The Backstory to My Lawsuits Against the City of San Jose!

 Post #73 - by Fred Bates - September 2, 2022

How My Lawsuits Against the City of San Jose Evolved

Introduction 

In my post on July 20, 2022, I explained that meaningful access to the courts is a constitutional right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment allows for citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which includes the filing of lawsuits. I stated that I filed three federal lawsuits against the City of San Jose based on the racist and malicious violations of my civil rights by City officials after I retired from the police department on a medical disability. In my post on July 21, 2022, I discussed how the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had disposed of my lawsuits by violating my due process rights established by the US Constitution, federal statutory law, and precedent. I also stated in my post on July 21, 2022, that my refusal to accept the bogus judgments in my lawsuits is the hill I will die on!  

The purpose of today's post is to provide the backstory to my lawsuits against the City of San Jose that I hope will give you an understanding why I will pay any cost to hold the City of San Jose accountable for its racist retaliatory attack against me because I'm black and because of my medical disability. 

My employment as a police officer with the City of San Jose ended with a medical disability retirement

I worked for over 20 years as a police officer for the City of San Jose where I reached the rank of police sergeant. In May 2001, I was diagnosed with work related hypertension or high blood pressure (HBP) that caused damage to my heart. As a result, I was placed on a work restriction of 'preclusion from psycho-emotional stress' in order to help control my blood pressure. Because my HBP was difficult to control, even with increased medications, my doctor recommended that I apply for a medical disability retirement. On April 1, 2004, my medical disability retirement was approved by the City's retirement board with support from the City's Medical Director. My history of HBP, the damage it caused to my heart, and the resulting work restriction to avoid psycho-emotional stress is well documented in medical records, memos from the City's Retirement Services and Medical Director, my application for disability retirement, and the retirement board hearing. I mention all this documentation because it is important as it relates to the backstory of my lawsuits against the City. 

The denial of my privilege to carry a concealed weapon by Deputy Chief Adonna Amoroso

Upon my retirement, I was denied the privilege to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) by Deputy Chief of Police Adonna Amoroso. California Penal Code Section 12027.1 establishes the procedures relative to the certification of retired police officers to carry concealed and loaded firearms, including procedures to deny or revoke such privilege. Section 12027.1 requires that a hearing be held in all cases of denial or revocation of a retiring officer's CCW privileges except for those that retire on a psychological disability. I contacted Amoroso by phone shortly after I learned that she had denied me authorization to carry a concealed weapon in April 2004. She said that she denied me a CCW permit because my work restriction of 'preclusion from psycho-emotional stress' meant that I retired on a psychological disability. Yet, Amoroso told me that I could own a gun. She had already transferred to my custody high-capacity pistol magazines for my personal use immediately upon my retirement. No sane police administrator would tell an officer they could own a gun and transfer to their custody high-capacity pistol magazines if they believed an officer had a psychological disability. Amoroso made it clear that she understood the hearing requirement of Section 12027.1. But she refused to grant me a hearing because she said I could not prove that I did not retire on a psychological disability. This assertion by Amoroso is an outright lie! The documentation, as noted above, showing that my retirement was based on a medical disability and that my work restriction was provided in order to help control my HBP was available to Amoroso based on state law and on a consent form I signed authorizing City officials to review my medical and psychological records. Certainly, Amoroso was aware of the recommendation by my doctor, mentioned above, that was stated in a letter to City officials that I should apply for a medical disability retirement because my HBP was difficult to control. The doctor also stated that City officials could contact him if they had any questions. Additional evidence casting doubt on Amoroso's claim is that she approved three of my work assignments that were based on my work restriction. She approved of my assignments to the Internal Affairs Unit as an investigator, the Patrol Division as a supervisor, and the School Crossing Guard Program as Program Manager. It's not even necessary to say that those job assignments require the ability to exercise good judgment and to make sounds decisions under stress. Amoroso was well aware that my performance appraisals for the just stated job assignments, all during the time I had the work restriction of 'preclusion from psycho-emotional stress,' had the overall ratings of above standard, with many of the individual rating categories being exceptional. In my last performance appraisal prior to my retirement, my rating under job expertise was exceptional. My rating under relationship with others was exceptional. The rating for my performance as a supervisor was exceptional. My rating under judgment was above standard with the comment that my decisions were logical and appropriate. My rating for the category of initiative and reliability was above standard with the comment that my performance under stress was above the expectations for my position. Amoroso was asked what she remembered about my disability in her deposition relative to my first federal lawsuit against the City of San Jose. She said that I had a heart condition that was affected by psychological stress. She also stated that the police department and the City's Medical Director work closely together so that there is no misunderstanding about an officer's work restriction. Amoroso stated in her deposition that I was never required to submit to a mental fitness evaluation. Based on the above, Amoroso's claim that she believed my work restriction meant I retired on a psychological disability has no credibility whatsoever. She also stated in her deposition that she was not supposed to interpret whether my work restriction was based on a medical disability or a psychological disability.  This is in fact San Jose Police Department policy. The policy also states that until such time as any question or confusion about an officer's work restriction is cleared by the City's Medical Director, any decisions about work restrictions will be based on the conditions stated by the employee. When I contacted Amoroso in order to appeal her decision to deny me a CCW permit, I told her repeatedly that my work restriction was based on my HBP, and it had nothing to do with a psychological condition based on conversations I had with the doctor that provided my work restriction. Yet, she refused to change her decision and steadfastly refused to provide me a hearing as required by Section 12027.1, even though, she was aware she was required to do so by law. Perhaps the biggest lie Amoroso told during this CCW permit fiasco is that she misinterpreted my work restriction to mean I retired on a psychological disability because she did not have authority to review my medical records. She made this ridiculous claim despite the fact that, as noted above, state law and my consent form gave her authorization to review all of my confidential medical and psychological records. Furthermore, Amoroso authorized her subordinates to review confidential medical records; and she stated in a letter she wrote to another officer that she had reviewed his medical records. The evidence is overwhelming that Amoroso's decision to deny me a CCW permit was malicious and retaliatory, and an intentional violation of my constitutional rights.

