Sam Liccardo is unfit to be a Member of Congress

 By Fred Bates - October 30, 2024

Sam Liccardo is unqualified for Congress because of felonious and racist misconduct

Sam Liccardo is the former mayor of San Jose, California. He is currently running against Evan Low for California's 16th Congressional District seat being vacated by retiring Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. Liccardo is unfit and unqualified to be a Member of Congress because of his long history of corruption as mayor of San Jose and as a councilmember. What specifically disqualifies Liccardo from being a Member of Congress is his role in an obstruction of justice scandal involving San Jose city officials, and judicial officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006. I sued the City and three police officials for the racist and malicious decision to deny me a CCW permit after I retired from the City's police department on a medical disability as a sergeant. I'm black/African American. 

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

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

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

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

For years, Sam Liccardo's corruption and criminal misconduct has been covered up by the local media, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. It's high time he is exposed and held accountable for the fraud and hypocrite that he is. 

The Democrats Continue to Make Fools of Themselves With This Mueller Hearing

 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.

Letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Post 6/23

In my last post on October 19, I stated that there would be a constitutional crisis if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not reverse its ruling relative to my appeal. I also stated that the court's ruling was void and I had no intention of complying with it as it currently stands. Today I am posting a letter I sent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk of Court Molly Dwyer and the Panel that heard my appeal. My purpose for the letter is to make it clear to the court and the City of San Jose that I will not be bullied into relinguishing my rights.

              

Frederick Bates

Folsom, CA 95630

(408) 510-

                                                                                                           

October 15, 2015

Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Post Office Box 193939

San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

Re: Frederick Bates – Appellant v. City of San Jose; et al – Appellees; No. 13-16397 and D.C. No. 5:06-cv-05302-RMW

To Clerk of Court Molly Dwyer and the Panel hearing my appeal (Canby, Bea, and Murguia, Circuit Judges):

On August 14, 2015, I filed a petition for panel rehearing. My petition argues that the ruling of this court on my appeal is a void judgment because it relies on the written order of the district court purported to be on the merits. As I argued in my petition, the district court’s written order is void because the court had already granted the City a default judgment by way of their dispositive “motion to dismiss” in the hearing on April 26, 2013, because I failed to appear. The default judgment divested the district court of jurisdiction to enter its written order. The district court made an apparent attempt to reconcile the contradiction in its judgment from the bench and its written order in a letter in October 2013, months after this court had already acquired jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend or modify its judgment. For this reason, the letter of the district court does not change the default judgment it entered during the hearing. The written order is a nullity. The judgment of this court is void as well because it affirms the written order of the district court. There can be no credible argument made in opposition to this fact.

The purpose of this letter is not to reargue my petition, but to strongly encourage this court to immediately grant my request for a rehearing and reverse the decision affirming the void judgment of the district court based on its written order. The order of this court is nothing more than an attempt to give legitimacy to the district court’s ruling that granted the City’s motion for summary judgment. Unfortunately, this draws attention away from the merits of this case and the clear and convincing evidence of fraud perpetrated by district court officials and the City relative to the hearing on my motion for relief from judgment. My fraud claims are addressed in my motion to vacate judgment dated September 23, 2014.

The judgment of the district court granting the City’s summary judgment motion will never gain legitimacy and will always be void and unenforceable under the law; because the district court failed to follow the mandate of Article IV, Section 1of the United States Constitution (Full Faith and Credit Clause). Article IV, Section 1 is implemented by 28 USC, Section 1738 (Full Faith and Credit Act). The Full Faith and Credit Act command federal courts

 Page 2

to follow the preclusion law of the state from which a judgment is taken. Federal courts have no discretion at all when it comes to applying preclusion rules to state court judgments. This has been settled law from nearly the beginning of our republic. It is unarguable that the district court failed to follow the preclusion law of California and employed its own rules when it granted preclusive effect to the small claims judgment at issue. California courts will not grant preclusive effect to the small claims judgment because there was no actual litigation or a determination of the issue I raised in my complaint. Furthermore, there is no record at all of what transpired in the small claims hearing.

