Post #55 (July 24, 2019)
I'm not going to tell anyone who to vote for or what party to support. I have already stated in prior posts that I have no preference for neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. As far as I'm concerned, they are on the same page when it come to corruption. Both parties are corrupt to their cores and they care nothing about the rights of the American people. I also stated in prior posts that I believe that public corruption is the greatest threat to democracy, not Donald Trump, not the Russians, not Iran or North Korea, and not China. Now all this could change in the blink of an eye. But as we stand today, it's crooked and corrupt government officials elected and appointed that pose the greatest existential threat to Democracy and the Constitution which is the foundation for our rule of law. I know some smarty pants out there is going to point out my apparent inconsistent statement because obviously Trump is an elected official. The reason Trump is less of a threat to democracy and the Constitution than other government officials is the abundance of oversight that is exercised over all of his actions. Nearly everything he does is met with resistance by the Democrats and the mainstream media or by a court challenge from progressive leaning groups. No other officials in our government come close to getting the same oversight as President Trump.
Now about this spectacle that went on in Washington, DC today that was the Mueller Hearing. We all know about Mueller's probe into possible collusion between the Trump Administration and the Russians during the past presidential election, and allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct Mueller's investigation. For the life of me, I can't understand why the Democrats continue to push this nonsense surrounding Mueller's probe. Democrats have no shame and no honor when it comes to their desire to build a case for impeaching President Trump. It's no wonder the Bible warns against hate. Hate is truly a bad thing, and the Democrats are a prime example of how bad it is to be full of hate. They have become totally irrational, unhinged, deranged and consumed behind Mueller's investigation which found that there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. All Democrats have left is a possible obstruction case that is weak at best.
First of all, it was clear during the Obama Administration that there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians, and that Russia's attempt at meddling in our election had no impact on the outcome of the election. Let us use some commonsense here. There were several investigations by intelligence officials, Congress, and the FBI into this matter. Not a single piece of evidence was uncovered that Trump or any members of his campaign colluded. There was absolutely no need for a Special Counsel investigation. The Special Counsel was appointed only after FBI Director James Comey was fired and he leaked a letter to the press suggesting that Trump had tried to obstruct justice in the Michael Flynn case. If Comey had not been fired, we would not have had to suffer through Mueller's investigation and all of the spectacles attendant to it; namely the testimony of Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, Attorney General William Barr, and now Robert Mueller himself. Plain and simple, the Mueller investigation was a farce and was retaliation for the firing of James Comey by Trump.
I stated in a post on June 6, 2019 that there could not be a lawful obstruction case brought against Trump because the underlying investigation is based on fraud and justice was never the intent. I compared an obstruction case against Trump to the case of a police officer making an unlawful arrest. A person can't be charged lawfully for resisting an unlawful arrest. That is just the truth. It's not about whether you like or dislike Donald Trump. This is about being honest with yourself and saying what is right. The Democrats continue to make fools of themselves by conducting this hearing today before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees for the purpose of gathering evidence for impeachment. The hearing today was unnecessary because Mueller stated that he would only testify to what was in his report. There was nothing new to gain in the way of evidence against Trump. Mueller pretty much kept his word and stuck to what was in his report during his testimony. The hearing made for good political theater but produced no significant new evidence that favors impeachment for obstruction of justice. As I just pointed out, any case brought against Trump for obstruction would be moot from the standpoint that the underlying investigation was not legit. Fraud vitiates everything!