The denial of my CCW privileges by Captain Tuck Younis

The denial of my CCW permit by Amoroso was not the primary reason for my federal lawsuits against the City of San Jose. I never even considered a lawsuit after she denied me a CCW permit. The primary reason for my lawsuits is the egregious conduct of City officials months after Amoroso denied my request for a CCW permit. Amoroso's bigoted and discriminatory conduct pales in comparison to the conduct of the City officials I contacted months later seeking to appeal Amoroso's decision. In August 2004, I contacted police captain Tuck Younis and asked if the police department would reconsider the decision of Amoroso. I contacted the doctor that provided my work restriction requiring me to avoid psycho-emotional stress and asked him to send a letter to Younis explaining my work restriction. The doctor told me that City officials knew that my work restriction did not mean I had a psychological disability. The doctor said, "they knew better than that, they are messing with you." In his letter, the doctor explained that my work restriction of 'preclusion from psycho-emotional stress' was a term of arts used to label my medical disability. The doctor stated that he had given that same work restriction to thousands of officers, and that many had continued to work as police officers. As I noted above, I worked for three years with that same work restriction in positions that required me to make sound decisions under stress. In the letter, the doctor stated that I should have no problems or difficulty carrying a concealed weapon because of the work restriction. During litigation of my first federal lawsuit, the City stated that the letter made it "crystal clear" I did not have a psychological disability. Therefore, I was entitled to a CCW permit or a hearing that is required by Section 12027.1 if the police department wanted to continue denying me a CCW permit. Yet, Younis refused to change Amoroso's decision, even though he had all of the information that was available to Amoroso, as well as the letter from my doctor stating that my work restriction did not mean I had a psychological disability. Younis told me that he had consulted with Deputy City Attorney Carl Mitchell and that Mitchell told him that my appeal was not timely, because it was not made within 45 days. This claim has no credibility because I contacted Amoroso within ten days after she denied me a CCW permit and asked for an appeal. Nevertheless, I continued my efforts to persuade Younis to reverse the decision to deny me a CCW permit. I asked him if we could resolve this matter without making it a "federal case" in order to avoid legal costs to me, as well as the City. I reminded Younis of the letter from the doctor stating that I did not have a psychological disability and that I was a suitable candidate to carry a conceal weapon. I also offered to take a psychological evaluation at my expense in order to further prove I was mentally fit. I reminded Younis of my outstanding work evaluations and the hearing requirement of Section 12027.1. Yet, he refused to reverse Amoroso's decision to deny me a CCW permit, and he refused to grant me a hearing. I then asked Younis if there was any way that we could resolve this matter without me having to hire an attorney. I told Younis I would sign an agreement that I would not file a lawsuit against the City based on Amoroso's initial decision to deny me a CCW permit if we could resolve this matter without me having to seek legal representation. I told Younis that I had learned whatever lesson the City was trying to teach me. He still refused to grant me a CCW permit without the mandatory hearing required by law. I asked Younis if the City wanted me to get down on my knees and beg for a CCW permit. He said that it would not do any good. 

After Younis denied me a CCW permit in my direct appeal to him, I asked a police union representative (Jeff Ricketts) to intervene on my behalf with the hope that this matter could still be resolved without involving an attorney. Ricketts contacted Younis by phone in my presence and asked him what was going on with the denial of my CCW privileges. Younis told Ricketts that the decision to deny me a CCW permit was not going to be changed and that the decision was final. Ricketts informed Younis about the hearing requirement of Section 12027.1 that allows for an appeal. Younis told Ricketts that the phone conversation I had with Amoroso in April 2004 was my appeal and that the matter was closed. It is indisputable my phone conversation with Amoroso that has been discussed above, does not meet the hearing requirement of Section 12027.1 of the California Penal Code. A hearing pursuant to Section 12027.1 requires a three-member hearing board where one member is selected by the officer, one member is selected by the law enforcement agency, and the third member is selected jointly by the officer and law enforcement agency. It is noteworthy that Section12027.1 was amended in 1988 to require the hearing as just described due in part to a lawsuit involving the City of San Jose and the San Jose Police Officers Association. California legislators added the hearing requirement because they did not want the head of a law enforcement agency to deny a CCW permit based on their subjective feelings about an officer. It's important to note that the judge in my first federal lawsuit against the City ruled that the hearing requirement of 12027.1 was a constitutionally protected interest. It is without a doubt that the decisions to deny me a CCW permit by Amoroso and Younis were made based on their subjective feelings about me. In his deposition relative to my first federal lawsuit, Younis admitted that he told me and union representative Ricketts that I was not entitled to an appeal of the denial of my CCW privileges. Younis made this claim after he had already received the letter from the doctor stating that my work restriction should not prevent me from carrying a concealed weapon. It is clear that Younis violated my constitutional rights based on his own admission that he denied me a CCW permit without a hearing. Keep in mind the District Court judge ruled that the hearing requirement is a constitutionally protected interest. 

The failure of Chief of Police Rob Davis and City Attorney Richard Doyle to reverse the decisions of Amoroso and Younis to deny my CCW privileges

With no other option but to obtain legal representation based on the repeated denials of my requests for a CCW permit or a hearing by Amoroso and Younis, I hired attorney Stuart Kirchick to assist me in securing a CCW permit in October 2004. The retainer I paid Kirchick was $1500. Kirchick sent a letter to San Jose Chief of Police Rob Davis in early October 2004 detailing my failed attempts to obtain authorization to carry a concealed weapon from Deputy Chief Amoroso and Captain Tuck Younis. A copy of the letter was sent to San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle. The letter documented the hearing requirement of Section 12027.1. Included with the letter was a copy of the letter from the doctor explaining that my work restriction of 'preclusion from psycho-emotional stress' did not preclude me from carrying a concealed weapon. Relevant to discovery during my first federal lawsuit, a copy of the letter was obtained from the City that was date-stamped as being received by the Office of the Chief of Police. This is compelling evidence that Chief Davis was aware of the letter and its contents, along with the letter explaining my work restriction. The letter demanded that Davis immediately issue me a CCW permit or face legal action.  Neither Chief Davis nor City Attorney Richard Doyle responded to the letter from my attorney despite the threat of litigation. 

