A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: City of San Jose

Showing posts with label City of San Jose. Show all posts

Monday, February 16, 2026

Chief Justice John Roberts and the Justices of the Supreme Court are engaged in a criminal cover-up

February 16, 2026 - by Fred Bates

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices of the Supreme Court are committing an impeachable offense by covering up criminal misconduct that occurred in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose

The Supreme Court poses a greater threat to the Constitution, democracy and the rule of law than the President and Congress combined because it covers up criminal misconduct and corruption in our lower federal courts. In February of 2025, I sent a report to each of the Justices of the Supreme Court documenting criminal misconduct by officials with the City of San Jose, my former attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of a discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose. I am black/African American. The report presents indisputable facts and evidence that my attorney (Stuart Kirchick) conspired with the attorney for the City of San Jose (Michael Dodson) to perpetrate fraud on the US District Court in San Jose with the specific intent to obstruct justice. The fraud consisted of a joint case management statement making false claims as to facts, and a joint stipulation of dismissal of a defendant without my consent and without a settlement agreement. That defendant had clearly violated my constitutional rights to due process that are enshrined in California law. The report presents evidence that judges and court officials in the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were complicit in the fraud by my attorney and San Jose city officials.

The report presents evidence that the US District Court in San Jose knowingly and intentionally violated the Constitution, federal statutory law and precedent of the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The specific intent of the court was to obstruct justice by covering up the discriminatory and racist decision of San Jose city officials to deprive me of my due process rights when denying me a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the San Jose Police Department as a sergeant. The report presents evidence proving that San Jose police officials committed perjury in their depositions, and in a declaration in support of the City's motion for summary judgment. Irrefutable evidence is also presented in the report that a judge and court officials in the US District Court in San Jose falsified docket entries in order to stage a fake hearing, without my knowledge, with a fake transcript and civil minutes on a motion for relief I filed. These are very serious felonies that completely undermine our judicial system, our democracy, and the rule of law.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the fraud and criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials, my attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Robert and the eight other Justices of the Supreme Court refused to take any action on a complaint report I sent to each detailing the misconduct of the above officials. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari I filed in 2023 that documents the fraud by the City of San Jose, violations of the law and precedent by the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as bias by both courts.

Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court's blatant cover up of the criminal obstruction of justice by the City of San Jose, my attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is impeachable under the US constitution. Below is a link to my website with a copy of the report and letters I submitted to the Supreme Court and Congress in February 2025 documenting the criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials, my attorney, the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

https://corruptioninourfederalcourts.com/

Friday, March 14, 2025

Report on Obstruction of Justice by San Jose City Officials and Federal Court Officials

March 14, 2025 - By Fred Bates

This post contains a link for a report I completed in October 2024 that documents my allegation that San Jose city officials, officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals obstructed justice during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose. The case is Bates v. City of San Jose, et. al. US District Court case number C06-05302 RMW. Below is a statement about the report:

The report details a scheme by San Jose city officials, my attorney, the U.S. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to obstruct justice during litigation of a racial and disability discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006. I am black/African American. My lawsuit was filed after police officials denied me a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the San Jose Police Department as a police sergeant. The report details several specific criminal acts by the above officials that relate to public corruption. As a part of the scheme to obstruct justice, attorneys for the City and my attorney perpetrated fraud on the U.S. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is sufficiently clear from the report that the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were complicit in the scheme to obstruct justice based on their biased rulings in favor of the City of San Jose. Both courts disregarded facts that were clearly established in court proceedings and documents in the record proving that the City of Jose knowingly and maliciously violated my constitutional rights established by California law and San Jose Police Department policy. The report provides evidence that the District Court and the Court of Appeals violated the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution by failing to follow the requirements of the full faith and credit act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738), as well as Supreme Court precedent and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent when dismissing my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel. The report also provides evidence that a judge, made blatantly biased comments against me in the hearing on my appeal of the District Court’s judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge stated that he understood the legal arguments made during the hearing, but he wanted to “cut to the chase” and find out why I was making this a “federal case.” He also asked why I didn’t just “drop the darn thing,” referring to my lawsuit. This same judge had already discredited the District Court’s ruling dismissing my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel, as well as claims by the City of San Jose earlier in the hearing. The egregious and blatantly biased comments of the judge violate the neutrality requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the Mission Statement of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the oath of federal judges, and the Canon of Ethics for federal judges. The Supreme Court in a precedent setting case stated that it guarded the neutrality requirement jealously. The biased comments make the judgment in my case unconstitutional and unenforceable by law. The report provides evidence of a cover-up by court officials in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court. A strong case is made for the impeachment of several judges in the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Evidence is presented in the report that several prominent officials at the highest level of the United States Government was made aware of this criminal scheme but failed to take any action based on their constitutional powers of oversight. It is clear from the report that the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are corrupt, weaponized, and rigged.