I believe the Democrats are making fools of themselves for other reasons. It is clear from their tolerance for prior cases of obstruction of justice that their obsession with the weak obstruction case against the President is politically motivated and insincere. I gave two such examples of solid obstruction of justice cases in my post on June 6, 2019 that the Democrats were unwilling to call for any prosecution or accountability. One case involved the Hillary Clinton email scandal. You would be hard pressed to find a more flagrant case of obstruction of justice. The evidence was quite compelling: thirty thousand emails deleted that were under subpoena, computer hard drives were wipe clean, and communication devices containing material evidence were smashed to bits. Destroying evidence in a criminal investigation is classic obstruction of justice. Yet, the same Democrats were quick to defend Clinton; and they now want to impeach Trump for far less reprehensible conduct than Clinton. The second case I mentioned in my post on June 6, 2019 involves a conspiracy by Democrats and Republicans to cover up an obstruction of justice and case-fixing scheme involving several San Jose city officials, officials with the US District Court in San Jose and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Democrats who are now seeking to impeach Trump have failed to call for an investigation into the egregious conduct of San Jose city officials and federal court officials. The Democrats would be wise to think twice before proceeding with this foolhardy impeachment nonsense.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Thursday, June 6, 2019
The Liars' Club
Post 53
YOU CAN'T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WHEN THERE IS NO JUSTICE TO OBSTRUCT
Just when you think you've seen it all when it come to hatred for Donald Trump, you get this statement supposedly signed by several hundred former federal prosecutors stating that they believe the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. These former prosecutors, if in fact they are former prosecutors, are all big liars. This ridiculous statement has zero credibility from the word go. I know a solid one half of the country, maybe more, will buy into this false narrative being pushed by these presumed to be former prosecutors. At least one Republican Congressman has joined the Democrats in support of this lie. But I am going to completely destroy their claim with facts that are hard to dispute.
I'm no big fan of the President. But I don't hate him. I was no big fan of Hillary Clinton. But I don't hate her. I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. But I don't hate them. I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham and the Republicans. But I don't hate them. Here is the point I'm painstakingly trying to make. I don't take sides when it comes to politicians and government officials. I am a tribe of one. I only take the side of what I believe is right. My response to this statement purportedly made by these persons claiming to be former federal prosecutors is not about defending or showing support for Trump. It is about exposing the lack of integrity and honesty of these so called former prosecutors.
As I promised, I'm going to destroy the ridiculous claim by these so called former prosecutors that any other person that's not President Trump would be indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice. The basis of their claim is that the Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.
Here's where the false narrative falls apart. First and foremost, it is not possible from a legal standpoint to obstruct justice during an investigation that's illegitimate, and is based on fraud and justice was never the intent. It is similar from a legal standpoint that you can't be guilty of resisting an arrest that is unlawful. I could rest my case now, but the best is yet to come. Doesn't these so called former prosecutors remember the Hillary Clinton email investigation? After she was issued a subpoena to preserve evidence, she deleted over thirty thousand emails, destroyed computer hard drives and other communications devices with the clear intent to obstruct the truth-finding process. I think the chances are one hundred percent that there was classified information in those deleted emails and communication devices that were destroyed. The evidence of her corrupt intent and the connection to a pending proceeding was overwhelming and indisputable. Since Hillary Clinton was a person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, why wasn't she indicted? The fact that Clinton wasn't indicted discredits the claim that any other person would have been charged under similar circumstances described in Mueller's report. The case for obstruction against Clinton was a lot stronger than the case for obstruction against Trump. Yet, over half of the voters and all of the Democratic elected officials in Congress were willing to elect her President. Now you have a significant number of Democratic Members of Congress wanting to impeach Trump for conduct far less reprehensible than Clinton's. I could rest my case here, but I'm not; because the evidence that proves that these so-called former prosecutors are liars gets even better.