My complaint against the City of San Jose with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

In December 2004, after not receiving a response from Davis or Doyle, I filed a discrimination complaint against the City of San Jose with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) for violating my rights that were guaranteed under Section 12027.1. Because the evidence was so strong that San Jose city officials had discriminated against me when denying my CCW permit, DFEH said they would take my case. The implication was that DFEH would sue the City of San Jose on my behalf. About a week after my complaint with DFEH, Captain Younis called me and informed me that the police department had reversed its decision to deny me a CCW permit, even though he had informed me and union representative Jeff Ricketts months earlier that the decision to deny me a CCW permit was final. Younis refused to give me a reason why the police department had unexpectedly reversed the denial of my CCW permit. I learned later from the City Attorney's Office legal adviser, Jim Brennan, that the police department reversed Amoroso's decision to deny me a CCW permit because Deputy Chief of Police Pete Oliver said that the City would lose a lawsuit. This is clear evidence that the denial of my CCW permit had no legitimate basis whatsoever; and that the denial was based on the subjective feelings of the officials involved.

My CCW permit was denied numerous times without a hearing as required by Section 12027.1

It should be very clear from what has been presented here is that San Jose city officials were not acting in good faith when they denied me a CCW permit numerous times, even though they were presented with indisputable evidence that I was a suitable candidate to carry a concealed weapon. As noted above, Deputy Chief Amoroso was given the opportunity to change her initial unlawful decision to deny me a CCW permit in April 2004. She refused to do so. In August and September 2004, Captain Tuck Younis was given at least two opportunities to reverse Amoroso's decision on my direct appeal to him and when police union representative Jeff Ricketts intervened on my behalf. Keep in mind in my direct appeal to Younis, I made several overtures to him that included taking a psychological evaluation and signing an agreement not to sue. Yet, Younis refused to reverse Amoroso's decision and said the matter was closed. In October 2004, Chief of Police Rob Davis and City Attorney Richard Doyle were given the opportunities to reverse the decision to deny me a CCW permit. They both failed to act on the letter they received from my attorney demanding that I be issued a CCW permit or face legal action. Each of these City officials knew for a fact they were violating my rights to a due process hearing under Section 12027.1. Their actions were done with the clear intent of causing me monetary loss from having to hire an attorney. And more importantly, their actions were calculated to inflict upon me emotional pain and suffering; and their actions did in fact, cause me severe emotional distress. Even with this egregious conduct by City officials, there was not an immediate decision on my part to file a lawsuit against the City or the officials involved. 

My claim against the City of San Jose

Instead of filing a lawsuit, I chose to file a claim with the San Jose City Clerk's Office against the City in the Spring of 2005 in the amount of the $1500 retainer I paid my attorney. It was my hope that the City would take advantage of this opportunity to put this matter to rest without having to deal with any potentially costly litigation. The City failed to respond to my claim. 

My small claims complaint against the City of San Jose

With no other option available to hold the City accountable for the malicious violation of my constitutional rights relating to the denial of my CCW privileges, I made the decision to take legal action. I filed a small claims action against the City in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County Small Claims Court in December 2005 because it placed the least burden on our judicial system. My claim sought damages in the amount of the $1500 retainer I paid my attorney because of City officials' violation of Section 12027.1 of California's Penal Code. I subpoenaed three of the City officials involved in the decision-making regarding the issuance of my CCW permit, Captain Tuck Younis, Chief of Police Rob Davis, and Deputy City Attorney Carl Mitchell. On the day of the hearing, all three witnesses failed to appear on their subpoenas. It was necessary to reschedule the hearing because of their failure to appear. It is important to note that prior to the hearing, I made an offer to the City's legal adviser, Jim Brennan, to settle my claim for $1000 in a good faith effort to avoid litigation. This offer was $500 less than the $1500 retainer I paid my attorney which was my actual monetary damages. Brennan told me that the City did not want to settle. On the next hearing date in January 2006, Younis, Davis, and Mitchell failed to appear a second time on their subpoenas. The Small Claims Court Commissioner (Gregory Saldivar) who appeared to be agitated because of my case, ruled that attorney fees are not awarded in Small Claims Court. He made his ruling without allowing any testimony from me or the City's legal adviser. Commissioner Saldivar never made a ruling on my claim that City officials violated my due process rights based on their violation of the hearing requirement of Section 12027.1. It is important to note that there is no record from the Small Claims Court that shows what was litigated and decided. This small claims action, in which there was no litigation or record, plays a major role in my first federal lawsuit and my third federal lawsuit against the City of San Jose. 

My last attempt to negotiate a settlement in this matter without further litigation

After my small claims action, I contacted the San Jose City Attorney's Office in another attempt to negotiate a monetary settlement as compensation for the $1500 retainer I paid my attorney to assist me in securing my CCW privileges. This would be my last attempt to try and resolve this matter without having to engage in further litigation. I spoke to Assistant City Attorney George Rios. Rios admitted that the decision to deny me a CCW permit was wrong but claimed that it was an honest mistake. He said that I had a right to be upset but stated that the City would not compensate me for the money I spent unnecessarily for an attorney.

Summary and conclusion

From the backstory as told here, it should be easy to see that the denials of my CCW privileges had no legitimacy whatsoever. The issuance of CCW permits by the City's police department is a routine occurrence, and Deputy Chief Amoroso, Captain Tuck Younis, and Chief of Police Rob Davis were familiar with the process. They knew they were in violation of the mandatory hearing requirement of Section 12027.1, as well as the police department's policy prohibiting police administrators from interpreting an officer's work restriction(s). Their denials of my CCW permit were racist, malicious, discriminatory, retaliatory; and a blatantly political and personal attack on me because I'm black and because I retired on a medical disability. They only reversed the decision to deny me a CCW permit because a lawsuit against the City was imminent by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. These officials weaponized the CCW permit authorization process to cause me financial harm. It did, in fact, cause me financial harm because I spent $1500 on a retainer for an attorney. The denials were also meant to inflict emotional pain and suffering, and to demean and humiliate me. I did, in fact, suffer extreme emotional distress and thorough humiliation. All of the requirements for a federal lawsuit against the City of San Jose, Amoroso, Younis, and Davis were met. Amoroso, Younis, and Davis who were employed by the City, subjected me to a deprivation of my constitutional right under color of authority. The right I was specifically deprived of was the due process hearing required by California Penal Code Section 12027.1. At this point, the only reasonable option for me to hold the City, Amoroso, Younis, and Davis accountable was a lawsuit for deprivation of my civil rights under color of authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This is how my federal lawsuits against the City of San Jose, Chief of Police Rob Davis, Deputy Chief of Police Adonna Amoroso, and Captain Tuck Younis evolved. Through my attorney, my first federal lawsuit, a Section 1983 claim, was filed in August 2006.  

