As many of you know, FBI Director Chistopher Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee on 12/7/17 amid allegations by President Trump that the FBI's reputation was in "tatters," and suggestions that the FBI was corrupt based on how it handled the Clinton email scandal vs. how it is handling the Trump-Russia collusion scandal. It is clear that many, that is, Republicans believe that the FBI is being a lot more aggressive in its approach to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, whereas the FBI bent over backwards to exonerate Clinton during the email scandal. It is amazing how this hearing was passed off as being a sincere attempt to search for the truth about the integrity of the FBI. Just as all public hearings by Congress, this hearing was nothing more than a spectacle by elitist government officials with the clear purpose of deceiving the American people. Director Wray stauchly defended the FBI by suggesting that all investigations by the FBI are not influenced by politics and that the men and women of the FBI are honest and decent and have a great deal of integrity. Mr. Wray disputed the President's claim that the FBI's reputation is in "tatters" stating that the FBI is highly respected by the various law enforcement agencies throughout this country and several other countries around the world. While I believe much of what Mr. Wray said is true, I also believe that he was being deceptive because clearly there are some problems in the FBI with integrity and corruption. My feelings on the FBI are addressed in my post on 12/7/17.
While the FBI is under assault becuase of possible corruption and questions about its integrity by the House Judiciary Committee, there are also questions about the integrity of the Judiciary Committee itself. The Judiciary Committee's reputation is not much better than that of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Just as I filed public corruption complaints with the FBI and Justice Department against officials with the federal courts and the City of San Jose, I filed complaints with the House Judiciary Committee and its current chairman and the prior chairman. So far, I have received no response from the Judiciary Committee or Chairman Bob Goodlatte. As I have pointed out several times in prior posts, the evidence of collusion and obstruction of justice by San Jose city officials and officials with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US District Court in San Jose is indisputable and overwhelming. The fact that there has been no inquiry into this scandal by the Judiciary Committee shows that the Committee has a problem with corruption and integrity just as the FBI and Department of Justice. Clearly there is a concerted effort by government to cover up this scandal that has undermined our democracy far more than Russia's apparent attempt to influence the past presidential election. Here is a copy of my most recent complaints with the Judiciary Committee:
Frederick Bates
Folsom,
CA 95630
(408)--------------
July
24, 2017
U.S.
House of Representatives – Committee on the Judiciary
2138
Rayburn House Office Building
Washington,
D.C. 20515
Re:
Letter to the Department of Justice Regarding Public Corruption Complaint
Dear
Members of the Judiciary Committee:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter and
several documents I sent to the Department of Justice requesting an investigation
into my public corruption complaint against several San Jose city officials,
officials with the U.S. District Court – San Jose Division, and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals relative to two lawsuits I filed against the City of
San Jose for violating my civil rights. My lawsuits resulted after I was denied
a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the City’s police
force. It should be noted that I also made complaints of public corruption against
San Jose city officials and federal court officials in letters to the full Judiciary
Committee, to the former chairman (Congressman Lamar Smith) and the current
chairman (Congressman Bob Goodlatte ) in June 2011, March 2012, May 2014, and
December 2014. It appears that no action was taken by the Judiciary Committee
in response to my letters.
In my prior letters, as well as my
letter to the Department of Justice, I make some very serious allegations of criminal
misconduct surrounding the litigation of my lawsuits against the City of San
Jose. Among the criminal acts I allege relative to my first lawsuit are that
San Jose city officials and district court officials conspired to obstruct
justice with the City’s filing of a fabricated motion for summary judgment
facilitated by a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of a defendant. I also
alleged that district court officials falsified official court records, staged
a phony hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed in February 2013, then fabricated a
transcript that is entered in the record as an official government document.
There is no credible evidence that a hearing actually took place. I was informed
by a court official that there would be no hearing and that the court would render
its decision based on the papers filed. Additionally, the district court violated
the Full Faith and Credit Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738) in giving preclusive
effect to a small claims judgment the City relied upon for collateral estoppel.
As to my second lawsuit, I alleged that San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and members
of the San Jose City Council conspired to obstruct justice by refusing to
conduct an investigation into my discrimination and misconduct complaints
against the City Attorney’s Office as is mandated by City policy and state law.
I also alleged that U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins obstructed justice
and denied me due process with his ruling dismissing my second lawsuit without
leave to amend, thereby, violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and
case law. Judge Cousins also denied my motion for relief from judgment. Many of
the criminal acts I allege against the above officials are supported by
evidence that is indisputable and overwhelming.
