The College Admissions Scam - All Cheating Scandals Are Not Equal

Post 51

This college admissions scam continues to get a lot of attention now that there are court proceedings taking place. I think anybody that watches the news even a little bit knows the basic details behind this scam. A bunch of rich people, many of them celebrities, conspired with this guy named William "Rick" Singer in an alleged scheme to get their kids admitted into top universities. Part of the scheme consisted of rigging college entrance exams, the SAT and ACT, by having an accomplished test taker either take the entrance exams for the kids or correct the answers on their exams. Another part of the scheme consisted of bribing athletic officials at elite universities to fraudulently recruit kids of wealthy parents into their sports programs as top level athletes.

Now that the criminal cases against many of the parents involved in this scandal are being litigated in court, including the cases against actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, many of the parents have opted to make deals with prosecutors. Huffman is one of the parents that have made a deal after admitting guilt, whereas, Loughlin has not. Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer J. Mossimo Giannulli, are charged with paying Rick Singer $400,000 to get their daughters admitted to USC as top level athletes in one of the recruiting scams uncovered by the F.B.I. Huffman is accused of paying an accomplice of Singer, Mark Riddell, $15,000 to correct her daughter's answers on the SAT. Huffman is also one of the parents involved in this scandal that have expressed remorse and shame for their actions while Loughlin and other parents have not.

It is clear that the allegations against these parents, Rick Singer, and his accomplice Mark Riddell are very serious and deserves the attention they are getting from the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors. It is understandable that parents that follow the rules when it comes to the college admissions process are angry and upset with parents who use their wealth and celebrity status to undermine the college admissions process by cheating as is alleged here. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that wealth and celebrity have always had its privileges. For sure, I believe these parents should be held accountable if they are found to be guilty of the charges alleged in this scam. However, I wonder if this scandal would be getting the same attention from the media if there were no celebrity defendants involved.

What bothers me, however, is that the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice was quick to take action in this cheating scandal involving members of the public, while at the same time ignoring cheating scandals by government officials that undermine our institutions of government. One such cheating scandal I'm referring to is the subject of this blog that I started for the purpose of exposing it to the public. The scandal involve San Jose city officials, my attorney, and officials with the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It involves San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council, City Attorney Richard Doyle, and several judges and court officials in the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just as the crimes alleged against Rick Singer, Mark Riddell, and the parents in the college admissions scam, the crimes committed by San Jose city officials, my attorney, and the federal court officials involve fraud, creating false documents, conducting a fake proceeding, misrepresentations, bribery and many other public corruption crimes all relating to cheating and dishonesty. After making several complaints with the F.B.I. and Department of Justice accompanied by indisputable evidence, no investigation or prosecution of these government officials have occurred.

Undermining the college admissions process is serious. But undermining the judicial process is far more egregious because it is a direct attack on an institution of our government. The F.B.I. and federal prosecutors have been aggressive in their pursuit of justice in the college admissions scam while engaging in a massive cover-up of the cheating scandal involving San Jose city officials and officials with the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the eyes of the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice, all cheating scandals are not equal. Some cheaters, such as the San Jose city officials and officials with the federal courts, get special treatment. Many details of the cheating scandal involving San Jose city officials and the courts can be found in my prior posts. However, post #2 on August 23, 2015 is a must read.

The House Judiciary Committee Has Issues With Integrity And Corruption Just As The FBI And Department Of Justice

Post 24/24

As many of you know, FBI Director Chistopher Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee on 12/7/17 amid allegations by President Trump that the FBI's reputation was in "tatters," and suggestions that the FBI was corrupt based on how it handled the Clinton email scandal vs. how it is handling the Trump-Russia collusion scandal. It is clear that many, that is, Republicans believe that the FBI is being a lot more aggressive in its approach to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, whereas the FBI bent over backwards to exonerate Clinton during the email scandal. It is amazing how this hearing was passed off as being a sincere attempt to search for the truth about the integrity of the FBI. Just as all public hearings by Congress, this hearing was nothing more than a spectacle by elitist government officials with the clear purpose of deceiving the American people. Director Wray stauchly defended the FBI by suggesting that all investigations by the FBI are not influenced by politics and that the men and women of the FBI are honest and decent and have a great deal of integrity. Mr. Wray disputed the President's claim that the FBI's reputation is in "tatters" stating that the FBI is highly respected by the various law enforcement agencies throughout this country and several other countries around the world. While I believe much of what Mr. Wray said is true, I also believe that he was being deceptive because clearly there are some problems in the FBI with integrity and corruption. My feelings on the FBI are addressed in my post on 12/7/17.

