You might be aware of President Trump's tweet yesterday (7-11-18) that goes like this:
As I head out to a very important NATO meeting, I see that FBI Lover/ Agent Lisa Page is dodging a Subpoena & is refusing to show up and testify. What can she possibly say about her statements and lies. So much corruption on the other side. Where is the Attorney General?
Well Mr. President, I have been asking that same question about AG Sessions for about a year since I filed a public corruption complaint with him against several San Jose city officials and officials with the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2017 for criminal misconduct committed during the litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination. I also filed letters with the AG in October 2017 and April 2018. Among the criminal acts committed by these officials were conspiracy, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, perjury, bribery and fraud. These are only some of the crimes that were committed. There were many others that are too numerous to mention here. What is so disgusting about this scandal is that much of the misconduct committed by these officials is to cover up racism and bigotry by San Jose city officials, and more disturbing than that, to cover up an elaborate case-fixing scheme by the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This scandal has caused more harm to our institutions of government, particularly the judiciary, than an other scandal in modern history. The officials involved have absolute disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law. Just as you have stated on prior occasions Mr. President, the courts are rigged. It is absolutely shocking that there has not been an investigation initiated into this matter by the DOJ or the FBI. So Mr. President when you do finally track down the Attorney General, as I am sure you will, would you please take up this issue with him? Copies of the letters I filed with AG Sessions are below:
Frederick Bates
-----------------
Folsom,
CA 95630
(408) -------------
July
24, 2017
U.S.
Department of Justice
950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington,
DC 20530-0001
Re:
Public Corruption Complaint
To
Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to
request an investigation into my complaint of public corruption against
officials of the City of San Jose, the U.S. 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 in August 2006
and December 2015 for violating my civil rights. My first lawsuit resulted
after I was unlawfully denied a CCW permit following my medical disability
retirement from the San Jose Police Department. My second lawsuit resulted
after San Jose city officials refused to investigate my discrimination and
misconduct complaints against the City Attorney’s Office and three police
administrators relative to the denial of my CCW permit.
My allegation of public corruption against
San Jose city officials relating to my first lawsuit is in regards to a
stipulation of dismissal, the depositions of two police officials, and a motion
for summary judgment filed by the City of San Jose. As to the stipulation of
dismissal, San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora
Frimann, and former Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson conspired with my
former attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to obstruct justice by stipulating to the
dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis without my knowledge or consent, then
misrepresented to the court that I had agreed to the dismissal. The dismissal
provided me no benefit whatsoever, and the clear purpose of the dismissal of
Younis was to sabotage my case because the evidence is incontrovertible that
Younis violated my constitutional rights. I have evidence strongly suggesting
that the dismissal of Younis resulted from a quid pro quo arrangement between
Kirchick and the San Jose City Attorney’s Office. The crimes implicated are
conspiracy, obstruction of justice, honest services fraud and bribery.
As to the depositions of the two police
officials, City Attorney Richard Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora Frimann, former
Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson, former Chief of Police Robert Davis, former
Assistant Chief of Police Tuck Younis and former Deputy Chief of Police Adonna
Amoroso conspired to present false testimony under oath in the depositions of
Younis and Amoroso in June 2007. Younis and Amoroso did, in fact, commit
perjury in their depositions. Several perjured statements from the depositions
of Younis and Amoroso were used by Doyle, Frimann and Dodson in support of the
City’s motion for summary judgment which was filed with the clear intent of
perpetrating fraud on the court. The district court granted the City’s summary
judgment motion, even though it is a total hoax based on a false premise and
the
Page
2
perjured
testimony of Younis and Amoroso. I have evidence to present proving that there
was a quid pro quo between Younis and San Jose city officials for his perjured
testimony. The crimes implicated are conspiracy, subornation of perjury and
perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice.
My allegation of public corruption
against officials of the United States District Court relate to a scheme by
court officials to conduct a fake hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed in
February 2013 seeking relief from the order granting the City’s motion for
summary judgment.
