The Corollary to Military Members Right to Refuse Unlawful Orders is Litigants Right to Refuse Unlawful Orders and Judgments by Federal Judges

April 21, 2026 - By Fred Bates

Here's something for the courts to think about

    In November 2025, six Democratic Members of Congress (Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly; Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow) all with backgrounds in the military or national security released a video urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders. In their message, the lawmakers stressed that military members' oath is to the Constitution and not to any leader, namely President Donald J. Trump. The six lawmakers stated that military members have a duty and obligation to refuse unlawful orders and that they must refuse unlawful orders. However, the six lawmakers did not identify a single order from President Trump to the military that they believed was unlawful because it violated the Constitution or any statutory law passed by Congress. The lawmakers' message to military members is technically correct but lacks sufficient guidance on how to determine what is an unlawful order from one that is controversial, but otherwise lawful. This was clearly a partisan stunt, but it brings up an important corollary. Do litigants in federal court have the same right to refuse patently unlawful orders and judgments by judges? The answer is a resounding YES! I bring up this question because of a situation I am dealing with based on a racial and disability discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006 in the US District Court in San Jose.

    In their rulings in my lawsuit, judges in the US District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals knowingly and intentionally violated the Constitution, federal statutory law, the precedent of the US Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when dismissing my lawsuit based on collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion. The City of San Jose claimed a defense of collateral estoppel as to my claim against the City based on a judgment the City won against me in small claims court in California. Collateral estoppel is commonly referred to as issue preclusion. It means that an issue actually litigated and decided in a prior lawsuit cannot be litigated in a subsequent lawsuit. But there are rules that federal courts must follow when applying collateral estoppel or issue preclusion to judgments rendered in a state court. Federal courts must follow the preclusion law of the state that rendered the judgment. This requirement is mandated by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that is implemented by the full faith and credit act passed by Congress, 28 USC Section 1738. There is also Supreme Court precedent and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent that apply in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose that further invalidates the judgments of the courts' dismissal of my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. Supreme Court precedent states that 28 USC Section 1738 is a command by Congress to federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to a state court judgment as would the courts in the state where the judgment was rendered. Ninth Court of Appeals' precedent states the burden is on the party [the City of San Jose] asserting collateral estoppel to produce a record that pinpoints what was litigated and decide in the state court; and that if there is no record that pinpoints what was litigated and decided, the court will not consider collateral estoppel on appeal. 

    In the small claims case that the City won against me, there was no actual litigation and the City presented no record that pinpoints what was litigated and decided in the small claims court. For these two reasons alone, the City's collateral defense has no merit, not only under California preclusion law, but under federal preclusion law as well. Another, perhaps more important reason that the City's collateral estoppel defense has no merit is that under California's preclusion law judgments rendered in small claims court are not given collateral estoppel or preclusive effect because of the informal nature of small claims proceedings. Therefore, federal courts cannot give preclusive effect to judgments rendered in small claims courts in California for this reason as well. It is unmistakable that the judgments of the federal courts dismissing my lawsuit against the City of San Jose violates the Constitution, federal statute 28 USC Section 1738, precedent of Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judgments are not only unlawful but are not enforceable. Yet, the courts refuse to vacate the clearly erroneous and unlawful judgments in my lawsuit against the City. This is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice. 

    The corollary to Members of Congress' proclamation that military members have a duty and obligation to refuse unlawful orders and that they must refuse unlawful orders is that I have the same duty and obligation to refuse the unlawful judgments and orders of the courts in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose. Not only do I refuse the unlawful judgments and orders of the courts, but I also reject them in their entirety.  Long before the six Members of Congress issued their proclamation to military members declaring that they are obligated to refuse unlawful orders and that they must refuse unlawful orders, I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2015 stating that I would not obey its unlawful mandate in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose. So far, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refuse to vacate the unlawful judgments. So, this brings up the problem of how do you force a federal court to reverse or vacate a judgment that is clearly unlawful when it refuses to do so? At some point is force and violence justified? Something for the courts to think about. Below are links to posts pertaining to the letter I sent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a link to a complaint report I submitted to the Supreme Court and Congress:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: MESSAGE TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR MANDATE!

https://corruptioninourfederalcourts.com/

Message to the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL!

Chief Justice Roberts 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary - Liar! Liar! Robe on Fire

 By Fred Bates - March 31, 2026

Chief Justice Roberts continues to gaslight Americans about our Judiciary's respect for the rule of law

    In his 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts provides historical facts regarding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most important documents in our nation's history. As always in his Year End Reports and most of his public comments, Chief Justice Roberts points out that our form of government established by the Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. This assures that there is no congressional oversight of decisions by federal judges in the cases that come before them. The independent judiciary provided for by the Constitution serves as a "counter-majoritarian" check on the executive and legislative branches of government according to Chief Justice Roberts.