The report itself is 59 pages longs. The appendices are over 600 pages long. The appendices provide facts, evidence, case law and statutory law that corroborates claims I make in the report. Since the report and appendices are lengthy, it will take a few minutes to download the report and appendices. Review the report on this website:

https://corruptioninourfederalcourts.com/

This report is the basis for my Manifesto:

MANIFESTO OF FRED BATES

I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL

My report completed in October 2024, to be submitted to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Department of Justice, is the basis for this manifesto. My manifesto is a statement that I will never accept the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the US District Court in San Jose dismissing my lawsuit against the City of San Jose that was filed in August 2006. The judgment is based on fraud by the City, a violation of the law by the courts, and bias against me by the courts. My lawsuit resulted when several police officials violated my civil rights by denying me a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the San Jose Police Department in 2004. Their actions were malicious, racist, and done with the intent to humiliate me, and to cause me emotional pain and suffering. Final judgment was entered in my lawsuit in 2009. The judgment is unconstitutional and unenforceable by law. All of my efforts to obtain a reversal of the judgment beginning in 2010 have failed. My most recent effort for relief is a petition for writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme Court in July 2023. My petition for writ of certiorari was denied in October 2023. Since all of my options to obtain relief in the courts have been exhausted, I will seek relief through extrajudicial means. This is not meant to be a threat of violence, nor is it meant to be belligerent or menacing in any way. My manifesto is a statement that I will die on this hill. I mean this figuratively and literally. It means that I will pursue justice in this matter at all costs through respectful non-violent protest, civil disobedience, or other reasonable means. I have a moral obligation to do so. Our Constitutional Republic, as established by our founding fathers, provides for an independent judiciary based on the separation of powers doctrine. This means that judges have the independence and obligation to make decisions that safeguard the rights of citizens and uphold the rule of law. It is established in my report that the judges made rulings in my lawsuit, all in favor of the City of San Jose, that were clearly erroneous, failed to safeguard my rights, and did not follow the rule of law. The actions and rulings of the judges in my case are revolting. The blatant lack of respect for the rule of law by these judges is reflected in comments made by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Fletcher during the hearing on my appeal of the district court’s judgment granting the City of San Jose’s motion for summary judgment in November 2009. Judge Fletcher said, “I’m going to cut to the chase a little bit. I understand all the legal arguments that we’ve been going through. I mean, it’s a cliché to say, why did you make a federal case out of this? He asked for the concealed weapons permit. He’s denied. He requested it again. He’s granted. Why doesn’t he just drop the darn thing?” From the report, it is clear that Judge Fletcher understood that the district court’s dismissal of my lawsuit based on collateral estoppel was in violation of the Constitution and the full faith and credit act. He also discredited the City of San Jose’s claim that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support my Monell Claim. This blatant disregard for the rule of law, and the flagrant bias against me by Judge Fletcher completely delegitimizes the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Further evidence of the courts’ blatant lack of respect for the rule of law are comments made to me by Senior San Jose Deputy City Attorney Matthew Pritchard in 2021. Pritchard told me in a phone call that courts do not have to follow the law, because the law is whatever the courts say it is. He also told me that the rulings of the courts on the issue of collateral estoppel in my lawsuit are clearly wrong. He said that I will lose because the courts never change their decisions, even those that are clearly erroneous. He said that I should accept the erroneous decisions of the courts because he accepted decisions by the courts that were wrong when he was a Public Defender. Pritchard also made a statement that was quite shocking. He said the City did not care that I was black and that I grew up in the South during Jim Crow. This is evidence that the discriminatory acts against me by the City were racially motivated. For the past fourteen years, more or less, I have sought to have the courts vacate the clearly erroneous and unconstitutional judgment in my lawsuit filed against the City of San Jose in 2006, all to no avail. The judgment in my lawsuit does not remotely resemble justice, and it shows contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law by the courts. For our judicial system to have any credibility, the judgement in my lawsuit must be set aside. I will accept nothing less, and I have no intention of waiting another fourteen years for this to happen. This is a hill I’m willing to die on! The rule of law must prevail if we are to have a constitutional republic or a democracy. My report documents in detail my unsuccessful efforts to initiate an investigation into this matter by government officials at every level, as well as the media. This failure to act by government officials and the media is quite shocking being that San Jose city officials and the courts committed several crimes that are felonies under federal corruption laws. A post in a blog I started in 2015 in order to expose the misconduct of the City of San Jose and the courts in this scandal emphasizes my commitment to respectful non-violent protest. The link to that post is below:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Democracy Requires an Independent Judiciary Free from Violence and Intimidation that Adheres to the Rule of Law

