A Missed Opportunity - Donald Trump's Attack On Judge Curiel

Post 9/23

I think it is safe to say that most people in this country have heard about Donald Trump's recent media meltdown attacking Judge Gonzalo Curiel. Judge Curiel is a US District Court Judge presiding over a lawsuit involving, the now defunct, Trump University. As we all know, Mr. Trump said that Judge Curiel made rulings that were biased against him because of Judge Curiel's "Mexican" heritage. Mr. Trump did not provide a single piece of evidence to support his allegation. Rightfully so, there has been a great deal of criticism of Mr. Trump for his clearly racist statements. The purpose of this post is not to pile on with more criticism of Mr. Trump. The purpose of this post is to focus on the issue that has been lost in all of this madness, the very real issue of bias by federal judges in this country, particularly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and district courts within the circuit. It just so happens that Judge Curiel is assigned to a district court within the Ninth Circuit. I do not know anything about Judge Curiel or the lawsuit involving Trump University. It is also not my intent to imply that Judge Curiel is biased or corrupt. I only want to emphasize what has been the focus of this blog. Nearly all of my posts in this blog, which began in July 2015, have been devoted to corruption and bias in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court - San Jose Division relative to a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose. What pisses me off greatly is all of the high profile politicians that were so quick to come to the defense of Judge Curiel after Mr. Trump made his unfortunate comments. Yet, they have done absolutely nothing in defense of average citizens who have been the victim of bias and corruption at the hands of the lower federal courts. The list of those criticizing Mr. Trump include, VP Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren from the Democrat side; Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on the Republican side, just to name a few. However, the list is much longer than these four. I only mention them because they were the first to come to mind. But my point is that politicians, as well as pundits, that stood up in defense of Judge Curiel missed a great opportunity to address a real problem with our federal courts. This was not an oversight. This was intentional and political. It is no secret that there is corruption and cheating in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose. Just as I stated in my prior posts, the courts in my case committed flagrant violations of the Constitution and several federal statutes. Politicians have turned a wilful blind eye to this issue rather than address it head-on and risk a total collapse of our judicial system. Americans ought to know that the politicians who were so quick to criticize Donald Trump have no courage to stand up for their basic rights or protect and uphold the Constitution as they sweared to do under oath. When it comes to complaints against judges, politicians run and hide behind the separation of powers doctrine and the need for an independent judiciary. While an independnet judiciary is necessary for government to function properly, it does not mean that judges have the right to base their rulings on their subjective feelings and not on the rule of law, just as many seem to be doing. Complaints I made to the FBI, the US Attorney's Office, the House Judiciary Committee, the California Attorney General's Office, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury relative to criminal misconduct by federal court officials and San Jose city officials during the litigation of my lawsuit have not resuled in an investigation, not even an interview, even though the evidence of misconduct is indisputable and overwhelming. In addition to this blog, you can view my facebook page listed below for more details.

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

THE MATTER OF OFFICER PHIL WHITE'S TWEETS AND THE HYPOCRISY OF SAN JOSE MAYOR SAM LICCARDO

Post 8/23

If you are a resident of San Jose California, you might know about the scandal involving some controversial tweets by San Jose police officer Phil White in response to the Black Lives Matter movement. Many activists and City officials interpret the tweets as threatening and perhaps racist. Officer White was fired from the police department after an uproar by several community members last July. Recently, Officer White was reinstated  as a result of arbitration. Of course, many in the local media have covered this matter. However, my post refers to two recent articles by a local Metro newspaper, San Jose Inside (SJI). Here are the links for the two articles so you can judge the matter for youself:

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/02/26/sjpds-white-privilege-problem/

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/03/08/activists-urge-council-to-appeal-officer-whites-reinstatement/