I filed a total of three federal lawsuits against the City, Younis, Davis, and Amoroso based on their actions surrounding the denials of my CCW privileges. My lawsuits were a last resort and were not filed because I was itching for a legal fight with the City. The backstory should be proof of my efforts to avoid litigation. As just noted, I filed a Section 1983 lawsuit in 2006. It was during this lawsuit that San Jose city officials, the courts, and my very own attorney engaged in serious misconduct that included fraud and deception by the City, bias by the courts, and the failure of the courts to follow mandatory laws and precedent. The lawsuit was dismissed by the US District Court by granting the City its motion for summary judgment. The litigating strategy of the City in its summary judgment motion was to put forth the outrageous lies that my CCW permit was denied only one time by Amoroso because she was confused about my work restriction; and that Younis reversed Amoroso's decision once he received the letter from the doctor explaining that my work restriction of "preclusion from psycho-emotional stress' did not preclude me from carrying a concealed weapon. To ensure that the courts could not rule on the denials of my CCW permit by Younis and Davis, the City paid off my attorney (Stuart Kirchick) to enter a stipulation of dismissal of Younis from my lawsuit without my knowledge and approval. Younis then committed perjury by falsely stating in a declaration in support of the City's summary judgment motion that Davis played no role in the denial and later granting of my CCW permit. The backstory as detailed above totally debunks the City's litigating strategy. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the unlawful ruling of the District Court. In 2015, I filed my second federal lawsuit against the City and the San Jose City Council for failing to investigate a discrimination and misconduct complaint that I filed with the City against the City Attorney's Office, Davis, Amoroso, and Younis. That lawsuit was dismissed by the District Court with a biased ruling on the City's motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling as well. My third federal lawsuit, and current litigation, was filed in 2020. It is styled as an 'independent action in equity.' My independent action in equity seeks to have the District Court vacate the illegitimate judgment in my first lawsuit. The District Court dismissed my action based on a motion to dismiss by the City pursuant to the law-of-the-case-doctrine. Currently, my appeal of the District Court's ruling is pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

There you have it! The backstory of my litigation against the City of San Jose. Most of the claims I make are supported by incontrovertible facts and evidence. Any anecdotal facts are made with the good faith belief that they are accurate or true. As I state in my post on August 21, 2022, I will never give up my fight for justice in this matter, and that it's the hill I will die on! The links below provide more details on my lawsuits. I will also be addressing this matter in future posts.

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Exposing the Cover-up of a Cheating Scandal by San Jose city officials and the federal courts - This story is shocking, but true!! (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - No Honor and No Integrity (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Complaint Letters to the FBI and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman's Ethics Are Questionable (crnctz.blogspot.com)

 A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Access To The Courts Is A Constitutional Right (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: The Hill I Will Die On! (crnctz.blogspot.com)

The Hill I Will Die On!

Post #72 - July 21, 2022 - by Fred Bates (follow-up to Post #71 on July 20, 2022)

According to Wiktionary, a 'hill to die on' means: An issue to pursue with wholehearted conviction and/or single-minded focus, with little or no regard to the cost. 

In post #71, I explained that access to the courts is guaranteed under the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I discussed how US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman had declared me a vexatious and harassing litigant and subjected me to a pre-filing screening order denying me access to the courts based on three lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose and three police officials. My first two lawsuits were in response to the racist and discriminatory violation of my civil rights by San Jose city officials after I retired from the police department. I am black/African American. My third lawsuit, an independent action in equity, seeks to overturn the illegitimate judgment in the first lawsuit. I explained how Judge Freeman's ruling was inconsistent with the standard for vexatious/harassing litigants set by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent because my three lawsuits over sixteen years was not an excessive amount of litigation. Furthermore, the claims in my lawsuit were not "wholly fanciful" or "patently without merit."  

Judge Freeman's vexatious/harassing litigant declaration and pre-filing screening order against me was a direct and in your face way of denying me access to the courts that has a secondary intent of silencing my speech decrying the fraud on the court being perpetrated by San Jose city officials and the courts. The vexatious/harassing litigant declaration and pre-filing screening order are retaliatory and malicious; and are meant to inflict emotional pain and suffering. A more subtle way the courts have denied me "meaningful access" to the courts is their intentionally erroneous rulings that not only violate the law and precedent, but they also deprive me of my constitutional rights to due process.

As I stated in my post on July 20, 2022, there are three basic claims I make in my independent action in equity that was filed in 2020 seeking to overturn the judgment in my first lawsuit against the City of San Jose that was filed in 2006. The first claim, based on fraud, is that the district court dismissed my lawsuit by granting the City's motion for summary judgment that was fabricated; and that the City and my attorney entered a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of an individual defendant (Tuck Younis) without my authorization. It should be noted that the City admitted in its answer to my lawsuit that Younis violated my due process rights that are established by the California Penal Code. I also made the claim that the district court held a phony hearing on a Rule 60 motion I filed in 2013 that also sought relief from the judgment in my first lawsuit. Relative to that phony hearing were fraudulent docket entries, a transcript, and civil minutes. My second claim, based on the courts' violation of the law is that the courts failed to follow 28 USC Section 1738 (the full faith and credit act) by giving collateral estoppel effect to a small claims court judgment from the State of California. Under California preclusion law, collateral estoppel does not apply to judgments entered in small claims court. Therefore, 28 USC Section 1738 prohibits federal courts from giving collateral estoppel effect to judgments entered in California's small claims courts. There are other compelling reasons for not applying collateral estoppel in my case that were discussed in my post on July 20, 2022. My third claim, based on the lack of impartiality of the courts, is that the courts were blatantly biased during the litigation of my first lawsuit. Evidence of bias is that the courts ruled in favor of the City of San Jose despite the fact that the City admitted that many of the allegations in my lawsuit were true in their answering document. Also, my claim of bias is based on comments by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge William Fletcher during the hearing on my appeal of the district court's decision granting the City's summary judgment motion. Judge Fletcher asked why I was making this a federal case; and he asked why didn't I just "drop the darn thing," referring to my lawsuit. The flagrant lack of impartiality by the courts makes their rulings unconstitutional.