Sunday, November 10, 2024

Congressman-elect Sam Liccardo is unfit and unqualified to serve in Congress

Sam Liccardo is unqualified to serve in Congress because of felonious and racist misconduct

By Fred Bates - November 10, 2024

Sam Liccardo was elected to California's 16th Congressional seat by defeating Evan Low in the November 5th election. The 16th Congressional seat was vacant due to the retirement of longtime Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. Liccardo has a long history of public corruption. He has been protected from accountability by the local media and local politicians like Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, as well as, by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury.

What specifically disqualifies Liccardo from being a Member of Congress is his role in an obstruction of justice scandal involving San Jose city officials, and judicial officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006. I sued the City and three police officials for the racist and malicious decision to deny me a CCW permit after I retired from the City's police department on a medical disability as a sergeant. I'm black/African American.

During the initial litigation of my lawsuit, Liccardo was a member of the San Jose City Council that ordered the City Attorney's Office, under the leadership of City Attorney Richard Doyle, to perpetrate fraud on the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The fraud was in the form of a motion for summary judgment filed in 2007 based on several false claims. In order to facilitate the City's summary judgment motion, the City Attorney's Office with the backing of Liccardo and the City Council, instructed police officials (Deputy Chief Adonna Amoroso and Captain Tuck Younis) to commit perjury in their sworn depositions and a declaration in support of the City's motion. Liccardo and City officials then paid off my attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to stipulate to the dismissal of Younis from my lawsuit without my authorization or a settlement agreement, in order to prevent the courts from being able to rule on Younis' decision to deny me a CCW permit in clear violation of my rights. Liccardo and City officials had secured Younis' participation in this scheme to obstruct justice by offering him a promotion (quid pro quo) from Captain to Assistant Chief of Police with the understanding that he would provide false testimony related to the issuance of my CCW permit. Younis was also ordered by City officials to violate his subpoena to appear and testify in a small claims case I filed against the City of San Jose in 2005, prior to my federal lawsuit. This is tampering with a witness.

It is clear that U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte was a participant in this conspiracy of San Jose city officials to obstruct justice in order to cover up the racist and bigoted conduct of the City. Judge Whyte granted the City's motion for summary judgement in 2008 with the knowledge that it was based on several false statement of facts and law, and the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of defendant Tuck Younis. Judge Whyte also made an erroneous ruling that my lawsuit was precluded on the basis of collateral estoppel. When I filed a motion for relief from Judge Whye's clearly erroneous judgment in 2013 based on fraud, he along with other court officials and the attorney for the City, Richard North, conspired to hold a hearing on my motion, without my knowledge, after deliberately misstating the grounds for my motion as challenging "Costs Taxed" awarded to the City instead of fraud. Judge Whyte dismissed my motion for relief in the phony hearing. At the very least, it suggests that Judge Whyte received a quid pro quo from San Jose city officials. Sam Liccardo, who at the time was a councilmember, played a role in this criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Sam Liccardo is further unfit for office based on comments made to me by Senior Deputy San Jose City Attorney Matthew Pritchard in 2021. Pritchard who was speaking on behalf of Sam Liccardo (who was now mayor) and the rest of the City Council, said that the City did not care that I was black and that I grew up in the South during Jim Crow. He told me that the judgments of the courts in my lawsuit were clearly erroneous as they relate to the issue of collateral estoppel. Pritchard stated that I would lose on my efforts to obtain relief because the courts never change their decisions, even ones that are clearly erroneous. He said that the courts do not have to follow the law, and that the law is whatever the courts say it is. These comments by Pritchard coupled with the fact that City officials refused to investigate my racial discrimination complaints, as is required by City policy, is proof that the decision to deny me a CCW permit was malicious and racist.