The purpose of this post is to address the hypocrisy of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and San Jose Inside. They have been quick to condemn  Officer White for his tweets. They supported Officer White's firing, and they oppose his reinstatement. Yet, for the past five plus years, Mayor Liccardo and the San Jose City Council have refused to initiate an investigation into my discrimination complaints against the San Jose City Attorney's Office. SJI has refused to do a story on my case, even though I presented them with indisputable evidence of criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials and the federal courts. Here is a comment I posted in reply to SJI's article regarding Officer White's reinstatement. My comment was posted briefly but was removed. So far, I can't re-post it. Therefore, I am posting it here:

Comment:

Mayor Liccardo coming out against Officer Phil White getting his job back is no surprise. It was predictable. All of this phony concern about White’s tweets is laughable. This is political grandstanding at its worst, apparently an attempt to show that the City does not tolerate bias and racism. Which is not true. Mayor Liccardo and the City Council have a lot more to worry about than those tweets by Officer White. They have their own issues with discrimination, as well as, public corruption. The NAACP and other community activists have every right to be critical of White’s tweets. But, it they are serious about issues related to discrimination against blacks/African Americans, I suggest that they ask the Mayor and City Council to respond publicly to the lawsuits I filed against the City for discrimination related to my disability retirement from the police department.  There has been a criminal cover-up of this matter by the Mayor and other top city officials, with help from the federal courts. It is quite clear that the City has a double standard when it comes to enforcing its policies relating to discrimination and the City’s Code of Ethics. Rank and file police officers are held to a higher standard than top city officials. Over the last five years, I filed numerous complaints with the top city officials against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and three former police administrators for discrimination and criminal misconduct relative to a lawsuit I filed against the City. Not a single one of my complaints have been investigated, as is mandated by city policy. This scandal with the tweets by Officer White pales in comparison with the Bull Connor like manner in which I have been treated by Mayor Liccardo, the City Council and several other City officials. The mistreatment I endured was a flagrant violation of my constitutional rights, and was nothing more than a high-tech lynching. SJI and the rest of the local media lap dogs for the City should be ashamed for not reporting my story. Apparently they are okay with City officials discriminating against a black police officer. But any opportunity to disingenuously portray a police officer as being a racist or violating a person’s rights, they are all over it. So who is more unfit for their job, Officer White or Mayor Liccardo and the City Council? If you want to read about a real scandal, check out the following links: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/

www.opnlttr.com/letter/open-letter-san-jose-mayor-sam-licardo-and-city-council

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

A new lawsuit I recently filed against Mayor Liccardo, the City Council and the City of San Jose in US District Court has not yet been included in the above links. The case number is 15-cv-5729-EJD. You can look it up in PACER.

Fred Bates – retired sergeant, SJPD

 

MESSAGE TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR MANDATE!

Post 7/23

In my post on October 19, 2015, I stated that there was a constitutional crisis in America because of the flagrant disregard for the Constitution by many of our federal courts. I singled out the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as an example because of an appeal I filed with the court. My appeal was denied, therefore, I filed a petition for a rehearing hoping that the court would do the right thing and reverse its decision. In my last post on November 5, 2015, I posted a letter I sent to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explaining that the decision denying my appeal was in violation of the Constitution; therefore, it is a void judgment. In the two posts referred to above, I explained that I am under no obligation to comply with a void judgment. A void judgment is a legal nothing.

Here is the latest update on my case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals went against my advisement and their better judgment and denied my petition for a rehearing and issued its mandate on December 30, 2015, even though it is indisputable that the mandate is void and unenforceable by law. Obviously, there is no rule of law in this country. Well here is my message to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the panel of judges (Canby, Bea and Murguia) that decided my appeal:

Your mandate has no legitimacy whatsoever. It is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the cheating scandal I am exposing in this blog. I have no intentions of complying with it or any orders pursuant to it. You will have to hold me in contempt! And if you do decide to go that route, I can assure you that there will be lawful consequences. Recall your mandate or there will be a showdown.

Please read my prior posts and access my my group facebook page at this link https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/ for details about this scandal.

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 relinquishing 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/