In affirming the written order of the district court, this court opined that the district court properly determined that I was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because the district court’s “prior” judgment was not void due to jurisdictional error or a violation of due process. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Espinosa case was cited as the authority. The Espinosa case establishes that Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard. My motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) does not conflict with the Espinosa case. I argued in my motion that the district court’s “prior” judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) because it gives preclusive effect to the small claims judgment that is constitutionally infirm. The small claims judgment is constitutionally infirm because I was deprived of the opportunity to be heard during the hearing in small claims court. Therefore, the order of the district court that gives preclusive effect to the small claims judgment is void for the same reason. It is reasonable to conclude that my motion is appropriate under Rule 60(b)(4). This argument, however, is not meant to change in any way my position that the default judgment of the district court based on the motion to dismiss it granted to the City is the only judgment that this court can legitimately base its ruling. I maintain that the written order of the district court is a nullity and the judgment of this court affirming the written order is a nullity as well. Furthermore, there is no procedural bar to providing me relief from the void judgment of the district court as the ruling of this court seems to imply. As stated in my petition, my motion for relief would also have been appropriate in an independent action; or the courts could have provided me relief sua sponte.

Again, I encourage this court to grant my petition for a panel rehearing and reverse its ruling on my appeal. A failure to do so will result in a constitutional crisis because, as noted above, it is indisputable that the ruling of this court as it currently stands is in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (Full Faith and Credit Clause) which is implemented by 28 USC, Section 1738 (Full Faith and Credit Act). Therefore, the current ruling of this court that precludes my lawsuit against the City of San Jose on the basis of collateral estoppel is a void judgment. It is unenforceable just as all of the other judgments that preclude my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel. It is inconceivable that the courts would apply collateral estoppel in this case when there is no record of what transpired in the small claims hearing. Both the district court and this court have simply used creativity and wishful thinking in applying collateral estoppel. Simply put, if there is no record, collateral estoppel cannot apply.

Additionally, I argued in my petition, and on appeal, that the stipulation of dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis is also void because it was entered without my consent, I received no benefit from it, and it impaired my cause of action. The actions of my attorney and the City in

 Page 3

dismissing Younis without my authorization deprived me of an absolute right. My motion for relief from the stipulation of dismissal is also proper under Rule 60(b)(4) because I was deprived of the opportunity to be heard on my cause of action as to Defendant Younis. The stipulation of dismissal was not addressed by this court.

A failure of this court to reverse itself all but ensures that litigation will not end, because the current ruling of this court is void by law and I am under no obligation to comply with it. I will not be bullied by the courts or the City into relinquishing my rights in this matter. This means that more judicial resources will be wasted; and it will also create a very uncomfortable situation. I appeal to the conscience of the court to provide me the relief I am due by law; because relief from a void judgment is not discretionary, it is mandatory.

                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                Frederick Bates

Confronting A Constitutional Crisis in Our Federal Courts

Post 5/23

The cheating scandal exposed in my prior posts involving San Jose city officials and the federal courts shows that there is a constitutional crisis in America. The US Constitution is under direct attack by our federal courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and many of the district courts in the circuit. At no time in history, except for blacks during slavery and Jim Crow, has the Constitution been so meaningless. This is due primarily to public corruption instead of racism. People of all races are having their rights violated by the courts because of this corruption. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying racism has been completely eliminated. What I am saying is that corrupt government officials such as the San Jose city officials and the federal court officials I have exposed in this blog are as bad, and in some cases, worse than most of the segregationist government officials in the South during Jim Crow, when it comes to discrimination and regard for civil rights. I know that that statement might be controversial or provocative; but I believe it is true. I am black, I'm 60 years old, and I grew up in the South during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Era, therefore, I have personal experience to draw upon. However, I want to make one thing very clear. I am only speaking for myself and my experience. Quite naturally, others may have had experiences that are totally different from mine. It is my hope that this post will be viewed from this perspective.