Sam Liccardo is unfit and unqualified to be a Member of Congress because of the felony obstruction of justice crimes that he committed or pressured other City officials to commit. He is also unfit and unqualified because of the malicious and racist personal attack against me by police officials that he condoned and covered up. The personal attacks also include a malicious criminal investigation of me Liccardo and City officials ordered the police department to open in 2018 based on an email I sent to Liccardo and the San Jose City Council. Now that Liccardo has been elected to Congress, he should suffer the same fate as George Santos. He should be expelled from Congress because his criminal misconduct undermines our judicial system and democracy, but it is also an automatic disqualification to serve in Congress. His misconduct is far more egregious than the allegations against Santos.

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Why I Will Not Be Voting In the 2024 Presidential Election

Fred Bates - Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Our system of government is corrupt and dysfunctional, and I refuse to give it legitimacy by

casting my vote

On November 5th, I will not be voting in the 2024 Presidential Election, just as I haven't voted in any recent elections. One of my primary reasons for not voting is that this country is a joke! I mean this in all sincerity. During this election cycle, both presidential campaigns have spent a great deal of time on hateful rhetoric that has overshadowed their policy proposals. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said, "let no man drag you so low as to hate him." He also said we must learn to live together as brothers, or we will perish together as fools. It appears that the Republican and Democrat parties have decided to dishonor Dr. King's legacy by being fools with their hateful rhetoric that is clearly destroying our nation.

Democrats are making the claim that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, and Republicans are saying the same about Kamala Harris. Both parties are wrong. Democracy is not on the ballot this year and has not been on the ballot for years because of widespread public corruption. What I find so disappointing is that many Americans appear to be buying into this rhetoric by both parties when it comes to this fraudulent claim about democracy being on the ballot. The lack of civility by both parties during this election cycle disgusts me. I want no part of this embarrassment.

It's not that I have a thing against voting. I have a more personal reason for not voting as well. Not voting is my form of non-violent protest against the racist and discriminatory manner in which I have been treated by San Jose city officials, the US District Court in San Jose, and the 9th Court of Appeals; and the refusal of Congress and other authorities with the responsibility of oversight to do anything about it. This entire blog has been devoted to exposing the appalling conduct of these officials during litigation of three federal lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose for discrimination based on my race and disability. I'm black/African American. So far, I have not been able to get any government officials at any level to open an investigation into my allegations that these officials committed several public corruption crimes, many of them felonies. Here are some of the officials I have made formal complaints to, all to no avail: former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte, former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Dianne Feinstein, VP and former Senator Kamala Harris, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, former Attorney General William Barr, Chief Justice John Roberts, former Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Sidney R. Thomas, Santa Clara County California District Attorney Jeff Rosen, and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. This, however, is not a complete list of all the officials I have made complaints to regarding the misconduct of San Jose city officials and the federal courts.

As you can see, the officials that have failed to take action on my complaints are Democrats and Republicans. Not a single one has had the integrity or courage to provide oversight of the corrupt 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose for their egregious misconduct that has undermined democracy, and the rule of law. This is governmental corruption at its worst. It does not matter who wins the presidency, or which party takes control of the House and Senate, it will not save democracy. Democracy simply cannot flourish if our judiciary operate with no accountability and refuses to adhere to the rule of law and precedent. However, I acknowledge that democracy cannot exist without an independent judiciary. But democracy requires a balance between an independent judiciary and oversight of the judiciary that provides accountability. This principle applies to all three branches of government. So far, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose have treated me with the same lack of regard for my constitutional rights as Bull Connor did for black voting rights activists in Birmingham in 1963. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court have engaged in misconduct with impunity. I refuse to give legitimacy to a corrupt system of government by casting my vote. Below are links to some of my other blog posts that provide details about the misconduct of San Jose city officials and the federal courts:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: The Backstory to My Lawsuits Against the City of San Jose! (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: San Jose City Officials and Federal Court Officials Engaged in Criminal Misconduct During Litigation of My Lawsuits Against the City (crnctz.blogspot.com)

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Pelosi Has Ethical Issues Bigger Than The Hair Salon Scandal

Post 67 - September 3, 2020

A few days ago Speaker Pelosi was caught on video at a hair salon in San Francisco getting her hair done without wearing a mask. That hair salon, along with others, has been closed since March due to a city ordinance. Rightfully, there are many that are outraged by the blatant hypocrisy of the Speaker based on her prior criticism of those not wearing masks due to COVID-19, and her support for closing businesses due to the pandemic.