Beginning in 2014, long before there was a Trump Presidency, I filed a complaint with the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. against San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based on their conduct during the litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City that obstructed justice. The evidence that these officials obstructed justice is extensive and demonstrates a total disregard for the judicial process and the rule of law. Now keep in mind the elements of an obstruction charge according to the so-called former prosecutors: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process. During litigation of my lawsuit, the City of San Jose ("City") and the U.S. District Court in San Jose conspired to obstruct the truth-finding process. Two City officials were told to lie under oath during their depositions. They, in fact, told several lies on material issues during their depositions. The District Court essentially ordered the City to file a motion for summary judgment that was a total fabrication. The City was allowed to enter into a fraudulent agreement with my attorney, who received a quid pro quo, to dismiss a defendant that clearly violated my rights. The purpose of this dismissal was to prevent the court from ruling on the discriminatory acts of the defendant and his superior. The facts alleged in the City's motion for summary judgment were not only false, they contradicted the true facts the City had already admitted to in it's answer to my complaint/lawsuit. To put it plain and simple, the District Court told the City to lie in it's motion for summary judgment, and to enter the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal with my attorney. Of course, the City's motion was granted by the District Court. Now how's that for obstructing the truth-finding process? But there's a lot more. After I filed my own motion under FRCP Rule 60 seeking relief from the judgment of the District Court based on the fraud that was perpetrated, the District Court and the City further obstructed justice by falsifying several docket entries by falsely stating that my motion was contesting the court costs awarded to the City, instead of fraud. I was told by a court official on two different occasions that there would be no hearing on my motion; and that my motion would be decided on the papers filed by me and the City. In clear contradiction of what I was told, a hearing was held on my motion without my knowledge. During the hearing, the City was granted a motion to dismiss because I failed to appear for the hearing, even though, I was told specifically that I did not have to appear for the hearing. The word for word account of the City's motion to dismiss was left out of the transcript of the hearing. The City's motion to dismiss supposedly made during the hearing is a complete mystery. The civil minutes reflects that something totally different happened during the hearing on my motion when compared to the transcript. The civil minutes reflects that the court ruled during the hearing that it would deny my motion and submit a written order at a later date. It is indisputable that the conduct of San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court as described above meets and exceeds the elements for an obstruction charge outlined in the statement of these so called former prosecutors.Yet, my complaints to the Department of Justice , the F.B.I, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices in San Francisco and San Jose have not been investigated, have not resulted in any indictments, nor have I received a response stating why there hasn't been any action taken on my complaints.
What has been presented here are the incontrovertible facts that discredit the claim by these so called former prosecutors that the conduct of President Trump as described by Mueller would have resulted in an indictment for any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President.These alleged former prosecutors are Trump haters and members of the Liars' Club with an ax to grind. For me, it's not about Trump, Clinton, the Democrats or Republicans. The reason I'm responding to this lie by these claiming to be former prosecutors is that I expected that, as a black person that grew up in the South during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era, the federal courts would protect my constitutional rights. This has been the farthest thing from the truth. What happened to me when I sued the City of San Jose for violating my rights based on my race and disability is a disgrace. As I described above, City officials and officials in the U.S. District Court went out of their way to obstruct the truth-finding process with the corrupt intent to obstruct justice by covering up the racism and bigotry of the City. Not only am I angered by the false statement by these so called former prosecutors, I'm deeply offended as well. I now rest my case. For more information, refer to my prior posts and my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/
YOU CAN'T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WHEN THERE IS NO JUSTICE TO OBSTRUCT
Just when you think you've seen it all when it come to hatred for Donald Trump, you get this statement supposedly signed by several hundred former federal prosecutors stating that they believe the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. These former prosecutors, if in fact they are former prosecutors, are all big liars. This ridiculous statement has zero credibility from the word go. I know a solid one half of the country, maybe more, will buy into this false narrative being pushed by these presumed to be former prosecutors. At least one Republican Congressman has joined the Democrats in support of this lie. But I am going to completely destroy their claim with facts that are hard to dispute.
I'm no big fan of the President. But I don't hate him. I was no big fan of Hillary Clinton. But I don't hate her. I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. But I don't hate them. I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham and the Republicans. But I don't hate them. Here is the point I'm painstakingly trying to make. I don't take sides when it comes to politicians and government officials. I am a tribe of one. I only take the side of what I believe is right. My response to this statement purportedly made by these persons claiming to be former federal prosecutors is not about defending or showing support for Trump. It is about exposing the lack of integrity and honesty of these so called former prosecutors.
As I promised, I'm going to destroy the ridiculous claim by these so called former prosecutors that any other person that's not President Trump would be indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice. The basis of their claim is that the Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.
Here's where the false narrative falls apart. First and foremost, it is not possible from a legal standpoint to obstruct justice during an investigation that's illegitimate, and is based on fraud and justice was never the intent. It is similar from a legal standpoint that you can't be guilty of resisting an arrest that is unlawful. I could rest my case now, but the best is yet to come. Doesn't these so called former prosecutors remember the Hillary Clinton email investigation? After she was issued a subpoena to preserve evidence, she deleted over thirty thousand emails, destroyed computer hard drives and other communications devices with the clear intent to obstruct the truth-finding process. I think the chances are one hundred percent that there was classified information in those deleted emails and communication devices that were destroyed. The evidence of her corrupt intent and the connection to a pending proceeding was overwhelming and indisputable. Since Hillary Clinton was a person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, why wasn't she indicted? The fact that Clinton wasn't indicted discredits the claim that any other person would have been charged under similar circumstances described in Mueller's report. The case for obstruction against Clinton was a lot stronger than the case for obstruction against Trump. Yet, over half of the voters and all of the Democratic elected officials in Congress were willing to elect her President. Now you have a significant number of Democratic Members of Congress wanting to impeach Trump for conduct far less reprehensible than Clinton's. I could rest my case here, but I'm not; because the evidence that proves that these so-called former prosecutors are liars gets even better.