Page
2
Particularly
troubling is the rulings of the courts as they relate to issue preclusion and
the stipulation of dismissal of a defendant. It is unarguable that federal courts
have no discretion when determining the preclusive effect of a state court
judgment based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit Act) and
well settled precedent. The same applies to a stipulation of dismissal of a
defendant under FRCP 41. Yet, the courts failed to follow the Full Faith and
Credit Act by giving preclusive effect to the small claims judgment referred to
above based on issue preclusion. The Full Faith and Credit Act is a command by Congress
to the federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to state court
judgments as would a court in the rendering state, no more and no less. The
Full Faith and Credit Act also implements Article IV, Section 1 of the
Constitution. The small claims judgment in question in this matter is from
California. In California, issue preclusion does not apply to small claims
judgments, unless the record is sufficiently clear that the issue sought to be
foreclosed upon was litigated and determined. There is absolutely no record at
all from the Small Claims Court. Furthermore, there was no litigation of the
issue I raised during the proceedings in my small claims action against the
City of San Jose. The Small Claims Court commissioner made an immediate ruling
that he had no authority to grant the compensation I was seeking, implying that
my case was filed in the wrong court. It is indisputable that the judgment of
the court as it relates to issue preclusion is void. Yet, the courts have
stubbornly resisted my efforts to have the judgment reversed through several
letters and motions. The same goes for the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal
of the defendant that I did not authorize. FRCP 41 and case law leaves no doubt
that only I, as the plaintiff, had the right to dismiss the defendant in my
lawsuit. The courts have simply made a conscious and calculated decision to
defy the authority of Congress by failing to follow Section 1738 and FRCP 41. This
is a direct attack on our Constitution which provides for co-equal branches of
government based on the separation of powers doctrine. The independence with
which courts are allowed to operate does not allow them to disregard laws
passed by Congress.
In
our democracy, it is imperative that disputes between citizens and the
government be settled on a level playing field in the courts. In Marshall v.
Jerrico, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
entitles a party in a lawsuit to a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested
in both civil and criminal cases. The Supreme Court goes on to state that it
guards the neutrality requirement jealously. In the impeachment proceedings of
district court judge Thomas Porteous Jr., Congressman Adam Schiff stated that
litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and
impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Not only were the
judges in my cases biased, they made no attempt at all to avoid the appearance
of impropriety. In the words of one court, justice ought to look like justice.
What the courts did in my cases does not look like justice. It looks like cheating,
because it is cheating. Additionally, many of the rulings by the courts were
meant to punish me for exercising my right to free speech because of my social
media activity condemning San Jose city officials and the federal courts for
their misconduct as described above. The right to free speech has also been
jealously guarded by the Supreme Court.
Being
that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the lower federal courts, I
respectfully request that an investigation be conducted into this matter based
on the above allegations and based on the letter and documents I sent to the
Department of Justice. The facts and evidence presented to the Department of
Justice clearly shows that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S.
District Court, in collusion with San Jose city officials, committed
Page
3
several
crimes relating to public corruption, and that the courts fixed every decision
in my lawsuits. A rigged court system, as is the case here, undermines our
democracy just as the Russian interference into the past presidential election.
It is unmistakable that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division are
rogue courts that operate beyond the independence granted to them by the
Constitution based on separation of powers.
I
further request that the Judiciary Committee contact me at the above address or
by phone and inform me of what action the Committee will take relative to this
matter. If I do not receive a response, I will assume that the Judiciary
Committee has again not taken me serious. I will then be forced to seek a just
resolution through other reasonable means that will in all likelihood lead to a
dramatic showdown with the courts. This could include acts of civil
disobedience.
Additional
information that should greatly assist this Committee can be found at the
following links:
Sincerely,
Frederick
Bates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Bates
Folsom,
CA 95630
(408)-------------
August
3, 2017
Congressman
Bob Goodlatte
2309
Rayburn HOB
Washington,
D.C. 20515
Re:
Public Corruption Complaint
Dear
Congressman Goodlatte,
Enclosed
are copies of letters and documents I sent to the Judiciary Committee, the
Department of Justice and FBI making a complaint of public corruption against
several San Jose city officials, and officials with the US District Court for
the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals relative to two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose.
You might remember that in May 2014 I brought to your attention a similar
complaint I made with the FBI. Apparently no investigation or inquiry was made
into my May 2014 complaint, even though; I presented facts and evidence to
support my claims.
Being that you are the Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, I respectfully request that you bring this matter
before the entire Committee for review. Please be aware that I have made
several attempts to resolve this matter with the courts without any success.
From the letters and documents enclosed, I believe you will find that the
evidence of public corruption on the part of San Jose city officials and the
courts is compelling and warrants an inquiry. It is not my intent that the
Committee act as an adjunct court of appeals. Rather, I am asking the Committee
to exercise its oversight powers to address the criminal misconduct of the
courts and the courts’ failure to follow mandatory federal laws limiting their
discretion. Two such laws are 28 USC Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit
Act) and FRCP 41 which governs a stipulation of dismissal.
The ethical failure of the courts
and the City of San Jose in this matter represent an egregious breach of the
public trust that undermines the judicial process and our democracy. It is clear
that the courts and San Jose city officials are now in collusion in order to
cover up this scandal. Since it is indisputable that the judgments of the
courts are void based on their violation of the Full Faith and Credit Act and
FRCP 41, I will in no way comply with them. The only outcome to this matter that
I will accept is that the courts reverse their void judgments. I will never
surrender my position on this issue. It is my hope that this Committee’s
intervention will result in the fair and lawful outcome I seek. I look forward
to hearing from you and the Committee in regards to this matter.
Sincerely
yours,
Frederick
Bates