Currently, my case is pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am appealing Judge Freeman's erroneous ruling dismissing my independent action in equity based on the law-of-the-case doctrine, as well as the malicious and retaliatory vexatious/harassing litigant declaration and pre-filing screening order. My message to Judge Freeman, Judge Fletcher, and all of the other judges in the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that violated my rights in much the same way that Bull Conner violated the rights of black voting rights activists in 1963 is this: I will die on this hill! This is not a threat of violence; nor is it meant to be belligerent or menacing in any way. When I say I will die on this hill, it only means that I will pursue justice in this matter with wholehearted conviction and a single-minded focus, with little or no regard to the cost for me. The only just outcome is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reverse Judge Freman's entire ruling on my independent action in equity. I refuse to accept anything less. Below is the link to Post #71:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Access To The Courts Is A Constitutional Right (crnctz.blogspot.com)

Access to the Courts Is a Constitutional Right

Post #71 - July 20, 2022 - by Fred Bates

Access to the courts is a right that is as precious as the right to vote and the right to freedom of speech

Access to the courts is a constitutional right that is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Access to the courts falls primarily under the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If access to the courts is a right protected by the First Amendment, then what does access to the courts mean? Clearly, it means the right to file a lawsuit and motions when appropriate in order to vindicate your rights. As evidence of this fact, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., citing the US Supreme Court in BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, opined that the First Amendment right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - which includes the filing of lawsuits - is "one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights." For access to the courts to be meaningful, however, courts must be impartial and adhere to the rule of law and precedent. Meaningful access to the courts means that judges will apply the law to the facts. This impartiality aspect of meaningful access is also reflected by the Fifth Amendment due process clause. In Marshall v. Jerricho, the US Supreme Court held that the due process clause guarantees a litigant a tribunal that's impartial and disinterested. 

One direct way an individual is denied access to the courts occurs when a court declares a litigant to be vexatious and/or harassing because they file multiple lawsuits that are allegedly without merit. After declaring a litigant to be vexatious and/or harassing, the court issues a pre-filing screening order; meaning that any new lawsuit filed by the declared vexatious litigant must be reviewed and approved by a judge. Pre-filing screening orders are supposed to be rare because the right of access to the courts, as ruled by the US Supreme Court, is "precious."

I discuss the right of access to the courts above in order to bring up an egregious ruling by US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in a lawsuit I filed in 2020 against the City of San Jose. Judge Freeman ruled that I was a vexatious and harassing litigant in response to a motion by the City; then subjected me to a pre-filing screening order restricting my access to the courts. The lawsuit filed in 2020 is the most recent of three lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose, three police administrators and other City officials. My first two lawsuits were filed in order to vindicate my rights that were violated based on the racist and discriminatory conduct of San Jose city officials after I retired from the City's police force. I am black/African American. The details of the racist and discriminatory conduct are discussed at length in many of my prior posts. This latest lawsuit filed in 2020, in which Judge Freeman declared me a vexatious and harassing litigant, is an independent action in equity that seeks to overturn the judgment in my first lawsuit that was filed in 2006. I am seeking to overturn that judgment because it is the product of fraud and bias; and because the courts failed to follow the Constitution, federal statutory law, and precedent. These claims might sound exaggerated, but they are absolutely true. It is one of the most remarkable cases of public corruption in recent memory. 

Judge Freeman's decision to declare me a vexatious and harassing litigant in her ruling on my independent action in equity does not remotely follow the precedent for a vexatious litigant as set by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit's precedent setting cases set guidelines for a vexatious/ harassing litigant at the filling of 30 plus lawsuits up to 600 lawsuits. Not only must there be numerous lawsuits filed, but the claims in the lawsuits must be 'wholly fanciful or patently without merit.' The three federal lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose were over a period of sixteen years. Clearly, this is not an inordinate number of filings as established by Ninth Circuit precedent. Furthermore, the claims I make against the City are supported by facts and evidence and are not 'wholly fanciful or patently without merit.' The claims in my independent action in equity that are the basis for overturning the judgment in my first lawsuit are particularly noteworthy as you will see below.

As I stated above, my independent action in equity seeks to overturn the judgment in my first lawsuit against the City of San Jose based on fraud, bias, and the failure of the courts to follow the law. My claim of fraud is based on the fact that the courts granted the City's motion for summary judgment, even though it was totally fabricated. My claim of fraud is also based on the fact that one of the three police officials mentioned above was dismissed from my first lawsuit without my authority in order to prevent the district court from ruling on his actions that violated my rights. My claim that the courts were biased during litigation is based on the fact that the district court ruled in favor of the City, even though the City admitted that the three police officials I sued violated my due process rights that are enshrined in state law. My claim of fraud and bias is based on the fact that the district court falsified court dockets, staged a fake hearing with a fraudulent transcript and civil minutes that are contradictory, all for the purpose of denying a Rule 60 motion I filed in 2013 seeking relief from the judgment in my first lawsuit. My claim of bias is also based on the blatantly biased comments of one of the judges (presumably William Fletcher) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during the hearing of my appeal of the district court's ruling in my first lawsuit. During that hearing, Judge Fletcher asked why I was making this a federal case. He also asked why I didn't just drop the "darn thing" after a small claims action I filed against the City of San Jose that was dismissed without being actually litigated. That same small claims court judgment was given collateral estoppel effect in clear violation of federal law. Collateral estoppel is commonly referred to as issue preclusion. With rare exceptions, collateral estoppel means that an issue litigated and decided in a prior court proceeding cannot be litigated in a subsequent court proceeding. When determining the collateral estoppel effect of a judgment entered in a state court, federal courts are required by 28 USC Section 1738 (the full faith and credit act) to follow the preclusion law of the state where the judgment was rendered. Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion does not apply to judgments rendered in small claims courts in California per state preclusion law because of the informal nature of proceedings in small claims courts. Judge Fletcher, who made the biased statements during the appeals hearing, also stated that he doubted that collateral estoppel was applicable. Furthermore, there is no record from the small claims court that states what was litigated and decided. Ninth Circuit precedent states that if the record is inadequate, it will not consider collateral estoppel on appeal. Yet, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment giving collateral estoppel effect to the small claims court judgment, even though, there is no record whatsoever that shows that the issue I raised was actually litigated and decided. But most importantly, as already noted, collateral estoppel does not apply to issues litigated and decided in small claims court in California. The failure of the courts to adhere to the rule of law and precedent in this instance is in itself a denial of meaningful access to the courts.  

