberts is also aware that many of the decisions handed down by federal courts are inconsistent with his message that each judge should resolve to do their best to maintain the public's trust that they are faithfully discharging their solemn obligation to equal justice under law. Justice Roberts and other judicial officials are using their status as an independent judiciary to cover up corruption and dysfunction in our federal courts. It is clear that Justice Roberts is the one who is spreading fake news. For his efforts, he receives my Fake News of the Year Award for 2019. Below is the complaint letter that I sent to Chief Justice Roberts:
Frederick Bates
1235 ----------
---------------
(408) ---------
August
13, 2018
Administrative
Office of the United States Courts
One
Columbus Circle, NE
Washington,
D.C. 20544
Attention:
The Honorable Chief Justice John Roberts
Re: Criminal
misconduct complaint letter and attachments filed with Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas
Dear Chief
Justice Roberts,
Enclosed
are copies of a complaint letter and attachments I filed with Chief Judge Thomas
regarding misconduct by San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S.
District Court – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that
occurred during the litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City of San
Jose for discrimination based on my race and disability. I am black/African
American. So far, I have not received a response from Judge Thomas regarding my
complaint letter and attachments.
I
respectfully request that you and other members of the Judicial Conference
review the letter and attachments as they present credible evidence of very
serious criminal misconduct perpetrated with the intent to cover up racism and
bigotry by San Jose city officials. I ask that you take special note of
Attachment II. It is inarguable from the discussion presented in Attachment II
that the judgments of the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in my two lawsuits against the City of San Jose are not consistent with
well established statutory law and precedent of the United States Supreme Court
and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. These judgments are intentionally
erroneous and are now being enforced by the courts with the knowledge they are
based on fraud. It is indisputable that the judgments are void and unenforceable
under the law.
Additionally,
the evidence of bias in favor of the City of San Jose is so pervasive and
blatant that it gives the appearance that the courts are advocating for the
City instead of being impartial and disinterested as is required by the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment. What is quite disturbing is that Magistrate
Judge Nathanael Cousins ruled in my second lawsuit against the City of San Jose
that City officials had no obligation to investigate my racial and disability
discrimination complaints, even though, an investigation is mandated by City
policy and state law. The case cited by Judge Cousins as precedent to dismiss my
case, while not binding precedent, contradicts Judge Cousins’ ruling and supports
a finding that San Jose city officials were obligated to investigate my
complaints. Surprisingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed
Judge Cousins’ ruling clearly violating precedent set by United States v.
Hooton that establishes the requirements for summary disposition.
As
evidence of my claims of pervasive bias by the courts in favor of the City of
San Jose, I have included a copy of a motion I filed for U.S. District Judge
Ronald M. Whyte to recuse
Page
2
himself
from proceedings in my case. It should be noted that Judge Whyte refused to
recuse himself. Other evidence of blatant bias is statements made by a judge
during an appeals hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in November
2009. That hearing was in regards to my appeal of Judge Whyte’s ruling granting
the City of San Jose’s motion for summary judgment in my first lawsuit. During
that hearing, the judge (presumably Judge William Fletcher) asked “why did you
make a federal case of this.” Judge Fletcher then asked “why doesn’t he just
drop the darn thing?” He was clearly referring to my lawsuit against the City. Judge
Fletcher also established in that hearing that there was no record whatsoever from
the proceeding in small claims court for the small claims judgment the City
relied upon for collateral estoppel. Judge Fletcher said he was doubtful about collateral
estoppel because there had to have been actual litigation in my small claims
case. There was in fact no litigation in my small claims case because the small
claims commissioner dismissed my complaint with a finding that it was
defective. Yet, Judge Fletcher and the rest of the panel hearing my appeal
affirmed Judge Whyte’s ruling dismissing my case as to the City based on collateral
estoppel.
It is unmistakable that the small
claims judgment has no preclusive effect under California preclusion law
because there is no record that is sufficiently clear as to what was litigated
and determined. Therefore, a federal court cannot give preclusive effect to the
judgment based on the Full Faith and Credit Act. Attachment II mentioned above
also details several other reasons why the small claims judgment has no
preclusive effect. It is clear from Judge Fletcher’s biased statements and the
subsequent ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming Judge Whyte’s
clearly erroneous ruling granting the City’s motion for summary judgment that
the judgment in my first lawsuit must be vacated. The blatant bias shown by the
courts offends democracy and the rule of law.
I
respectfully request that the Judicial Conference review all of the documents
that I have submitted and take immediate action to address this matter which is
one of the greatest abuses of power and cover-ups by government officials in
recent memory. And it is certainly one of the biggest frauds and cheating
scandals in the history of our judiciary. Please be aware that I have also made
complaints with several Members of Congress, the F.B.I. and Department of
Justice. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. Copies of my
complaints with the House Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice are
also included with this letter.
Sincerely,
Frederick
Bates
c:
The Honorable Sidney R. Thomas – Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals
Congressman Bob Goodlatte – Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee
Jeff Sessions – Attorney General of the
United States