While the FBI is under assault becuase of possible corruption and questions about its integrity by the House Judiciary Committee, there are also questions about the integrity of the Judiciary Committee itself. The Judiciary Committee's reputation is not much better than that of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Just as I filed public corruption complaints with the FBI and Justice Department against officials with the federal courts and the City of San Jose, I filed complaints with the House Judiciary Committee and its current chairman and the prior chairman. So far, I have received no response from the Judiciary Committee or Chairman Bob Goodlatte. As I have pointed out several times in prior posts, the evidence of collusion and obstruction of justice by San Jose city officials and officials with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose is indisputable and overwhelming. The fact that there has been no inquiry into this scandal by the Judiciary Committee shows that the Committee has a problem with corruption and integrity just as the FBI and Department of Justice. Clearly there is a concerted effort by government to cover up this scandal that has undermined our democracy far more than Russia's apparent attempt to influence the past presidential election. Here is a copy of my most recent complaints with the Judiciary Committee:

                                                                                             

                                                                                                Frederick Bates

                                                                                                Folsom, CA 95630

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

July 24, 2017

U.S. House of Representatives – Committee on the Judiciary

2138 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Letter to the Department of Justice Regarding Public Corruption Complaint

Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee:

            Enclosed is a copy of a letter and several documents I sent to the Department of Justice requesting an investigation into my public corruption complaint against several San Jose city officials, officials with the U.S. District Court – San Jose Division, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals relative to two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose for violating my civil rights. My lawsuits resulted after I was denied a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the City’s police force. It should be noted that I also made complaints of public corruption against San Jose city officials and federal court officials in letters to the full Judiciary Committee, to the former chairman (Congressman Lamar Smith) and the current chairman (Congressman Bob Goodlatte ) in June 2011, March 2012, May 2014, and December 2014. It appears that no action was taken by the Judiciary Committee in response to my letters.

            In my prior letters, as well as my letter to the Department of Justice, I make some very serious allegations of criminal misconduct surrounding the litigation of my lawsuits against the City of San Jose. Among the criminal acts I allege relative to my first lawsuit are that San Jose city officials and district court officials conspired to obstruct justice with the City’s filing of a fabricated motion for summary judgment facilitated by a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of a defendant. I also alleged that district court officials falsified official court records, staged a phony hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed in February 2013, then fabricated a transcript that is entered in the record as an official government document. There is no credible evidence that a hearing actually took place. I was informed by a court official that there would be no hearing and that the court would render its decision based on the papers filed. Additionally, the district court violated the Full Faith and Credit Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738) in giving preclusive effect to a small claims judgment the City relied upon for collateral estoppel. As to my second lawsuit, I alleged that San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council conspired to obstruct justice by refusing to conduct an investigation into my discrimination and misconduct complaints against the City Attorney’s Office as is mandated by City policy and state law. I also alleged that U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins obstructed justice and denied me due process with his ruling dismissing my second lawsuit without leave to amend, thereby, violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and case law. Judge Cousins also denied my motion for relief from judgment. Many of the criminal acts I allege against the above officials are supported by evidence that is indisputable and overwhelming.

                                                                                                                                                Page 2

Particularly troubling is the rulings of the courts as they relate to issue preclusion and the stipulation of dismissal of a defendant. It is unarguable that federal courts have no discretion when determining the preclusive effect of a state court judgment based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit Act) and well settled precedent. The same applies to a stipulation of dismissal of a defendant under FRCP 41. Yet, the courts failed to follow the Full Faith and Credit Act by giving preclusive effect to the small claims judgment referred to above based on issue preclusion. The Full Faith and Credit Act is a command by Congress to the federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments as would a court in the rendering state, no more and no less. The Full Faith and Credit Act also implements Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. The small claims judgment in question in this matter is from California. In California, issue preclusion does not apply to small claims judgments, unless the record is sufficiently clear that the issue sought to be foreclosed upon was litigated and determined. There is absolutely no record at all from the Small Claims Court. Furthermore, there was no litigation of the issue I raised during the proceedings in my small claims action against the City of San Jose. The Small Claims Court commissioner made an immediate ruling that he had no authority to grant the compensation I was seeking, implying that my case was filed in the wrong court. It is indisputable that the judgment of the court as it relates to issue preclusion is void. Yet, the courts have stubbornly resisted my efforts to have the judgment reversed through several letters and motions. The same goes for the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of the defendant that I did not authorize. FRCP 41 and case law leaves no doubt that only I, as the plaintiff, had the right to dismiss the defendant in my lawsuit. The courts have simply made a conscious and calculated decision to defy the authority of Congress by failing to follow Section 1738 and FRCP 41. This is a direct attack on our Constitution which provides for co-equal branches of government based on the separation of powers doctrine. The independence with which courts are allowed to operate does not allow them to disregard laws passed by Congress.