More compelling evidence that the courts have denied me meaningful access to the courts is the words of Matthew Pritchard, one of the attorneys for the City of San Jose assigned to my cases. In a phone conversation with me relating to my independent action in equity, Mr. Pritchard boasted that the City would win because the courts never change their decisions, even if they are wrong. Mr. Pritchard stated that there was no doubt that the courts' decisions were wrong in my case on the issue of collateral estoppel. He said that I should accept the courts' decisions even though they are wrong because he accepted court decisions that were wrong when he was a Public Defender. Mr. Pritchard told me that the law is whatever the courts say it is. It should also be noted that in my appeal of the district court's ruling on my independent action in equity that is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the City also states in its answering brief that collateral estoppel does not apply to small claims court judgments in the State of California. 

There cannot be any evidence more definitive than what's presented here that proves Judge Freeman's declaration that I am a vexatious and harassing litigant, along with the pre-filing screening order, is an egregious abuse of discretion that denies me the meaningful access to the courts that I am entitled to under the First Amendment. It is morally repugnant that Judge Freeman and the courts have rejected my many claims that are supported by facts and the law, while at the same time accepting the City's repeated false claims as true. This is one of the worst cases of racism and public corruption because denying a black citizen access to the courts is every bit as bad as denying a black citizen the right to vote. I will protest this denial of my access to the courts in much the same way as black voting rights activists protested in the South during the 1960's. Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are meaningless if citizens are denied meaningful access to the courts in order to assert those rights when they are violated by the government. Below are links to two of my prior posts that provide additional details about this matter: 

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman's Ethics Are Questionable (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Exposing the Cover-up of a Cheating Scandal by San Jose city officials and the federal courts - This story is shocking, but true!! (crnctz.blog

Nancy Pelosi Covers Up Racism While Calling For Removal of Confederate Statutes and Police Reform

Post #66 - Friday June 26, 2020

On Thursday June 11, 2020 during her weekly press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called for the removal of all symbols honoring Confederate figures from military bases and the U S Capitol building. To be fair it should be noted that other Democrats and many Republicans in Congress have also expressed support for removing Confederate symbols in response to protests decrying the death of George Floyd. Calling for the removal of Confederate symbols is not the only response by Democrats and Republicans to the death of George Floyd. Yesterday (June 25, 2020) Democrats in the House, led by Pelosi, passed a police reform bill named the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in honor of George Floyd. A GOP police reform bill in the Senate failed yesterday after it was blocked by Democrats from being debated. This move angered Republicans who accused Democrats of playing politics.

The truth is that both parties in Congress are playing politics with the tragic death of George Floyd just as they have with COVID 19, the Mueller Investigation and Impeachment. The removal of Confederate symbols and burdening law enforcement with more restrictions will do very little if anything to eliminate racial discrimination. I single out Speaker Pelosi because she seems to have garnered the most headlines when it comes to the removal of Confederate symbols and police reform. I have criticized her in many of my prior blog posts for her hypocrisy when it comes to the issue of racial discrimination and corruption. The Speaker cares nothing about racism and discrimination that blacks encounter and she cares nothing about corruption in government unless she can somehow tie both to President Trump.

It is outrageous that Speaker Pelosi is misleading Americans by calling for police reform and the removal of Confederate symbols while covering up blatant racism by San Jose city officials, the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The evidence against Speaker Pelosi is indisputable. In 2018 and 2019, I sent letters to the Speaker asking her to initiate an investigation into the racist treatment I suffered at the hands of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the US District Court, and the City of San Jose relative to the litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. The intent of the discrimination I suffered at the hands of the City was to cause me emotional distress and financial loss. Several criminal acts were committed by court officials and San Jose city officials that includes fraud, bribery, subornation of perjury and perjury, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. Yet, Pelosi did not respond to my letters and there has not been an investigation into my complaints, even though my allegations are supported by incontrovertible evidence. Because it is clear that Pelosi is covering up the racist and criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials and the federal courts, I filed an ethics complaint against her with the House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics.

If Speaker Pelosi and Congress really want to do something substantive to address racism in this country, they should institute reforms that mandate members of Congress respond to racial discrimination complaints brought to their attention by any citizen, particularly black citizens, thereby protecting citizens' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Removing Confederate symbols and police reform alone will not eliminate racism. Investigating specific allegations of racism and discrimination by government officials and holding those guilty accountable is the only way we can move towards a society that's free of racial injustice. Below is a copy of the complaint I filed against Speaker Pelosi and two other Democrats with the Office of Congressional Ethics that is still pending:

Frederick Bates

                                                                                                            12 ------------

                                                                                                            Fo-------------

                                                                                                            (408)----------

August 12, 2019

Office of Congressional Ethics

U.S. House of Representatives

P.O. Box 895

Washington, DC 20515-0895

Re: Ethics Violations by Members of the House of Representatives

Dear Members of the Office of Congressional Ethics:

            I respectfully request that your office conduct an investigation into ethics violations and criminal misconduct by the following Members of the House of Representatives and/or their staffs: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler, and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. I am alleging that Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, Chairman Schiff, and/or members of their staffs are engaged in a cover-up of racism and criminal misconduct by 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 that occurred during litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff failed to take action on letters I submitted to each detailing the racist and criminal acts perpetrated by San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials and the courts include bribery, conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and perjury, fraud, and witness tampering. These criminal acts involve creating a false document relative to a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal, falsifying court records, staging a phony hearing on a motion I filed and creating a fraudulent transcript and civil minutes for that hearing that contradict each other. Furthermore, the rulings of the courts in each of my lawsuits are biased in favor of the City of San Jose and they are wholly inconsistent with the indisputable facts and well established law.