Beginning in 2014, long before there was a Trump Presidency, I filed a complaint with the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. against San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based on their conduct during the litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City that obstructed justice. The evidence that these officials obstructed justice is extensive and demonstrates a total disregard for the judicial process and the rule of law. Now keep in mind the elements of an obstruction charge according to the so-called former prosecutors: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process. During litigation of my lawsuit, the City of San Jose ("City") and the U.S. District Court in San Jose conspired to obstruct the truth-finding process. Two City officials were told to lie under oath during their depositions. They, in fact, told several lies on material issues during their depositions. The District Court essentially ordered the City to file a motion for summary judgment that was a total fabrication. The City was allowed to enter into a fraudulent agreement with my attorney, who received a quid pro quo, to dismiss a defendant that clearly violated my rights. The purpose of this dismissal was to prevent the court from ruling on the discriminatory acts of the defendant and his superior. The facts alleged in the City's motion for summary judgment were not only false, they contradicted the true facts the City had already admitted to in it's answer to my complaint/lawsuit. To put it plain and simple, the District Court told the City to lie in it's motion for summary judgment, and to enter the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal with my attorney. Of course, the City's motion was granted by the District Court. Now how's that for obstructing the truth-finding process? But there's a lot more. After I filed my own motion under FRCP Rule 60 seeking relief from the judgment of the District Court based on the fraud that was perpetrated, the District Court and the City further obstructed justice by falsifying several docket entries by falsely stating that my motion was contesting the court costs awarded to the City, instead of fraud. I was told by a court official on two different occasions that there would be no hearing on my motion; and that my motion would be decided on the papers filed by me and the City. In clear contradiction of what I was told, a hearing was held on my motion without my knowledge. During the hearing, the City was granted a motion to dismiss because I failed to appear for the hearing, even though, I was told specifically that I did not have to appear for the hearing. The word for word account of the City's motion to dismiss was left out of the transcript of the hearing. The City's motion to dismiss supposedly made during the hearing is a complete mystery. The civil minutes reflects that something totally different happened during the hearing on my motion when compared to the transcript. The civil minutes reflects that the court ruled during the hearing that it would deny my motion and submit a written order at a later date. It is indisputable that the conduct of San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court as described above meets and exceeds the elements for an obstruction charge outlined in the statement of these so called former prosecutors.Yet, my complaints to the Department of Justice , the F.B.I, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices in San Francisco and San Jose have not been investigated, have not resulted in any indictments, nor have I received a response stating why there hasn't been any action taken on my complaints.