In our democracy, it is imperative that disputes between citizens and the government be settled on a level playing field in the courts. In Marshall v. Jerrico, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause entitles a party in a lawsuit to a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested in both civil and criminal cases. The Supreme Court goes on to state that it guards the neutrality requirement jealously. In the impeachment proceedings of district court judge Thomas Porteous Jr., Congressman Adam Schiff stated that litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Not only were the judges in my cases biased, they made no attempt at all to avoid the appearance of impropriety. In the words of one court, justice ought to look like justice. What the courts did in my cases does not look like justice. It looks like cheating, because it is cheating. Additionally, many of the rulings by the courts were meant to punish me for exercising my right to free speech because of my social media activity condemning San Jose city officials and the federal courts for their misconduct as described above. The right to free speech has also been jealously guarded by the Supreme Court.

Being that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the lower federal courts, I respectfully request that an investigation be conducted into this matter based on the above allegations and based on the letter and documents I sent to the Department of Justice. The facts and evidence presented to the Department of Justice clearly shows that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court, in collusion with San Jose city officials, committed            

                                                                                                                                                Page 3

several crimes relating to public corruption, and that the courts fixed every decision in my lawsuits. A rigged court system, as is the case here, undermines our democracy just as the Russian interference into the past presidential election. It is unmistakable that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division are rogue courts that operate beyond the independence granted to them by the Constitution based on separation of powers.

I further request that the Judiciary Committee contact me at the above address or by phone and inform me of what action the Committee will take relative to this matter. If I do not receive a response, I will assume that the Judiciary Committee has again not taken me serious. I will then be forced to seek a just resolution through other reasonable means that will in all likelihood lead to a dramatic showdown with the courts. This could include acts of civil disobedience.  

Additional information that should greatly assist this Committee can be found at the following links:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/

http://crnctz.blogspot.com/2015/08/exposing-cover-up-of-cheating-scandal.html

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                     Frederick Bates

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

Frederick Bates

                                                                                                            Folsom, CA 95630

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

                                                                                                           

August 3, 2017

Congressman Bob Goodlatte

2309 Rayburn HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Public Corruption Complaint

Dear Congressman Goodlatte,

Enclosed are copies of letters and documents I sent to the Judiciary Committee, the Department of Justice and FBI making a complaint of public corruption against several San Jose city officials, and officials with the US District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals relative to two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose. You might remember that in May 2014 I brought to your attention a similar complaint I made with the FBI. Apparently no investigation or inquiry was made into my May 2014 complaint, even though; I presented facts and evidence to support my claims.

            Being that you are the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I respectfully request that you bring this matter before the entire Committee for review. Please be aware that I have made several attempts to resolve this matter with the courts without any success. From the letters and documents enclosed, I believe you will find that the evidence of public corruption on the part of San Jose city officials and the courts is compelling and warrants an inquiry. It is not my intent that the Committee act as an adjunct court of appeals. Rather, I am asking the Committee to exercise its oversight powers to address the criminal misconduct of the courts and the courts’ failure to follow mandatory federal laws limiting their discretion. Two such laws are 28 USC Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit Act) and FRCP 41 which governs a stipulation of dismissal.

            The ethical failure of the courts and the City of San Jose in this matter represent an egregious breach of the public trust that undermines the judicial process and our democracy. It is clear that the courts and San Jose city officials are now in collusion in order to cover up this scandal. Since it is indisputable that the judgments of the courts are void based on their violation of the Full Faith and Credit Act and FRCP 41, I will in no way comply with them. The only outcome to this matter that I will accept is that the courts reverse their void judgments. I will never surrender my position on this issue. It is my hope that this Committee’s intervention will result in the fair and lawful outcome I seek. I look forward to hearing from you and the Committee in regards to this matter.