            On the website of the Office of Congressional Ethics, it states that the Office of Congressional Ethics of the House of Representatives is an independent, non-partisan entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff. It is sufficiently clear that this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Office of Congressional Ethics. It is also well established that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The definition of redress by Merriam-Webster is to set right or remedy an unjust or unfair situation.

            It is important to note that there are no pending actions in court relative to my two lawsuits because the courts have entered their final judgments. Nothing precludes Congress from conducting investigations into my allegations against the courts based on Congress’ constitutional authority/obligation to provide oversight. It is important to keep in mind that my allegations against the courts and the City of San Jose involve very serious criminal

                                                                                                                                                Page 2

misconduct. In order to support my allegations of criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials and the courts are two attachments in pdf format on a flash drive that’s included in this packet. One attachment contain copies of a letter and documents sent to Inspector General Michael Horowitz alleging that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray, along with several other officials in the Department of Justice and F.B.I. are engaged in a cover-up of the criminal misconduct of San Jose city officials and federal court officials. The other attachment contains copies of a letter and documents I sent to Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that is undeniable proof that the judgments in my two lawsuits against the City of San Jose are based on fraud; and that they are in violation of the Constitution and well established precedent and statutory law. The judgments are by law null and void. Yet, the courts refuse to vacate them. Also on the flash drive are copies of the complaint letters I sent to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff; along with copies of complaint letters I sent to Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Kamala Harris, Attorney General William Barr, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas.

The conduct of San Jose city officials and federal court officials is an egregious abuse of power that violates the public trust. What makes their conduct truly appalling is that their intent is to cover up racism, bigotry and corruption. The evidence of racism by San Jose city officials is indisputable because they state in court papers that the City’s anti-discrimination policies does not protect me, a black person, and that they had no duty to investigate my racial discrimination complaints against City officials. Even though San Jose city policy specifically states that discrimination complaints will be investigated, the courts ruled in favor of the City stating that there were no set of facts that I could allege to make my racial discrimination claim viable. It is worthy to note that state law and precedent also establish that City officials had a duty to investigate my discrimination complaints, and that they can be held liable individually under Section 1983 based on their deliberate indifference. Further evidence of bias by the courts and indifference to the City’s racist conduct is that the court in one proceeding exhibited hostility toward my discrimination lawsuit by asking why I was making this a federal case and why I didn’t just drop the darn thing (my lawsuit). Bias is also indicated by the fact that the courts ruled in favor of the City in my first lawsuit despite City officials’ admission that they had violated City policy and a state law that implicates a constitutionally protected interest. This flagrant bias against me by the courts also makes the judgments in my lawsuits null and void. 

In covering up this clear case of bigotry and public corruption, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff have violated the ethics rules of the House of Representatives, as well as the oath they took to protect and uphold the Constitution. A credible criminal case for collusion and obstruction of justice can also be made against Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff because the intentional cover-up of a crime is in itself a crime. An investigation into this matter is warranted in order to protect the integrity of our judicial system and to set right this unjust situation. Please inform me of what action the Office of Congressional Ethics will take in regards to my complaint.

                                                                                                            Sincerely,

                                                                                                            Frederick Bates

 

Sam Liccardo - America's Most Contemptible Mayor and Biggest Hypocrite

Post #70 - March 3, 2022 - By Fred Bates

Sam Liccardo is the mayor of the City of San Jose. He is perhaps the most corrupt mayor in all of America, and certainly its most contemptible and biggest hypocrite. This is not hyperbole. This entire blog has been devoted to exposing the corruption of Mayor Liccardo in one form or another based on the role he has played in a cheating scandal involving the San Jose City Attorney's Office, the US District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during the litigation of three lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose. I have discussed Mayor Liccardo's corruption and hypocrisy in many of my prior posts. However, he has now elevated himself to America's most contemptible mayor and the biggest hypocrite of all time based on his call for Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith to resign in August 2021. Mayor Liccardo called for Sheriff Smith's resignation based on allegations of mismanagement of the County Jail; and because of a scandal involving the issuance of CCW permits by the Sheriff's Office. What makes Mayor Liccardo so contemptible is that he has engaged in corruption and egregious misconduct of his own for the past several years. Based on his misconduct alone in the cheating scandal noted above, he should resign or be removed from office.

In December of 2021, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury accused Sheriff Smith of corruption and willful misconduct. The counts against Smith allege that she ran a pay-to-play scheme that traded concealed weapon permits (CCW) for campaign contributions from VIP's while ignoring CCW permit requests of non-VIP's. The counts also accuse the Sheriff of accepting Sharks hockey game gifts and failing to report those gifts as required by law. And lastly, Sheriff Smith is accused of not cooperating in an internal affairs investigation surrounding the treatment of inmate Andrew Hogan.  

The grand jury accusations against Sheriff Smith pale in comparison to the corruption and willful misconduct of Mayor Liccardo and San Jose city officials during litigation of the lawsuits I filed against the City. Ironically, my lawsuits resulted from the denial of my CCW privileges by the City after I retired from the police department. Mayor Liccardo played a major role in several criminal acts and other willful misconduct committed by three police administrators and the San Jose City Attorney's Office. The criminal acts and other misconduct include the following: obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, perjury and subornation of perjury, tampering with a witness, bribery, fraud, fraud on the court, and failure to appear in court after being subpoenaed. As you can see, many of the crimes by Mayor Liccardo and San Jose city officials are felonies, whereas the accusations brought against Sheriff Smith by the Grand Jury are civil violations. Certainly, the accusations against Sheriff Smith, if true, does not warrant removal from office. Furthermore, the denial of my CCW privileges by San Jose city officials was discriminatory, punitive, retaliatory, and was done with the intent to cause me emotional distress and financial loss based on my disability and race. I am black/African American. The actions of Mayor Liccardo and San Jose city officials were not only racist, but they undermine our judicial system and democracy itself. The Grand Jury, after interviewing nearly 70 witnesses, does not claim that the actions of Sheriff Smith were racist or that she attempted to undermine the judiciary or democracy.   