My reason for writing this blog is that I am totally shocked and appalled by the total lack of regard for the Constitution and the rule of law by the government officials involved in this scandal. I don't normally do things like this, but I am compelled to do so because the integrity of our courts and the security of our nation is at stake. According to the FBI, public corruption cases are given priority. Yet, the FBI has failed to respond to my complaints about this matter. The same thing has occurred with my complaints to the House Judiciary Committee, the California Attorney General's Office, and the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. All of these folks took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Yet, they have stood by and allowed the government officials in this scandal to trample all over the Constitution as if it was a dirty rug. Much of the conduct by these officials is criminal in nature (See my post on 9/27/15). It is clear to me that there is a loose conspiracy among the government to hide what appears to be widespread corruption and cheating in the courts. Shame on them! The government is so quick to address cheating in sports and other areas of our society, such as education. But when it comes to cheating in the courts which is far more damaging, they have failed to provide the checks and balances provided for by the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution. The lower federal courts have, in many cases, flat out refused to follow laws passed by Congress. Rather, they have legislated their own laws from the bench and has dared the other two branches of government to do anything to stop them.

It is time for the citizens of this country to stand up to these corrupt officials and say, enough is enough! That is precisely what I am doing with this blog. I am fed up, and I am mad as hell. It is enough to live through Jim Crow once; for the federal courts to force me to live through a similar experience a second time is a bunch of crap. As I explained in my prior posts, this cheating scandal involves a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for violating my civil rights. I am not going to restate all the details since they are discussed in prior posts (See post on 8/23/15) and my group facebook page. I am only going to mention situations in which the courts have outright defied the US Constitution and made rulings based on their subjective feelings. One situation involves the application of collateral estoppel to a small claims court judgment (state court judgment). When applying the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, the Constitution requires that federal courts follow preclusion law of the rendering state. Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the US District Court -San Jose Division said no, I will apply my own rules. Judge Whyte also allowed San Jose attorneys to file a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of a defendant (Tuck Younis) in clear violation of federal statutory law and the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. His judgments are void. He has wasted his time and my time by entering them. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also wasted their time and my time by affirming Judge Whyte's bogus judgments.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has one more chance to get it right based on a request for a panel rehearing I filed on 8/14/15. If not, a constitutional crisis looms and there will be a confrontation between me and the courts over this matter. Hold your horses! I don't mean to suggest in any way I will be marching down to the courts with a militia in tow or that I will engage in some violent act. I detest violence. What I am saying is this. I cannot be lawfully bound by the current judgments of the US District Court and the judgments of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that affirms them because they are void and are tainted by substantial fraud, and they violate the Constitution and statutory law. It is my sincere hope that a confrontation can be avoided by the Ninth Circuit reversing itself and following the law. Otherwise, I will not be voluntarily bound by the current void judgments; and I will use any lawful means at my disposal to challenge them. You can access my group facebook page at this link https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/ for additional details. 

Message to San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and the San Jose City Council - Fire City Attorney Richard Doyle!

Post 4/23

If you have read my prior posts, you know that I have accused Mayor Liccardo and the City Council of covering up criminal misconduct by the San Jose City Attorney's Office and the federal courts relative to a lawsuit I filed against the City. Many of the criminal acts relate to public corruption and are felonies. As stunning as these allegations are, they are true. Please read my third post in order to see my specific allegations and evidence to support them. Even though City officials and federal court officials have not denied my allegations, there hasn't been an investigation into this matter at any level, just a cover-up.