                                                                                                            Sincerely yours,

                                                                                                            Frederick Bates

    

                                                                                                 

                                                                                               

                                                                                            

Trump's Recent Criticism of the FBI and the Department of Justice is Credible

Post 22/23

In a tweet on Sunday 12/3/17, Trump criticized the Department of Justice and the FBI for "destroying" former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's life for lying to the FBI, whereas, Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for destroying emails after receiving a subpoena from Congress. The prosecution of Michael Flynn is clearly politically motivated just as the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Mr. Trump made reference to the system as being "rigged" or that there was a "double standard." He also stated in a subsequent tweet that the FBI's reputation is "in tatters." Based on the FBI's handling of my public corruption complaints against officials with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the US District Court in San Jose and the City of San Jose over the past several years, the President's criticism seems justified.

I just recently received a response from the Department of Justice stating that they received my last complaint dated July 24, 2017 and that it is being reviewed. I have received no response from the FBI. My first complaint with the FBI is listed in my post on 9/27/15. My most recent complaint with the Department of Justice is posted below. The Department of Justice and the FBI are not the independent entities that they claim to be. Many of their decisions as to what public corruption crimes they will or will not investigate or prosecute are politically motivated. In my public corruption complaints, I make allegations of serious criminal misconduct against the federal court officials and San Jose city officials. Those San Jose city officials include Mayor Sam Liccardo and the City Council members. Several federal judges are also implicated. The evidence that these officials conspired to obstruct justice is indisputable and overwhelming. Yet, the Trump administration continues to be plagued with the dubious Trump-Russia collusion investigation while the very real collusion between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the US District Court and the San Jose City Council has not been investigated. This lends credibility to the President's claim that the system is "rigged' or that there is a "double standard." See my post on 7/31/17 that compares the Trump-Russia collusion case and collusion between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the US District Court and the City of San Jose.
 
Certainly many of the criticisms of President Trump by some members of Congress and the media are legitimate. But I believe that he was elected President because, unlike the members of Congress, he is willing to forego political correctness and speak out against corruption and dysfunction in our government and stand up for what he believes is right, even if he offends a lot of people. The notion by some that Trump is a  threat to our democracy is laughable, being that our democracy has been on life-support for years because of dysfunction and public corruption at all levels of government. Now it appears that the FBI and the Department of Justice can be added to that list of corrupt and dysfunctional institutions of our government.

Here is my latest public corruption complaint with the Department of Justice:

Frederick Bates

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

                                                                                                            Folsom, CA 95630

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

July 24, 2017

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Re: Public Corruption Complaint

To Whom It May Concern:

            The purpose of this letter is to request an investigation into my complaint of public corruption against officials of the City of San Jose, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals relative to two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose in August 2006 and December 2015 for violating my civil rights. My first lawsuit resulted after I was unlawfully denied a CCW permit following my medical disability retirement from the San Jose Police Department. My second lawsuit resulted after San Jose city officials refused to investigate my discrimination and misconduct complaints against the City Attorney’s Office and three police administrators relative to the denial of my CCW permit.

            My allegation of public corruption against San Jose city officials relating to my first lawsuit is in regards to a stipulation of dismissal, the depositions of two police officials, and a motion for summary judgment filed by the City of San Jose. As to the stipulation of dismissal, San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora Frimann, and former Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson conspired with my former attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to obstruct justice by stipulating to the dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis without my knowledge or consent, then misrepresented to the court that I had agreed to the dismissal. The dismissal provided me no benefit whatsoever, and the clear purpose of the dismissal of Younis was to sabotage my case because the evidence is incontrovertible that Younis violated my constitutional rights. I have evidence strongly suggesting that the dismissal of Younis resulted from a quid pro quo arrangement between Kirchick and the San Jose City Attorney’s Office. The crimes implicated are conspiracy, obstruction of justice, honest services fraud and bribery.