What has been presented here are the incontrovertible facts that discredit the claim by these so called former prosecutors that the conduct of President Trump as described by Mueller would have resulted in an indictment for any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President.These alleged former prosecutors are Trump haters and members of the Liars' Club with an ax to grind. For me, it's not about Trump, Clinton, the Democrats or Republicans. The reason I'm responding to this lie by these claiming to be former prosecutors is that I expected that, as a black person that grew up in the South during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era, the federal courts would protect my constitutional rights. This has been the farthest thing from the truth. What happened to me when I sued the City of San Jose for violating my rights based on my race and disability is a disgrace. As I described above, City officials and officials in the U.S. District Court went out of their way to obstruct the truth-finding process with the corrupt intent to obstruct justice by covering up the racism and bigotry of the City. Not only am I angered by the false statement by these so called former prosecutors, I'm deeply offended as well. I now rest my case. For more information, refer to my prior posts and my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
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:
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/
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
Monday, July 31, 2017
Trump - Russian Collusion? vs. San Jose City Officials Collusion with the US District Court
Post 18/23
I am somewhat skeptical about the motivation for all of the investigations and media coverage into Russia's meddling into the past presidential election and potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Here is what we know from current and former government officials in the intelligence and law enforcement communities, including former president Obama. Russia's meddling did not influence the outcome of the election and it did not change a single vote. Also, no evidence has been presented to the American people that implicates Trump and the Russian government working together to undermine the presidential election. As a matter of fact, the Obama Administration did very little when it learned of Russia's meddling prior to the election. Mr. Obama stated in October 2016 that it would be impossible to rig a presidential election because they are so decentralized. Officials with the DNC refused to turn over their server to the FBI after allegedly being hacked by the Russians. It did not appear to be that big of a deal to Hillary Clinton and Democratic operatives because they were winning in the polls. Now that Ms. Clinton has lost and Mr. Trump has ascended to the Presidency, politicians, bureaucrats in Washington on both sides, as well as the media, have all of this newfound concern about Russia's meddling and a possible connection to Trump. All of the investigations into this scandal seem to be justified based on the notion that Russian interference undermined our electoral process and threatened our democracy. While I do not disagree with that notion, I think politics and an anti-Trump agenda is at play here and we might actually be witnessing a witch hunt. We will have to wait and see.
Let us now take a look at the collusion between San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo, the San Jose City Council , San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle and the US District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose Division. During the litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in August 2006, the City Attorney's Office at the behest of the City Council colluded with the US District Court in creating false documents, falsifying court records, and staging a phony hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed seeking relief from the bogus judgment of the district court that granted the City's motion for summary judgment. The City's motion for summary judgment was a total hoax. It was based on a false premise and supported by the perjured testimony of two corrupt police officials. One official was bribed for his testimony. Additionally, the district court violated two important federal laws limiting its discretion. Unlike the Trump-Russia collusion scandal, this collusion scandal has underlining criminal acts, and the clear intent to obstruct justice. San Jose city officials and the courts are engaged in a big cover-up of this scandal. Mayor Liccardo and the City Council refused to conduct investigations into my discrimination and misconduct complaints against the City Attorney's Office and three police administrators as is mandated by City policy and state law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court entered totally bogus judgments that favor the City on motions for relief I filed. All of this is true folks. There's no witch hunt here. Don't take my word for it. Ask Mayor Liccardo, the City Council and the folks over at the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now Let's do some comparisons here. As to Russia's meddling into the election, there is no evidence that it influenced the outcome. As to Trump-Russia collusion, so far there is no evidence of any at all, just innuendo. As to the collusion between San Jose city officials and the US District Court, you have several underlining felonies relating to public corruption with the clear intent to obstruct justice. There are several investigations going on into the Trump-Russia scandal with the dubious claim by our elected officials in Washington that they are so concerned about protecting our electoral process and our democracy. They are at the same time calling for punishing Russia with sanctions. On the other hand, not a single investigation has been conducted into numerous complaints I have filed against San Jose city officials and the courts for public corruption which has caused ten times more harm to our constitutional republic than Russia's meddling into our presidential election.
Granted protecting our electoral process is a legitimate reason for investigating Russia's meddling into our presidential election. But by all accounts no real damage was done. On the other hand, the collusion between San Jose city officials and the courts has caused immeasurable harm to our judicial system and our democracy. Clearly an investigation into this scandal is warranted just as an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump. Our judicial process is as equally sacred as our electoral process.Yet, many of the same politicians and non-elected government officials that are calling for investigations into the Trump-Russia scandal have not shown any courage by calling for an investigation into the collusion between San Jose city officials and the federal courts. A rigged election would be intolerable by politicians and all Americans. Rightfully so. Yet, politicians in Washington have developed a tolerance for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and many of the district courts within the Ninth Circuit that are rigged against average Americans. It time to hold them accountable just as we are the Russians.