The reason I am singling out City Attorney Richard Doyle to be fired is that he has run his office as if it is a criminal enterprise based on my case alone. His judgment in this matter has been one of the worst cases of poor judgment I have ever seen. The evidence of extremely poor judgment does not stop here. As I stated in my open letter that is Post #1, the City's very own propaganda apparatus, the San Jose Mercury News, implied that Mr. Doyle used poor judgment and unethical tactics during the litigation of several high profile cases the City lost, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Mr. Doyle was given several opportunities to resolve the issue surrounding my lawsuit. That issue is the denial of my CCW permit, without a hearing, upon my retirement from the police force in 2004. CCW permits are very important to retired police officers because they provide personal protection and possible financial opportunities. Another important reason exists as well. Armed and well trained retired police officers can provide additional protection to their communities in these days of mass shootings and threats from terrorists. The issuance of CCW permits to retiring police officers is about a routine a matter as there is by the SJPD. Protocol is in place to ensure that officers' due process rights are protected. The CA legislature made sure of this by requiring that law enforcement agencies provide an officer a full adversary due process hearing if the agency wants to deny a retiring officer a CCW permit in all cases, except for psychological disability retirements. The hearing requirement is a very important right that is protected by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause according to the US District Court. The SJPD and City policy provide additional due process protections as well. Yet, Mr. Doyle and several police officials denied my CCW permit several times by failing to follow protocol and rejecting authoritative information that they stated was "crystal clear" I was entitled to a CCW permit. Their acts were flagrantly discriminatory and punitive and was done with the clear intent to inflict emotional distress and cause me financial harm.

More disgusting than City officials' decisions to deny my CCW permit knowing that their decisions were wrong, is the fact that they rejected several opportunities when I reached out, let me correct that, begged them to work with me in resolving this issue. I asked a police official (Captain Tuck Younis) if we could resolve this matter without me having to hire an attorney and turning this into a "federal case." I pointed out that at that time there had not been any cost to me or the City. He said no. When I asked him if there was anything I could do to resolve this issue without having to hire an attorney, he said no. I was left with no choice but to seek legal representation that cost me several hundred dollars.

City officials later acknowledged that their decisions to deny me a CCW permit were wrong. Yet in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Doyle and the City Attorney's Office wasted several opportunities I provided to settle a claim I made for compensation for the financial loss I suffered when I hired an attorney. This was done in spite of the fact that I said I would swallow my pride and agree not to file a lawsuit against the City for emotional distress, punitive damages and other financial loss. Mr. Doyle rejected these offers that would have cost the City as little as $1,000. Rather, he chose a path that resulted in litigation in federal court in 2006. This litigation has cost the City thousands of dollars. My estimate is that the City's legal costs are in the neighborhood of $200,000. However, the worst part of this fiasco is the criminal misconduct by the City Attorney's Office and the federal courts relative to my lawsuit and the cover-up by Mayor Liccardo, the City Council and other entities of the City. As I stated in one of my prior posts, the decisions of the courts relative to my lawsuit are void judgments; and I will not be voluntarily bound by these void judgments that are tainted by fraud. My case is now pending action by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Again, here is my message to Mayor Liccardo and the City Council: FIRE CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD DOYLE and initiate an investigation into this matter immediately per City policy. If not, it is only going to get worse. City leaders should keep in mind that Mr. Doyle could have gotten the City out of this mess for as little as $1,000, as opposed to, the estimated $200,000 and counting the City has spent on litigation. For additional details, please access the following link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/

The Cover-up of a Cheating Scandal by San Jose city officials and the federal courts - This story is shocking, but true!!

Post 2/23

I started this blog for the purpose of exposing a cheating scandal involving the San Jose City Attorney's Office, the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The San Jose City Attorney's Office engaged in criminal misconduct during litigation of a discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City in federal court in August 2006. At the very least, there is the appearance that several court officials, including two judges, were paid off based on actions they took in my case that were biased in favor of the City. Several City officials including Mayor Liccardo and officials with the US District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are engaged in a cover-up of this scandal. Several current and former City officials appear to have profited financially for their roles in this scandal. As is stated in my blog's title, justice is for sale.