As to the depositions of the two police officials, City Attorney Richard Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora Frimann, former Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson, former Chief of Police Robert Davis, former Assistant Chief of Police Tuck Younis and former Deputy Chief of Police Adonna Amoroso conspired to present false testimony under oath in the depositions of Younis and Amoroso in June 2007. Younis and Amoroso did, in fact, commit perjury in their depositions. Several perjured statements from the depositions of Younis and Amoroso were used by Doyle, Frimann and Dodson in support of the City’s motion for summary judgment which was filed with the clear intent of perpetrating fraud on the court. The district court granted the City’s summary judgment motion, even though it is a total hoax based on a false premise and the

                                                                                                                                                Page 2 

perjured testimony of Younis and Amoroso. I have evidence to present proving that there was a quid pro quo between Younis and San Jose city officials for his perjured testimony. The crimes implicated are conspiracy, subornation of perjury and perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

My allegation of public corruption against officials of the United States District Court relate to a scheme by court officials to conduct a fake hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed in February 2013 seeking relief from the order granting the City’s motion for summary judgment.

In order to carry out this scheme, Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia and another court official (initials “bw”) falsified docket entries by mischaracterizing my motion as pertaining to “costs taxed.” My motion had nothing to do with “costs taxed.” The basis for my motion was that attorneys for the City of San Jose perpetrated fraud on the court with the filing of the City’s fabricated motion for summary judgment; and on the failure of the courts to follow 28 U.S.C. Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit Act) in their application of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion to a small claims court judgment relied upon by the City.

            The hearing on my Rule 60 motion was held on April 26, 2013 in front of Judge Ronald M. Whyte. It is clear that the hearing was a total sham because I was advised weeks earlier by Court Clerk Cita Escolano that no hearing would be held on my motion. Escolano stated that my motion would be decided on the papers submitted; and that the decision of the court would be sent to my residence. Escolano also informed me that I did not have to appear in court on the April 26, 2013 hearing date. I have a witness that will corroborate these claims. Based on the instructions of Escolano, I did not appear for the hearing.

According to the transcript of Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, the court disposed of my Rule 60 motion during the hearing by granting the City’s “motion to dismiss” made by Deputy San Jose City Attorney Richard North because I failed to appear. However, no word for word account of the motion to dismiss by the City appears in the transcript or anywhere in the record. The City’s motion to dismiss is a mystery. It appears that the City’s mystery motion to dismiss was either intentionally omitted from the official transcript or it was made ex parte. Further confusing the issue is the fact that the Civil Minutes of Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia contradicts the official transcript of Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge. The Civil Minutes shows that the court made a ruling during the hearing denying my motion by finding that it was untimely and that no evidence was presented to support my theories for relief. While there is uncertainty as to what happened during the hearing, there is no uncertainty that the hearing and the judgment on my motion, that is biased in favor of the City of San Jose, was rigged as a result of a conspiracy involving Judge Whyte, Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia, Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, Court Clerk Cita Escolano, and San Jose Deputy City Attorney Richard North. The crimes implicated as to these officials are conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction of justice.

It should be noted that I filed two additional Rule 60 motions in September 2013 and May 2016 also seeking relief from the judgment in my first lawsuit on the basis of the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis and on the courts’ misapplication of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. Even though relief was mandatory based on the courts’ lack of discretion as it relates to these two issues, my motions were denied by the district court just as my first Rule 60 motion filed in February 2013.

My allegation of public corruption against San Jose city officials also pertains to a vast conspiracy to cover up this public corruption scandal. It is undeniable that current and former San Jose city officials refused to investigate discrimination and criminal misconduct complaints I

                                                                                                                                                Page 3

filed against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and former police officials Davis, Younis and Amoroso relative to the denial of my CCW privileges. Former City officials I filed complaints with include Mayor Chuck Reed and the City Council in 2010. My most recent complaints against the City Attorney’s Office were filed with current San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council in June 2015 and October 2015. The refusal of City officials to investigate my discrimination and misconduct complaints is clear evidence of a cover-up. The City’s failure to investigate my complaints formed the basis of my second lawsuit filed in December 2015. San Jose city policy and California law mandates that an investigation be conducted into discrimination complaints.

It is also clear that there is a vast conspiracy by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to cover up this scandal and to punish me for exercising my right to free speech with their biased and corrupt rulings in my two lawsuits. It is indisputable that all of the rulings of the district court relative to my first lawsuit are void judgments because, as noted above, the court did not follow the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Act by failing to follow California preclusion law in giving preclusive effect to a small claims judgment from California. The district court also failed to follow the requirements of FRCP 41 by permitting the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and my former attorney to stipulate to the dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis without my knowledge or consent, in clear violation of my absolute right as the plaintiff.