I am somewhat skeptical about the motivation for all of the investigations and media coverage into Russia's meddling into the past presidential election and potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Here is what we know from current and former government officials in the intelligence and law enforcement communities, including former president Obama. Russia's meddling did not influence the outcome of the election and it did not change a single vote. Also, no evidence has been presented to the American people that implicates Trump and the Russian government working together to undermine the presidential election. As a matter of fact, the Obama Administration did very little when it learned of Russia's meddling prior to the election. Mr. Obama stated in October 2016 that it would be impossible to rig a presidential election because they are so decentralized. Officials with the DNC refused to turn over their server to the FBI after allegedly being hacked by the Russians. It did not appear to be that big of a deal to Hillary Clinton and Democratic operatives because they were winning in the polls. Now that Ms. Clinton has lost and Mr. Trump has ascended to the Presidency, politicians, bureaucrats in Washington on both sides, as well as the media, have all of this newfound concern about Russia's meddling and a possible connection to Trump. All of the investigations into this scandal seem to be justified based on the notion that Russian interference undermined our electoral process and threatened our democracy. While I do not disagree with that notion, I think politics and an anti-Trump agenda is at play here and we might actually be witnessing a witch hunt. We will have to wait and see.
Let us now take a look at the collusion between San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo, the San Jose City Council , San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle and the US District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose Division. During the litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in August 2006, the City Attorney's Office at the behest of the City Council colluded with the US District Court in creating false documents, falsifying court records, and staging a phony hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed seeking relief from the bogus judgment of the district court that granted the City's motion for summary judgment. The City's motion for summary judgment was a total hoax. It was based on a false premise and supported by the perjured testimony of two corrupt police officials. One official was bribed for his testimony. Additionally, the district court violated two important federal laws limiting its discretion. Unlike the Trump-Russia collusion scandal, this collusion scandal has underlining criminal acts, and the clear intent to obstruct justice. San Jose city officials and the courts are engaged in a big cover-up of this scandal. Mayor Liccardo and the City Council refused to conduct investigations into my discrimination and misconduct complaints against the City Attorney's Office and three police administrators as is mandated by City policy and state law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court entered totally bogus judgments that favor the City on motions for relief I filed. All of this is true folks. There's no witch hunt here. Don't take my word for it. Ask Mayor Liccardo, the City Council and the folks over at the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now Let's do some comparisons here. As to Russia's meddling into the election, there is no evidence that it influenced the outcome. As to Trump-Russia collusion, so far there is no evidence of any at all, just innuendo. As to the collusion between San Jose city officials and the US District Court, you have several underlining felonies relating to public corruption with the clear intent to obstruct justice. There are several investigations going on into the Trump-Russia scandal with the dubious claim by our elected officials in Washington that they are so concerned about protecting our electoral process and our democracy. They are at the same time calling for punishing Russia with sanctions. On the other hand, not a single investigation has been conducted into numerous complaints I have filed against San Jose city officials and the courts for public corruption which has caused ten times more harm to our constitutional republic than Russia's meddling into our presidential election.
Granted protecting our electoral process is a legitimate reason for investigating Russia's meddling into our presidential election. But by all accounts no real damage was done. On the other hand, the collusion between San Jose city officials and the courts has caused immeasurable harm to our judicial system and our democracy. Clearly an investigation into this scandal is warranted just as an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump. Our judicial process is as equally sacred as our electoral process.Yet, many of the same politicians and non-elected government officials that are calling for investigations into the Trump-Russia scandal have not shown any courage by calling for an investigation into the collusion between San Jose city officials and the federal courts. A rigged election would be intolerable by politicians and all Americans. Rightfully so. Yet, politicians in Washington have developed a tolerance for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and many of the district courts within the Ninth Circuit that are rigged against average Americans. It time to hold them accountable just as we are the Russians.
Monday, October 24, 2016
About Donald Trump's Claim That The Election Is Rigged
Post 10/23
In today's post, I'm going to do something different and focus on the presidential election. Much talk has been made about Donald Trump's claim that the election is rigged. Here's my take on this matter. I'm not sure if it's rigged or not. But based on my experience with government based on this cheating scandal I'm exposing, I believe our government is corrupt and, in concert with the media, is capable of anything. Not almost anything, but anything; and that's at the local, state and federal level. For me it's not a matter of whether the presidential election is rigged or not. What troubles me is that the processes of government are corrupt and rigged against regular citizens like you and me. It is absolutely shocking the number of government officials in this country that have no integrity or a conscience and will do anything they are asked to do, including committing criminal acts. It's true folks! I have experienced this firsthand. At the end of this post, I will list some links for you to check out.