This scandal with the hair salon shows that Pelosi has issues with ethics. But her ethical problems are much bigger than this hair salon scandal. Here is a copy of a complaint I filed against Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler with the Office of Congressional Ethics for their role in covering up a racist case-fixing scandal involving the City of San Jose and its mayor Sam Liccardo, the US District Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The complaint is still pending.

Frederick Bates

12 ------------

Fo-------------

(408)----------

August 12, 2019

Office of Congressional Ethics

U.S. House of Representatives

P.O. Box 895

Washington, DC 20515-0895

Re: Ethics Violations by Members of the House of Representatives

Dear Members of the Office of Congressional Ethics:

I respectfully request that your office conduct an investigation into ethics violations and criminal misconduct by the following Members of the House of Representatives and/or their staffs: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler, and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. I am alleging that Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, Chairman Schiff, and/or members of their staffs are engaged in a cover-up of racism and criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials, officials with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that occurred during litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff failed to take action on letters I submitted to each detailing the racist and criminal acts perpetrated by San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials and the courts include bribery, conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and perjury, fraud, and witness tampering. These criminal acts involve creating a false document relative to a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal, falsifying court records, staging a phony hearing on a motion I filed and creating a fraudulent transcript and civil minutes for that hearing that contradict each other. Furthermore, the rulings of the courts in each of my lawsuits are biased in favor of the City of San Jose and they are wholly inconsistent with the indisputable facts and well established law.

On the website of the Office of Congressional Ethics, it states that the Office of Congressional Ethics of the House of Representatives is an independent, non-partisan entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff. It is sufficiently clear that this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Office of Congressional Ethics. It is also well established that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The definition of redress by Merriam-Webster is to set right or remedy an unjust or unfair situation.

It is important to note that there are no pending actions in court relative to my two lawsuits because the courts have entered their final judgments. Nothing precludes Congress from conducting investigations into my allegations against the courts based on Congress’ constitutional authority/obligation to provide oversight. It is important to keep in mind that my allegations against the courts and the City of San Jose involve very serious criminal

Page 2

misconduct. In order to support my allegations of criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials and the courts are two attachments in pdf format on a flash drive that’s included in this packet. One attachment contain copies of a letter and documents sent to Inspector General Michael Horowitz alleging that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray, along with several other officials in the Department of Justice and F.B.I. are engaged in a cover-up of the criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials and federal court officials. The other attachment contains copies of a letter and documents I sent to Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that is undeniable proof that the judgments in my two lawsuits against the City of San Jose are based on fraud; and that they are in violation of the Constitution and well established precedent and statutory law. The judgments are by law null and void. Yet, the courts refuse to vacate them. Also on the flash drive are copies of the complaint letters I sent to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff; along with copies of complaint letters I sent to Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Kamala Harris, Attorney General William Barr, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas.

The conduct of San Jose city officials and federal court officials is an egregious abuse of power that violates the public trust. What makes their conduct truly appalling is that their intent is to cover up racism, bigotry and corruption. The evidence of racism by San Jose city officials is indisputable because they state in court papers that the City’s anti-discrimination policies does not protect me, a black person, and that they had no duty to investigate my racial discrimination complaints against City officials. Even though San Jose city policy specifically states that discrimination complaints will be investigated, the courts ruled in favor of the City stating that there were no set of facts that I could allege to make my racial discrimination claim viable. It is worthy to note that state law and precedent also establish that City officials had a duty to investigate my discrimination complaints, and that they can be held liable individually under Section 1983 based on their deliberate indifference. Further evidence of bias by the courts and indifference to the City’s racist conduct is that the court in one proceeding exhibited hostility toward my discrimination lawsuit by asking why I was making this a federal case and why I didn’t just drop the darn thing (my lawsuit). Bias is also indicated by the fact that the courts ruled in favor of the City in my first lawsuit despite City officials’ admission that they had violated City policy and a state law that implicates a constitutionally protected interest. This flagrant bias against me by the courts also makes the judgments in my lawsuits null and void.