In
order to carry out this scheme, Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia and another
court official (initials “bw”) falsified docket entries by mischaracterizing my
motion as pertaining to “costs taxed.” My motion had nothing to do with “costs
taxed.” The basis for my motion was that attorneys for the City of San Jose
perpetrated fraud on the court with the filing of the City’s fabricated motion
for summary judgment; and on the failure of the courts to follow 28 U.S.C.
Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit Act) in their application of collateral
estoppel or issue preclusion to a small claims court judgment relied upon by
the City.
The
hearing on my Rule 60 motion was held on April 26, 2013 in front of Judge
Ronald M. Whyte. It is clear that the hearing was a total sham because I was
advised weeks earlier by Court Clerk Cita Escolano that no hearing would be
held on my motion. Escolano stated that my motion would be decided on the
papers submitted; and that the decision of the court would be sent to my
residence. Escolano also informed me that I did not have to appear in court on
the April 26, 2013 hearing date. I have a witness that will corroborate these
claims. Based on the instructions of Escolano, I did not appear for the
hearing.
According to the transcript of Court
Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, the court disposed of my Rule 60 motion during
the hearing by granting the City’s “motion to dismiss” made by Deputy San Jose
City Attorney Richard North because I failed to appear. However, no word for
word account of the motion to dismiss by the City appears in the transcript or
anywhere in the record. The City’s motion to dismiss is a mystery. It appears
that the City’s mystery motion to dismiss was either intentionally omitted from
the official transcript or it was made ex parte. Further confusing the issue is
the fact that the Civil Minutes of Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia contradicts
the official transcript of Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge. The Civil
Minutes shows that the court made a ruling during the hearing denying my motion
by finding that it was untimely and that no evidence was presented to support
my theories for relief. While there is uncertainty as to what happened during
the hearing, there is no uncertainty that the hearing and the judgment on my
motion, that is biased in favor of the City of San Jose, was rigged as a result
of a conspiracy involving Judge Whyte, Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia, Court
Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, Court Clerk Cita Escolano, and San Jose Deputy City
Attorney Richard North. The crimes implicated as to these officials are
conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction of justice.
It should be noted that I filed two
additional Rule 60 motions in September 2013 and May 2016 also seeking relief
from the judgment in my first lawsuit on the basis of the fraudulent
stipulation of dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis and on the courts’
misapplication of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. Even though relief
was mandatory based on the courts’ lack of discretion as it relates to these
two issues, my motions were denied by the district court just as my first Rule
60 motion filed in February 2013.
My
allegation of public corruption against San Jose city officials also pertains
to a vast conspiracy to cover up this public corruption scandal. It is
undeniable that current and former San Jose city officials refused to
investigate discrimination and criminal misconduct complaints I
Page
3
filed
against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and former police officials Davis,
Younis and Amoroso relative to the denial of my CCW privileges. Former City
officials I filed complaints with include Mayor Chuck Reed and the City Council
in 2010. My most recent complaints against the City Attorney’s Office were
filed with current San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo and members of the San Jose City
Council in June 2015 and October 2015. The refusal of City officials to
investigate my discrimination and misconduct complaints is clear evidence of a
cover-up. The City’s failure to investigate my complaints formed the basis of
my second lawsuit filed in December 2015. San Jose city policy and California
law mandates that an investigation be conducted into discrimination complaints.
It
is also clear that there is a vast conspiracy by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals to cover up this scandal and to punish me for exercising my
right to free speech with their biased and corrupt rulings in my two lawsuits.
It is indisputable that all of the rulings of the district court relative to my
first lawsuit are void judgments because, as noted above, the court did not
follow the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Act by failing to follow
California preclusion law in giving preclusive effect to a small claims
judgment from California. The district court also failed to follow the
requirements of FRCP 41 by permitting the San Jose City Attorney’s Office and
my former attorney to stipulate to the dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis
without my knowledge or consent, in clear violation of my absolute right as the
plaintiff.