Folks, the one thing we should learn very quickly is that our government officials do not give a dam about us or our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If you think you have any rights, wait until you come into a conflict with the government like I have. I do not like bringing up the past, but in order to get a perspective as to how bad things are in this country today, I'm compelled to look back to some of the dark days in our nation's history. As I stated in a prior post, I'm black and I grew up in the South during Jim Crow. None of those Confederate Flag waving segregationist government officials I encountered treated me with with the total lack of respect and dignity as did the current San Jose mayor (Sam Liccardo), the City Council and the federal courts, during the litigation of my lawsuit against the City for civil rights violations. I will address the conduct of these officials in future posts and I will not pull any punches. My first target will be US District Judge Ronald M. Whyte who presided over my lawsuit. Judge Whyte committed acts worthy of impeachment. He has been allowed to go into retirement without being held accountable.An absolute disgrace!
Back to the issue of the presidential election, it is no secret that both candidates have serious character flaws and in my opinion are not worthy to hold the office of POTUS. I will not vote for either candidate. For me it's not a matter of which one is the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, these two evils are equal. One candidate, Hillary Clinton, appears to have placed herself above the law. The other candidate, Donald Trump, seems to be totally unhinged. However, the character flaws of these two candidates are not the primary reason I will not be voting in this election or future elections for that matter. I will not be voting in this election or any election in the foreseeable future because I believe widespread public corruption has deprived government of its credibility or legitimacy. Government has no credibility when elected and appointed officials have no respect for citizens or the Constitution which is our rule of law. I have absolutely nothing planned for election day except to not go out and vote. That is how disgusted I am with our government.
Here are the links I promised:
Google these topics: CORRUPTION
BETWEEN CALIFORNIA STATE JUDICIARY AND THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE(S)?
9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONDONES “JIM CROW” ACTS
In today's post, I'm going to do something different and focus on the presidential election. Much talk has been made about Donald Trump's claim that the election is rigged. Here's my take on this matter. I'm not sure if it's rigged or not. But based on my experience with government based on this cheating scandal I'm exposing, I believe our government is corrupt and, in concert with the media, is capable of anything. Not almost anything, but anything; and that's at the local, state and federal level. For me it's not a matter of whether the presidential election is rigged or not. What troubles me is that the processes of government are corrupt and rigged against regular citizens like you and me. It is absolutely shocking the number of government officials in this country that have no integrity or a conscience and will do anything they are asked to do, including committing criminal acts. It's true folks! I have experienced this firsthand. At the end of this post, I will list some links for you to check out.
Folks, the one thing we should learn very quickly is that our government officials do not give a dam about us or our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If you think you have any rights, wait until you come into a conflict with the government like I have. I do not like bringing up the past, but in order to get a perspective as to how bad things are in this country today, I'm compelled to look back to some of the dark days in our nation's history. As I stated in a prior post, I'm black and I grew up in the South during Jim Crow. None of those Confederate Flag waving segregationist government officials I encountered treated me with with the total lack of respect and dignity as did the current San Jose mayor (Sam Liccardo), the City Council and the federal courts, during the litigation of my lawsuit against the City for civil rights violations. I will address the conduct of these officials in future posts and I will not pull any punches. My first target will be US District Judge Ronald M. Whyte who presided over my lawsuit. Judge Whyte committed acts worthy of impeachment. He has been allowed to go into retirement without being held accountable.An absolute disgrace!
Back to the issue of the presidential election, it is no secret that both candidates have serious character flaws and in my opinion are not worthy to hold the office of POTUS. I will not vote for either candidate. For me it's not a matter of which one is the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, these two evils are equal. One candidate, Hillary Clinton, appears to have placed herself above the law. The other candidate, Donald Trump, seems to be totally unhinged. However, the character flaws of these two candidates are not the primary reason I will not be voting in this election or future elections for that matter. I will not be voting in this election or any election in the foreseeable future because I believe widespread public corruption has deprived government of its credibility or legitimacy. Government has no credibility when elected and appointed officials have no respect for citizens or the Constitution which is our rule of law. I have absolutely nothing planned for election day except to not go out and vote. That is how disgusted I am with our government.
Here are the links I promised:
9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONDONES “JIM CROW” ACTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)