A few days before thanksgiving, President Trump criticized US District Judge Jon Tigar for issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from barring illegal immigrants from seeking asylum. Mr. Trump made a controversial reference to Judge Tigar as being an "Obama judge." As you might expect, there was a lot of push back from several different sources. Perhaps the most surprising rebuke of the President's "Obama judge" comment came from Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Roberts issued a statement on Wednesday 11/21/18 stating "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. We have an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. Justice Roberts went on to say that an independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.
President Trump responded to Justice Roberts comments by doubling down on his earlier comments that there are "Obama judges" and that they have a different view than the administration as it relates to the safety of our country. The President questioned the independence of the 9th Circuit based of the high number of cases filed there that opposes his view on immigration. To be honest, I have no clue how that relate to an independent judiciary. Nevertheless, the President went on to make some very provocative comments about the 9th Circuit calling it "a total and complete disaster; and that "it is out of control, has a horrible reputation," and "is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country..."
I think that the President's criticism of the 9th Circuit is based on what is perceived by many as its liberal leanings and judicial activism. In a clear case of politics and bias, the District Courts in the 9th Circuit have ruled against the Trump Administration in nearly every case brought before them. The 9th Circuit has upheld the District Courts in nearly all, if not all of the cases that have been appealed by the Trump administration. Many of the decisions against the Trump administration appears to be made out of spite, and I believe many of the decisions of the 9th Circuit were eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. My problem with the President is that he is focused only on his administration's bad experiences with the 9th Circuit while there is no reference to the nightmare that many citizen litigants (primarily pro se or self represented) is having or have experienced with the 9th Circuit.
The President is absolutely right by saying that the 9th Circuit is a total and complete disaster and that it is totally out of control based on its activism. However, judicial activism does not necessarily
mean a court is acting outside the scope of its discretion. Just as
Chief Justice Roberts implied, an independent judiciary is an essential
element of the separation of powers doctrine; and is necessary to the
proper functioning of government. Sometimes courts make decisions that are clearly erroneous. But that does not mean that their actions are improper. From my perspective, the 9th Circuit is a complete and total disaster because of its blatant corruption and disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law, and because of serious criminal misconduct it has tolerated from many judges and other court officials. The independence of judges to make decisions is not a green light to engage in corrupt and criminal misconduct. No one should confuse the 9th Circuit's corruption as being judicial
activism. The 9th Circuit is a corrupt and rogue court and I have presented the
evidence in this blog to prove it. If you do not have time to
read all of my prior posts, please read posts number 13 and 14 dated January 9,
2017, and post number 17 dated
February 13, 2017. They deal directly with the 9th Circuit. In defending the 9th Circuit while rebuking the President, Chief Justice Roberts is an intellectually dishonest hypocrite and has lost all credibility considering he received a letter from me dated September 17, 2018 alleging that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose had failed to follow well established statutory laws and binding precedent of the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit's own binding precedent during litigation of two racial and disability discrimination lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose. My letter also alleges that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and US District Court in San Jose had conspired with San Jose city officials to obstruct justice in my cases by engaging in extensive fraud that has resulted in judgments that are void under the law.
What really irks me the most about Chief Justice Roberts statement defending the 9th Circuit is the part where he says that "we have an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." Justice Roberts knows with absolute certainty that this statement is not true. Justice Roberts is well aware of the many complaints from litigants about the 9th Circuit's biased rulings. My letter to the Chief Justice is evidence that judges in the 9th Circuit and the US District Court were less dedicated to doing equal right and more dedicated to advocating for the City of San Jose in order to cover up racism and bigotry by San Jose city officials. I am black/African American. The Chief Justice is well aware that President Trump is right when he stated that the 9th Circuit has a bad reputation, not just for its activism, but for corruption as well. Justice Roberts legacy will suffer because of his ill-advised defense of the 9th Circuit and his complicity in the cover-up of one of the biggest scandals and abuses of power by the 9th Circuit in the recent history of this country based on my cases. An independent judiciary is important for our constitutional republic, but Justice Roberts should not use that independence as a shield to protect the diaster that is the 9th Circuit.
Below is a copy of the letter I sent to Justice Roberts that clearly refutes his claim that "we have an extraordinary group of dedicated judges in the 9th Circuit doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." As noted above, my prior posts also present evidence that Justice Roberts statement is misguided and political. Additional evidence can also be found on my group facebook page at:
Frederick Bates
----------------
Folsom,
CA 95630
-----------------
September
17, 2018
Supreme
Court of the United States
1
First Street, NE
Washington,
DC 20543
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 that 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. I received a response from Judge Thomas regarding my complaint in a
letter dated August 8, 2018. Judge Thomas stated he would take no action
relative to my complaint despite compelling evidence of criminal misconduct by
San Jose city officials and the courts. My follow-up letter to Judge Thomas’
letter dated August 30, 2018 is enclosed as well. Please take note that I sent
you copies of the complaint letter and attachments I sent to Judge Thomas in a
packet addressed to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts prior
to my receiving Judge Thomas’ response letter.
Because
of Judge Thomas’ refusal to take action on my complaint, I respectfully request
that you and the other justices on the Supreme Court review the letters 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
Page
2
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 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 an implied 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 instantly recognizable 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 Supreme Court 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. Our democracy cannot survive when our federal
courts show such contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law by engaging
in blatantly biased and criminal misconduct. 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