As to my second lawsuit, Magistrate
Judge Nathanael Cousins dismissed by complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) even
though, the precedent he cited as authority unequivocally proves the claims in
my complaint. Judge Cousins also did not allow me the opportunity to amend my
complaint as is required by FRCP 15(a), and he denied my Rule 60 motion seeking
relief from his clearly erroneous judgment. Judge Cousins’ rulings show a
willful and wanton disregard for my due process rights and are evidence that he
is part of the courts’ conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Evidence of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals’ participation in the cover up of this scandal is compelling. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to take action on motions and letters I
filed in 2010, 2011 and 2012 seeking to vacate the orders of the Ninth Circuit
Court that affirms the clearly erroneous judgments of the district court in my
first lawsuit. No reasonable explanation was given for the court’s lack of
action. Further evidence of a cover-up by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is
that former Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski failed to take action on a complaint
I filed in May 2010 against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office. Judge Kozinski
responded to my complaint with false information that he had no authority to
consider complaints against state officials. He stated that I must file my complaint
against the City Attorney’s Office with state and local authorities. This claim
by Judge Kozinski is not credible because Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2 states that
the Chief Judge may initiate disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct by
attorneys before the Court of Appeals. Courts also have the inherent power to
initiate disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct by attorneys.
Additionally, the final appeal in
each of my two lawsuits was disposed of by summary affirmance of the district
court judgments with the outrageous claim that the issues I raised on appeal
was so unsubstantial that no further argument was required. The issues I raised
on appeal were that the district court rulings were biased; the court violated
the Full Faith and Credit Act; the court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing
based on my claim that I did not authorize the
Page
4
stipulation
of dismissal of Defendant Tuck Younis; and that the district court failed to
follow precedent and federal law in dismissing my second lawsuit without leave
to amend. It is insane for the court to find that these issues are
unsubstantial. This is evidence of bias and a cover-up.
I am well aware that the Department of
Justice and the F.B. I. does not normally get involved in matters relating to
on-going litigation involving the courts because of the “separation of powers”
doctrine; and because of the importance of an independent judiciary that is
necessary to the proper functioning of government. However, this is one of the
most egregious cases of public corruption in recent memory. The criminal misconduct
by the courts and San Jose city officials has been brazen and persistent with a
total lack of regard for the truth, the Constitution and the rule of law. It is
undeniable that these officials falsified court records, created false
documents, and staged a fake hearing on one of my Rule 60 motions in order to
facilitate a judgment in favor of the City of San Jose. The evidence is
compelling that some of these officials were bribed in return for their
involvement, whereas others appeared to have been coerced into participating.
More appalling and detestable than the crimes committed, is the extent to which
San Jose city officials and the courts have gone in order to cover-up this
scandal. A criminal investigation is mandatory in order to restore credibility
to our judicial system and to protect our democracy.
It
should be noted that I filed a formal complaint with the F.B.I. and the U.S.
Attorney’s Office in San Francisco against San Jose city officials and the
courts for public corruption in letters dated May 24, 2014. It is apparent my
complaint was not taken seriously because it does not appear that an
investigation was initiated. I give caution that a failure of the government to
act on my current complaint will have consequences because I have no intentions
of honoring the judgments of the courts in my lawsuits because they are void by
law. This fact is not debatable. The only final outcome to this matter that I
will accept is that the judgments of the courts are reversed. And to make this
happen, I am willing to take some extreme measures, including engaging in civil
disobedience. But first I am willing to give the Department of Justice and Congress
an opportunity to address this matter.
Included with this letter are copies
of my May 24, 2014 complaint letter and an email dated July 17, 2015 that I
sent to the F.B.I. Also included are copies of a special motion and a motion
for recusal of Judge Whyte, copies of two posts from my blog that provides
additional facts about this scandal, and a copy of a letter I submitted to the
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee dated July 24, 2017. The special
motion and motion for recusal is undeniable proof that the judgments in my two
lawsuits against the City of San Jose show such contempt for justice that they
are a mockery. Additional information about the misconduct of San Jose city
officials and federal court officials can be found at the links below: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/
I am also
requesting a meeting with a representative from the Department of Justice in
order to provide additional facts and evidence relative to my complaint.
Sincerely,
Frederick
Bates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Bates
-----------------
Folsom,
CA 95630
(408) -----------
October
24, 2017
The
Honorable Jeff Sessions – Attorney General of the United States
U.S.