In covering up this clear case of bigotry and public corruption, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff have violated the ethics rules of the House of Representatives, as well as the oath they took to protect and uphold the Constitution. A credible criminal case for collusion and obstruction of justice can also be made against Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff because the intentional cover-up of a crime is in itself a crime. An investigation into this matter is warranted in order to protect the integrity of our judicial system and to set right this unjust situation. Please inform me of what action the Office of Congressional Ethics will take in regards to my complaint.

Sincerely,

Frederick Bates

Friday, January 10, 2020

Chief Justice Roberts Condemns Fake News With His Own Fake News

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

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Pending Ethics Complaints Against Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff Undermines the Impeachment Inquiry

Post #57 (11/13/19)
As Democrats move forward with a formal impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Trump with public hearings, their leaders, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler face their own ethics complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The ethics complaints which were filed by me on August 12^th allege that the three Democrats violated the ethics rules of the House of Representatives, as well as, their oaths to protect and uphold the Constitution. The ethics violations against Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff are based on their intentional cover-up of racist and criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials, officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that occurred during litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff failed to respond to complaint letters I filed with them in 2018 and earlier this year that details a case-fixing scheme by San Jose city officials and federal court officials involving perjury, bribery, fraud and several other public corruption crimes.

The ethics complaints against Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff undermine impeachment proceedings against President Trump, making the proceeding appear partisan and politically motivated. Democrats have accused the president of abusing his power, violating the Constitution, and betraying his oath of office based on his phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. Pelosi and the Democrats have stated constantly that they have a constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of Trump and to hold him accountable. Pelosi has stated that the first responsibility of Congress is to protect the Constitution. She also stated that the purpose of the impeachment inquiry is to build an “ironclad” case for impeaching the President. These claims by Pelosi are disingenuous considering that she, Nadler and Schiff have refused to open an inquiry into the ironclad case of racism and criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The impeachment inquiry reveals a double standard by Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff. While zealous in their oversight of the President based on accusations that he has violated the Constitution, they have deliberately covered up several violations of the Constitution by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court during litigation of my lawsuits against the City of San Jose. Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff have made a conscious decision to ignore their constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the federal courts with the same resolve as President Trump. For this reason, it should be difficult for Americans to view the impeachment inquiry as having any credibility. It is Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff that are guilty of committing impeachable offenses by their cover-up of the criminal, racist and bigoted misconduct of San Jose city officials and officials with the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Below are copies of my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics and the notices I sent to Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff:

Frederick Bates

1235 ----------

(408) ----------

August 12, 2019

Office of Congressional Ethics

U.S. House of Representatives

P.O. Box 895

Washington, DC 20515-0895

Re: Ethics Violations by Members of the House of Representatives

Dear Members of the Office of Congressional Ethics:

Page 2

Sincerely,

Frederick Bates

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frederick Bates

1235 -----------

(408) -----------

August 12, 2019

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi – Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

1236 Longworth H.O.B.

Washington, DC 20515

Re: Complaint made with the Office of Congressional Ethics - U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

Please be advised of the complaint that I have made with the Office of Congressional Ethics against you. My complaint is due to your repeated failures to take action on my allegations as stated in letters I sent to you dated May, 6, 2019 and June 18, 2018 that San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals committed several criminal acts during the litigation of two discrimination lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose. The purpose of the criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials and the courts is to cover up racism and bigotry by San Jose city officials against me based on my employment as a police officer with the City of San Jose. I am black/African American. A copy of my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics is included with this letter. Also included are copies of several documents on a flash drive that were submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics that support my complaint. It is unmistakable that Members of Congress, as well as, officials with the Department of Justice and F.B.I. are engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the racism and corruption of San Jose city officials and the federal courts.

Speaker Pelosi you and members of your party have been vocal critics of President Trump when it come to the issues of race and corruption. You have stated in the past that President Trump is a racist, and that he wants to make America white again. Even though you have not supported your party’s rush to impeach the President, you have stated that you would like to see the President in prison for obstruction of justice relative to the Mueller Investigation.

To further paint the President as a racist, you and your party condemned the President for a tweet he sent out suggesting that four Congresswomen of color should go back to where they came from if they didn’t like it here in this country. You spearheaded the effort of Congress to pass a resolution condemning the President for his tweet against the four Congresswomen. You and your party also condemned as racist the President’s tweet against House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings stating that Baltimore, which is located in his district, is a rat infested hell hole.