During litigation in my lawsuit, the San Jose City Attorney's Office (the City) and my attorney filed a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of a police administrator from my lawsuit that violated my rights and also committed perjury on two separate occasions. The evidence is indisputable that the police official in question, Tuck Younis, was paid off (quid pro quo) with a promotion from Captain to Assistant Chief (Younis is now Chief of Police of Los Altos, CA) for his perjured testimony. The evidence is compelling that my attorney, Stuart Kirchick, was paid off as well for his participation in the City's fraudulent scheme. After the dismissal of Younis from my lawsuit, the City filed a fabricated motion for summary judgment at the urging of the US District Court. In its motion, the City made false claims that contradict truthful admissions it made in its answer to my complaint for damages. The district court granted the City's motion knowing that the City's claims were false and that its ruling was inconsistent with the facts and law. Therefore, the ruling by law is null and void. When I filed a Rule 60 motion seeking to have the court vacate its illegitimate judgment based on fraud, the court falsified its docket entries by deliberately misstating the grounds for my motion as challenging the "Costs Taxed" awarded to the City. The court held a fraudulent hearing on my motion based on the false docket entries. Prior to the hearing, I was told that there would be no hearing, and that I did not have to appear because my motion would be decided on the "papers." During the hearing, the City was granted a default judgment by way of a "motion to dismiss" by the City because I did not appear after being told there would be no hearing. The verbatim account of the City's motion to dismiss was fraudulently omitted from the transcript and other records of the court, or it was made ex parte (in secret). The City's motion to dismiss is a mystery. The court has refused to provide me details surrounding this mystery motion. After the questionable hearing, the court entered a judgment falsely stating that the court had denied my Rule 60 motion on the merits. The Civil Minutes of the hearing by court clerk Jackie Garcia totally contradict the account of the hearing in the transcript by court reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge. It is if they witnessed two totally different hearings. Ater entering its final judgment, the district court refused to notify me of its ruling causing me to miss the deadline to file an appeal. It was necessary to petition the court for an extension of the deadline, which it did reluctantly. In a ruling dated July 21, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment based on the district court's written order which differs from the default judgment the district court entered during the hearing on my Rule 60 motion. The ruling of the court shows contempt for the truth and the rule of law, and it covers up the bigoted and malicious conduct of San Jose city officials that violated my constitutional rights. 

Further evidence of the district court's contempt for the rule of law is its ruling dismissing my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel by giving preclusive effect to a small claims judgment the City won against me. The ruling is a clear violation of 28 USC Section 1738 (the full faith and credit act) which commands, dictates, requires federal courts to use state court judgments in the exact same manner as courts from the rendering state. Since the small claims judgment is from California, the district court was required to follow the preclusion law of California. Collateral estoppel does not apply to small claims judgments in California because of the informal nature of small claims proceedings. Even if it had been a judgment from a formal proceeding, it still would not meet the requirements for collateral estoppel because there is no record that pinpoints the issue that was "actually litigated" and determined.  Furthermore, there was no litigation at all on the issue I raised in small claims court. The small claims court made an implied finding that it had no authority to grant the compensation I was seeking and ended the proceeding without hearing any testimony. It is not debatable that my lawsuit cannot be precluded on the basis of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel based on the full faith and credit act. The full faith and credit act (28 USC Section 1738) implements the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Because the district court violated the full faith and credit act, its order and the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court's order are unconstitutional and are not enforceable by law. 

The fraud perpetrated by the San Jose City Attorney's Office during the filing and litigation of the City's motion for summary judgment, the flagrant violation of the full faith and credit act by the District Court, and the District Court's fraudulent hearing on my Rule 60 motion for relief is all part of a conspiracy by these officials to obstruct justice. The facts are clear that Mayor Sam Liccardo and the San Jose City Council are involved in this obstruction of justice scandal and its cover-up. The Mayor and City Council failed to respond to an email I sent to each on June 29 referencing this matter. Only one councilmember acknowledged receiving my email but failed to state if the City Council would take any action. I also brought this matter to the attention of Mayor Liccardo with a posting on his facebook page on or about July 12. He has not responded to that posting, which he has now removed. 