Department of Justice
950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington,
DC 20530-0001
Re:
Public Corruption Complaint
Dear
Mr. Sessions,
In a letter dated July 24, 2017, I
filed a public corruption complaint with the Department of Justice against
officials of the City of San Jose, the U.S. 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 in August
2006 and December 2015 for violating my civil rights. A copy of my complaint
letter filed with the Department of Justice, as well as, copies of letters I
filed with other government officials is also included. These letters present
clear and convincing evidence that the US District Court and San Jose city
officials conspired to obstruct justice in my first lawsuit by falsifying court
records, by creating false documents, by staging a fake hearing on a Rule 60
motion I filed, and by creating a fraudulent transcript for that hearing. It is
also undeniable that the courts failed to follow federal laws relating to issue
preclusion and a stipulation of dismissal that places strict limitations on
their discretion. As to my second lawsuit, the US District Court dismissed it by
citing two cases as precedent that actually supports my claims against the City.
After dismissing my second lawsuit, the court refused to allow me an
opportunity to amend my complaint as is required by FRCP 15 because of my pro
se status. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals entered summary
dispositions on several appeals I filed in both lawsuits in clear violation of
the court’s own precedent. The latest summary disposition occurred September
21, 2017 prior to me being allowed to file an opening brief, even though, Ninth
Circuit precedent stated in United States v. Hooton requires that for summary
disposition to be appropriate, it must be manifest that the questions raised on
the face of an appellant’s opening brief be so insubstantial as not to require
further argument. Based on Ninth Circuit precedent as stated in the Hooton
case, it is impossible for there to be a summary disposition without an
appellant’s opening brief that states the questions being raised on appeal. A
collusion and cover-up by San Jose city officials and the federal courts are
undeniable.
The purpose of this letter is to
make a personal appeal to you to initiate an investigation into my complaint
since I have not received a response from the Department of Justice, the FBI or
the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Please take note that in 2014,
I also filed a public corruption complaint with the FBI field office in San
Francisco against San Jose city officials, officials with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Apparently my complaint was not taken
Page
2
seriously
because there is no evidence that an investigation was ever completed. In my
current complaint letters, I warn that a failure to take action on the egregious
and criminal misconduct of the above officials will result in me taking action
on my own in the form of civil disobedience.
To show that I am serious about my
warning, I met with an FBI agent on August 18, 2017 in the Sacramento office of
the FBI located in Roseville, California. The name of that agent is unknown.
During that meeting, I discussed many of the allegations in my complaint and
the facts to support them. However, my primary purpose of the meeting was to
make it very clear that I have run out of patience with the courts and that I
will not abide by any of the courts’ ruling in my two lawsuits because it is
unmistakable they are void judgments that were entered as a result of criminal
misconduct. I also made it clear that I am frustrated and very angry with the
lack of response from government officials to my complaint letters. I made it
very clear to the FBI agent I spoke to that it will be my intent to “go to
jail” in the near future based on acts of civil disobedience.
I explained to the agent that my
civil disobedience will be based on the clear instances where the courts
violated the law relative to 28 USC Section 1738 (the Full Faith and Credit
Act) and FRCP 41 that governs a stipulation of dismissal. As you are aware, the
Full Faith and Credit Act commands federal courts to give the same preclusive effect
to a state court judgment as would courts from the state where the judgment was
rendered. Federal courts simply have no discretion in regards to this issue.
Nevertheless, the courts dismissed by first lawsuit against the City of San
Jose based on issue preclusion by giving preclusive effect to a small claims
court judgment from California that the City won against me, even though it
would not be given preclusive effect by courts in California since there is no record
whatsoever from the Small Claims Court that shows what issue was litigated and
determined. Furthermore, there was no litigation at all in my small claims
case. The Small Claims Court made a ruling that implied it did not have
authority to grant the compensation I was seeking without addressing any issues
in my complaint. Courts in California will not apply issue preclusion against a
plaintiff that loses in a small claims case unless there is a record that is
“sufficiently clear” that the issue sought to be foreclosed upon was litigated
and determined. It is indefensible that the courts would refuse to reverse
their judgments as to this issue when it is clear from Supreme Court precedent
and the courts’ very own precedent that their judgments are void judgments and
are unenforceable by law based on their violation of the Full Faith and Credit
Act.