You and your party have been quick to condemn President Trump for his tweets that are not criminal or violate anyone’s rights. Yet, you and members of your party have refused to take any action on the flagrantly racist and criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that violates my due process rights, my equal protection rights, and my rights to freedom of speech. What also makes the lack of action by you and your party to protect my rights shocking and unconscionable is your efforts

Page 2

to protect and provide rights to non-citizens that enter this country illegally or is here illegally because they overstayed their visas. Certainly I, a black citizen, should expect the Democratic Party to provide the same protections for my rights as is provided for non-citizens. Speaker Pelosi, it is clear from the lack of action regarding my complaints by you, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff that Democrats are not morally superior to President Trump on the issues of race and corruption. Please be aware that I have no intentions of giving up my rights relative to this matter. If Congress does not address this injustice, then I will be forced to address this matter in other lawful ways, as well as through non-violent civil disobedience.

Sincerely,

Frederick Bates

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frederick Bates

1235 -----------

(408) -----------

August 12, 2019

Congressman Jerrold Nadler – Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

2132 Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Re: Complaint made with the Office of Congressional Ethics - U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Nadler:

Please be advised of the complaint that I have made with the Office of Congressional Ethics against you, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. A copy of my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics that state the basis for my complaint is included with this letter. Also included are copies of several documents on a flash drive that were submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics that support my complaint.

Chairman Nadler, you and members of your party have frequently condemned President Trump for his tweets that have been described as being racist. Two of the President’s recent tweets involve insensitive comments about four Congresswomen of color and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings. In a statement on the floor of Congress, you condemned President Trump’s tweet urging the four Congresswomen of color to go back to where they came from. You stated that Democrats denounce all of the offensive comments that emanate from the White House while Republicans remain silent. Yet, you and the Democrats are totally silent and refuse to respond to my complaints that San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals committed several felonies 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.

I respectfully remind you of your efforts to protect and provide rights to non-citizens that are in this country illegally. Certainly I, a black law abiding citizen, should expect Democrats to protect my constitutional rights. It is clear though from the lack of action by you and members of your party that Democrats are not morally superior to President Trump on the issues of race and corruption. I also remind you that you have stated in the past that the Democrats’ impeachment inquiries are based on Congress’ obligation to provide oversight of the President. The same obligation that Congress has to provide oversight of the Executive Branch applies equally to the Judicial Branch. The Judiciary Committee, led by you Chairman Nadler, has conducted hearings into several current and former members of the Trump administration and subpoenaed several documents relative to Mueller’s investigation in an effort to build a case against the president for impeachment, under the notion that President Trump is not above the law. Yet, you and Members of Congress have taken no action against the racist and criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is clear that there is a case-fixing scheme involving courts in the Ninth Circuit that has completely undermined our democracy, the judicial system and the rule of law. Much of the evidence that proves my allegations are true is in the records of the court that is public

Page 2

information. It is clear that the House of Representatives, under the leadership of the Democrats, has a double standard when it comes to providing oversight of the Executive and Judicial Branches of government. President Trump receives endless oversight, whereas, the federal courts receive none whatsoever. I make this stern warning. I will never give up my rights in this matter. If there is no just resolution to this matter, I will address it in other lawful ways and/or through non-violent civil disobedience. If you wish to discuss this matter, I can be contacted by letter or phone.

Sincerely,

Frederick Bates

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frederick Bates

1235 -------------

(408) -------------

August 12, 2019

Congressman Adam Schiff – Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee

2372 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Complaint made with the Office of Congressional Ethics - U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Schiff:

Please be advised of the complaint that I have made with the Office of Congressional Ethics against you, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. A copy of my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics that state the basis for my complaint is included with this letter. Also included are copies of several documents on a flash drive that were submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics that support my complaint.

Chairman Schiff, you are one of the biggest critics of President Trump. You have called him a racist based on his tweets and immigration policies. You have called for his impeachment based on his conduct during the Mueller Investigation. Yet, you refuse to call for an investigation into the racist and corrupt actions of San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of two discrimination lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose. I am black/African American. Your condemnation of the President as being racist and corrupt seems to be hypocritical in light of your cover up of the misconduct of San Jose city officials and the federal courts. Since all of my efforts to resolve this matter through proper legal channels have failed, please be aware of my intent to seek a just resolution through other lawful means and through non-violent civil disobedience. I can be contacted by letter or phone if you wish to discuss this matter.

Sincerely,

Frederick Bates