            As to my second lawsuit, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins dismissed by complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) even though, the precedent he cited as authority unequivocally proves the claims in my complaint. Judge Cousins also did not allow me the opportunity to amend my complaint as is required by FRCP 15(a), and he denied my Rule 60 motion seeking relief from his clearly erroneous judgment. Judge Cousins’ rulings show a willful and wanton disregard for my due process rights and are evidence that he is part of the courts’ conspiracy to obstruct justice.

            Evidence of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ participation in the cover up of this scandal is compelling. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to take action on motions and letters I filed in 2010, 2011 and 2012 seeking to vacate the orders of the Ninth Circuit Court that affirms the clearly erroneous judgments of the district court in my first lawsuit. No reasonable explanation was given for the court’s lack of action. Further evidence of a cover-up by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is that former Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski failed to take action on a complaint I filed in May 2010 against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office. Judge Kozinski responded to my complaint with false information that he had no authority to consider complaints against state officials. He stated that I must file my complaint against the City Attorney’s Office with state and local authorities. This claim by Judge Kozinski is not credible because Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2 states that the Chief Judge may initiate disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct by attorneys before the Court of Appeals. Courts also have the inherent power to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct by attorneys.

            Additionally, the final appeal in each of my two lawsuits was disposed of by summary affirmance of the district court judgments with the outrageous claim that the issues I raised on appeal was so unsubstantial that no further argument was required. The issues I raised on appeal were that the district court rulings were biased; the court violated the Full Faith and Credit Act; the court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing based on my claim that I did not authorize the

                                                                                                                                                Page 4

stipulation of dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis; and that the district court failed to follow precedent and federal law in dismissing my second lawsuit without leave to amend. It is insane for the court to find that these issues are unsubstantial. This is evidence of bias and a cover-up.       

I am well aware that the Department of Justice and the F.B. I. does not normally get involved in matters relating to on-going litigation involving the courts because of the “separation of powers” doctrine; and because of the importance of an independent judiciary that is necessary to the proper functioning of government. However, this is one of the most egregious cases of public corruption in recent memory. The criminal misconduct by the courts and San Jose city officials has been brazen and persistent with a total lack of regard for the truth, the Constitution and the rule of law. It is undeniable that these officials falsified court records, created false documents, and staged a fake hearing on one of my Rule 60 motions in order to facilitate a judgment in favor of the City of San Jose. The evidence is compelling that some of these officials were bribed in return for their involvement, whereas others appeared to have been coerced into participating. More appalling and detestable than the crimes committed, is the extent to which San Jose city officials and the courts have gone in order to cover-up this scandal. A criminal investigation is mandatory in order to restore credibility to our judicial system and to protect our democracy.

It should be noted that I filed a formal complaint with the F.B.I. and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco against San Jose city officials and the courts for public corruption in letters dated May 24, 2014. It is apparent my complaint was not taken seriously because it does not appear that an investigation was initiated. I give caution that a failure of the government to act on my current complaint will have consequences because I have no intentions of honoring the judgments of the courts in my lawsuits because they are void by law. This fact is not debatable. The only final outcome to this matter that I will accept is that the judgments of the courts are reversed. And to make this happen, I am willing to take some extreme measures, including engaging in civil disobedience. But first I am willing to give the Department of Justice and Congress an opportunity to address this matter.

            Included with this letter are copies of my May 24, 2014 complaint letter and an email dated July 17, 2015 that I sent to the F.B.I. Also included are copies of a special motion and a motion for recusal of Judge Whyte, copies of two posts from my blog that provides additional facts about this scandal, and a copy of a letter I submitted to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee dated July 24, 2017. The special motion and motion for recusal is undeniable proof that the judgments in my two lawsuits against the City of San Jose show such contempt for justice that they are a mockery. Additional information about the misconduct of San Jose city officials and federal court officials can be found at the links below: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/

http://crnctz.blogspot.com/2015/08/exposing-cover-up-of-cheating-scandal.html   

            I am also requesting a meeting with a representative from the Department of Justice in order to provide additional facts and evidence relative to my complaint.

                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                Frederick Bates