    My problem with Chief Justice Roberts's 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary is not about his history lesson relative to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the independence of the Judiciary. My problem is comments Chief Justice Roberts made at the end of the report. He commented that the members of the "Third Branch," (the Courts) must continue to decide the cases before us according to our oath, doing equal right to the poor and to the rich, and performing all our duties faithfully and impartially under the Constitution and laws of the United States. He stated that every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken.

    Chief Justice Robert is an intellectually dishonest propagandist. He is well aware that many of the judges in our lower federal courts are corrupt and make decisions that lack impartiality and disregards the Constitution and the laws of the United States, totally inconsistent with the oaths they took. His claim that Americans can have assurance that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution remain firm and unshaken is an example of gaslighting, when in reality the Declaration of Independence and Constitution assure no freedom or justice because of widespread corruption in our judicial system. Chief Justice Roberts also offered praise for judges, court staff, and other judicial branch personnel throughout the "Nation" for their commitment to public service and their dedication to upholding the rule of law.

    Chief Justice Roberts is well aware that his comments that Americans can have confidence and assurance in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as his praise of members of the Judiciary for upholding the rule of law lacks credibility and sincerity. A report I submitted to Chief Justice Roberts and the Justices of the Supreme Court in March 2025 undermines the above comments of Chief Justice Robert's in his 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary. Chief Justice Roberts is a liar, and his robe is on fire! He is aware, just as the other Justices of the Supreme Court, that many of our lower federal court judges and court personnel have nothing but disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law. They only care about one thing. That is disposing of cases by any means, whether it be fraud or violations of the law and precedent. Below is the link to my website containing the report I submitted to Chief Justice Roberts and the other Justices of the Supreme Court:

https://corruptioninourfederalcourts.com/

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

March 14, 2025 - By Fred Bates

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

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

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

https://corruptioninourfederalcourts.com/

    This report is the basis for my Manifesto: 

MANIFESTO OF FRED BATES 

 I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL 

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

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

Chief Justice Roberts Makes Misleading Claim About the Threat to Judicial Independence

 Response to Chief Justice Roberts 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary

January 7, 2025 - By Fred Bates

    In his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts gave a historical background on the evolution of our independent federal judiciary. Roberts credits former Chief Justice Rehnquist as saying that the independent judiciary, established by Article III of the US Constitution, is the crown jewels of our system of government. Roberts also credited Chief Justice Rehnquist with articulating in his 2004 Year End Report that the Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law. Roberts also stated in his report that Justice Kennedy had commented that judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please but is conferred so judges can do what they must.

    While recognizing that the First Amendment protect criticism of judicial decisions, Chief Justice Roberts expressed concern about uninformed criticisms and illegitimate activity that he believes threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. 

    As to his concerns, every sane person is going to agree that violence and intimidation directed at judges is unacceptable. And that those perpetrating violence or intimidation against a judge or their family should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Chief Justice Roberts concern that disinformation or the deliberate distortion of the factual or legal basis for a ruling can undermine confidence in the court system has some credibility. The final threat to judicial independence as stated by Roberts is the defiance of lawfully entered judgments by courts of competent jurisdiction. Certainly, from a theoretical standpoint the defiance of a judgement by the executive or legislative branches of government challenges the independence of the judiciary based on the separation of powers doctrine. 

    The problem with Chief Justice Roberts' 2024 Year End Report is that it exaggerates the threat to judicial independence. Chief Justice Roberts is well aware that the executive and legislative branches of government face the same threats to their independence by violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of their lawful authority just as the judiciary. Our three branches of government will not cease to function as independent co-equal entities as provided for by our Constitution because of occasional threats from disenchanted parties. We have laws and law enforcement agencies to deal with threats to government officials. Our robust freedom of speech and press rights under the First Amendment is certainly capable of providing a counter to disinformation. Also, each branch of government has powers to hold accountable those that openly defy their lawful authority. 

   Chief Justice Roberts has made it a practice of defending the independence of the federal judiciary as being important to democracy. However, his concern about the threat to judicial independence deflects attention away from the dysfunction and corruption in our federal courts that poses the greater threat to democracy and the rule of law. Not only has judicial independence not been significantly threatened as Chief Justice Roberts claim, but judicial independence has been a shield that protects the judiciary from badly needed oversight by the executive and legislative branches of government. Judicial independence has benefitted judges by allowing them to disregard the rule of law and do as they please, and not as they must, contradicting the purpose of judicial independence as stated by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy according to Chief Justice Roberts in his 2024 Year End Report. 

    This blog has been dedicated to exposing corruption in the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination in 2006. I am black/African American. Judges from both courts did as they please by entering judgments that disregarded the rule of law and were biased in favor of the City. It is unmistakable that corrupt judges are a greater threat to an independent judiciary than violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.