As to FRCP 41, the City of San Jose in
collusion with my former attorney was allowed to fraudulently dismiss the main defendant
in my lawsuit without any stated reason and without my knowledge and authority.
The stipulation of dismissal provided me no benefits and it harmed my cause of
action. The dismissal of a defendant or a cause of action is the absolute right
of the plaintiff. The City acknowledged in their answer to my complaint that
the defendant that was dismissed without my authority had taken actions that
clearly violated my rights. This same defendant committed perjury in his
deposition and in a declaration in support of a summary judgment motion the
City filed. This defendant also refused to appear on two subpoenas in the small
claims matter referred to above. While these claims might seem far-fetched, the
evidence to support them is indisputable. Even so, the district court refused
to conduct an evidentiary hearing on my motion for relief from the stipulation
as is required by law. This is a clear violation of my right to due process and
a case of bias and obstruction of justice.
Page
3
Just as I did with the FBI agent in
the Sacramento office, I would like to make it clear to you in the most
respectful manner possible that I will not accept the courts’ ruling in my
lawsuits as being legitimate. And I will take some very drastic actions to
affect their reversal through whatever reasonable and lawful extrajudicial means
necessary since the courts have refused repeatedly to do what is lawful and
just in my two lawsuits. If I receive no response from you,
the
Department of Justice or the FBI in a reasonable amount of time, I will assume
that my complaint is not a priority and I assure you I will make good on my
threat to take matters into my own hands.
Additional
details can also be found at the following links:
I look forward
to hearing from you regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Frederick
Bates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Bates
----------------
Folsom,
CA 95630
(408) ------------
April
16, 2018
The
Honorable Jeff Sessions – Attorney General of the United States
U.S.
Department of Justice
950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington,
DC 20530-0001
Re:
Supplement to Public Corruption Complaint Letter Dated July 24, 2017
Dear
Mr. Sessions:
This letter is a supplement to the
complaint letter I submitted to the Department of Justice dated July 24, 2017.
In that letter I made allegations that several San Jose city officials and
officials with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
– San Jose Division and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had committed
several public corruption crimes relative to the litigation of two lawsuits I
filed against the City of San Jose for violating my civil rights. In a letter to
you dated October 24, 2017, I made a personal appeal to you to open an
investigation into my complaints. In that letter, I mentioned that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals had entered summary dispositions on several appeals I
filed in the two lawsuits referred to above. I also stated that the latest
summary disposition had occurred September 21, 2017 prior to me being allowed
to file an opening brief, in clear violation of Ninth Circuit precedent as
stated by United States v. Hooton. Subsequent to my letter to you in October
2017, I filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 21, 2017 summary
disposition order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (It should be noted
that the summary disposition affirms the order of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California – San Jose Division denying my motion for
relief from judgment in the second of the two lawsuits I filed against the City
of San Jose. The District Court Case Number is 15-05729 NC and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number is 17-16413)
I am alleging in this supplemental
complaint that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals committed fraud and
obstructed justice relative to the handling of my motion for reconsideration.
Because of my pro se status, I filed my motion for reconsideration by priority
mail express on September 27, 2017. My motion was available for pick up by the
court on September 28, 2017. The deadline for filing my notion was October 5,
2017. After being available to the court for seven (7) days, my motion was
filed by the court on October 6, 2017, one day past the filing deadline. My
motion for reconsideration was denied as untimely on December 5, 2017.
The long lists of criminals acts by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court relative to my
two lawsuits against the City of San Jose as stated in my July 24, 2017
complaint letter makes it clear that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ failure
to file my motion for reconsideration within the filing deadline was
intentional. The intent was to obstruct justice by terminating my appeal with
the manufactured claim that my motion for
Page
2
reconsideration
was untimely. I appeal to you again to open an investigation into my public corruption
complaint based on this letter, my July 24, 2017 complaint letter and my letter
to you dated October 24, 2017. I am enclosing a copy of a letter and other
documents I sent to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas
informing him of this matter and requesting that he open an investigation into
this matter as well.
Sincerely,
Frederick
Bates
c:
FBI Director Christopher Wray