Open Letter to San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and the San Jose City Council

Post 1/23

Subject: Open Letter to San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and the San Jose City Council

From: Fred Bates

July 12, 2015

Dear Mayor and City Council,

            I am sure you are aware of my lawsuit against the City that I filed in 2006. As you know, my lawsuit is pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. You are also aware that I have made some very serious accusations of criminal misconduct against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and three former police administrators, as well as, several federal court officials relative to my lawsuit. The purpose of this letter is to make one last appeal for an investigation into this matter based on the conduct of the City Attorney’s Office and other entities of the City.

            The San Jose City Attorney’s Office under the leadership of Richard Doyle has been run like a criminal enterprise. That is based on the criminal acts that have been committed in my case alone. Misconduct by the City Attorney’s Office is no secret. In 2006, Mercury News reporter Scott Herhold wrote an article asking City Attorney Richard Doyle to resign. Mr. Herhold implied that the City Attorney had used unethical tactics during litigation. Mr. Herhold also stated that poor judgment by Mr. Doyle to push bad cases and his refusal to settle weak ones had cost the City millions of dollars. My case is an example of very poor judgment by the City Attorney. He was given several opportunities to resolve my case without cost to the City, but he refused to do so. So far, my case has cost taxpayers thousands of dollars. It is likely to cost several thousands more before there is a resolution. Mr. Herhold stated that the City Attorney has lived by the sword and that no one should be shocked if he dies by it. That day has come. The fact that Mr. Doyle must go should not be open for debate. It should be noted that the City Manager’s Office, the City Clerk’s Office and the Ethics Commission also engaged in serious misconduct in this matter.

            The response by City leaders to this misconduct has been nothing short of disgraceful because of its cover-up. The cover-up is proof that there are two levels of accountability for City officials. In an article on March 18, 2015, the San Jose Inside reported that retiring Independent Police Auditor Ladoris Cordell had brought “unprecedented accountability” to the City’s police department. During the same five years Judge Cordell has been IPA, I have filed several complaint letters with former mayor Chuck Reed, Mayor Liccardo, as well as, with current and former council members against the City Attorney’s Office for very serious misconduct. I only received one response from Mr. Reed’s office that basically stated my letter was received. So far, there has not been an investigation into this matter at any level. While there has been unprecedented accountability brought to the police department, there have been an unprecedented lack of accountability on the part of City leaders and other high ranking City officials.

            I remind Mayor Liccardo and Vice Mayor Herrera that they supported the IPA’s recommendation that the police department should adopt a no-tolerance policy for untruthful officers, saying that the police department should update the duty manual to make lying during an investigation automatic cause for termination. This hard-line stance against lying should also be taken against other entities of the City that made flagrantly false statements relative to this matter, particularly the City Attorney’s Office. The City Attorney’s Office filed a summary judgment motion relative to my lawsuit that was totally fabricated. The summary judgment motion was facilitated by a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of a police official that clearly violated my rights. These are the type of unethical tactics by City Attorney Richard Doyle that Mr. Herhold seemed to refer to in his article. This is all the more reason that Mr. Doyle should suffer the same fate as former City Manager Ed Shikada and former Deputy City Manager Alex Gurza. The evidence is indisputable that Mr. Gurza played a significant role in the cover up of this scandal. It is high time for an open and transparent investigation into this very serious misconduct as is required by the City’s Code of Ethics. A copy of the City’s Code of Ethics can be viewed on the City’s official website. 

            I am also sure you are aware of my motion to vacate the judgment of the district court accompanying my appeal. It should be a no-brainer for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant my motion because the City Attorney’s Office has admitted it presented false information to the courts; and the US District Court has admitted its judgment is incorrect relative to my Rule 60 motion that is the basis of my appeal. Now is the time for the outrageous lies and cover-up to end. You can access my group facebook page at this link https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/ for additional details. 

                                                                                                         Sincerely,

                                                                                                         Fred Bates