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:

www.cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.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.