In a complaint letter dated October 16, 2014, I requested that the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury open an investigation into the criminal misconduct and corruption of Mayor Liccardo (who was at that time a councilmember) and the rest of the San Jose City Council. Chuck Reed was the mayor of San Jose. Just as my requests for investigations with San Jose city officials and the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury refused to take any action on my complaint. Mayor Liccardo's calls for Sheriff Smith to resign and the accusations of willful misconduct and corruption by the Grand Jury appear to be nothing more than a political stunt. While going after Sheriff Smith for potential civil violations that are weak and insubstantial, corrupt local politicians and the media in the Silicon Valley have protected Mayor Liccardo by intentionally ignoring his years of corruption and hypocrisy. The list of corrupt and hypocritical conduct by Mayor Liccardo in his political career is long. He has been accused of violating election laws. He failed to disclose that his wife owned a condo near Google development; and he has been accused of violating public records laws. It is without a doubt, however, Mayor Liccardo's most corrupt and hypocritical conduct relates to his prior attacks on the city's police officers. He has implied that they are systemically racist and dishonest; and said that he would support a police department policy requiring automatic termination for an officer that lies during an administrative investigation. Mayor Liccardo took these positions while he was at the same time directing the City Attorney's Office and two police administrators to make completely false claims in court documents in order to justify the bigoted and racist denial of my CCW permit. We should also remember Mayor Liccardo's disgusting attempt to destroy Officer Phil White's career for making statements critical of the scandalous BLM movement.  

For his history of corruption and hypocrisy, and in calling for Sheriff Smith to resign, Mayor Liccardo is contemptible and lacking in character. He is quick to call for others to pay the ultimate penalty (resignation or termination) for their alleged misconduct: but he refuses to hold himself accountable. For Mayor Liccardo, this is all about power. Who can forget his attempt to extend his term in office and increase his powers with his push for a "strong mayor" initiative? From the standpoint of politics, Mayor Liccardo is cocky and has lived by the sword. One day he may also die by the sword. Please read the links below for more details:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and the San Jose City Council - Most Corrupt City Officials In America? (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Exposing the Cover-up of a Cheating Scandal by San Jose city officials and the federal courts - This story is shocking, but true!! (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Complaint Letters to the FBI and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (crnctz.blogspot.com)

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: THE MATTER OF OFFICER PHIL WHITE'S TWEETS AND THE HYPOCRISY OF SAN JOSE MAYOR SAM LICCARDO (crnctz.blogspot.com)

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman's Ethics Are Questionable

 Post #68, January 11, 2022

"Adherence to the rule of law and precedent is the most important attribute of a judge" - Words of Judge Beth Labson Freeman

Judge Beth Labson Freeman is a United States District Court judge in the Northern District Court of California - San Jose Division. Judge Freeman is presiding over a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose and three former San Jose police administrators for discrimination based on my disability and race. I am black/African American. When Judge Freeman went through her confirmation process in the Senate, she apparently was given a list of questions to answer by then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. At the time of her nomination for U.S. District Court Judge, Judge Freeman was a Superior Court Judge for the County of San Mateo California.

One of the questions asked of Judge Freeman was: What is the most important attribute of a judge, and do you possess it? Her response was that she believed that the adherence to the rule of law and precedent is the most important attribute of a judge. She said that respect for litigants, fairness, and an open-minded review of the evidence presented in each case is fundamental. Judge Freeman said that a judge should always set aside personal views and fairly and impartially apply the law to the facts presented in a case. She further stated that she believed she possess the above attributes and that she has applied them throughout her 12 years as a state court judge. 

At the very least, Judge Freeman is dishonest. At its worst, however, Judge Freeman is corrupt and unfit for office, and her ethics are questionable. I say these things about Judge Freeman based on her conduct during litigation of the lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose. That lawsuit is an independent action in equity for relief from judgment. What my independent action in equity attempts to accomplish is to have the court set aside the judgment in a prior lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose because the judgment was the product of fraud on the court and bias by the presiding judge, Ronald M. Whyte. I will not get into all of the details of that lawsuit because they are covered in prior posts in this blog. But I will say that there was criminal misconduct on the part of court officials, San Jose city officials, and my very own attorney. That is a fact! 

Judge Freeman dismissed my independent action in equity on a motion to dismiss by the City of San Jose based on the meritless defense that my claims were within the law-of-the-case doctrine. Judge Freeman's ruling in this instance is wholly inconsistent with her response that the most important attribute of a judge is adherence to the rule of law and precedent. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60(b) clearly states that a court is not limited in its power to entertain an independent action for relief from judgment. Perhaps of equal importance, U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the case of United States v. Beggerly clearly establishes that an independent action in equity is appropriate in order to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. Certainly, a judgment procured based on fraud and bias on the part of a judge is a grave miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it is well settled that the law-of-the-case-doctrine does not apply outside the confines of the same lawsuit. The preclusion doctrine that would normally apply outside the confines of the same lawsuit, i.e., in a new lawsuit, is the claim preclusion and issue preclusion aspects of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court made it very clear in the Beggerly case that when there are incidents of injustice that are sufficiently significant, res judicata should be waived.    

 My independent action in equity is a new lawsuit that was filed with all of the requirements or characteristics of a new lawsuit: filing fees, a complaint, notice to the defendants, an answer to the complaint from the defendants, and a motion to dismiss by the defendants. An independent action in equity allows a court to review the claims in a prior complaint or lawsuit de novo or anew based on FRCP 60(b) and U.S. v. Beggerly. My independent action in equity is not the same case as the case whose judgment I'm seeking to overturn. Therefore, the law-of-the-case-doctrine does not apply. Even if the law-of-the-case-doctrine applied, my independent action would fall within one of the exceptions to the doctrine. That exception is a clearly erroneous judgment. The judgment that my independent action seeks to set aside was clearly erroneous because Judge Whyte failed to follow the mandate of 28 U.S.C. Section 1738, the Full Faith and Credit Act, which implements the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Also, the fraud perpetrated by Judge Whyte, my attorney, and attorneys for the City of San Jose, all officers of the court, prevent the law-of-the-case doctrine from being applied as well. Fraud on the court vitiates everything. 

Judge Freeman's conduct during the litigation of my independent action in equity is inconsistent with everything she told Senator Grassley during her confirmation for U.S. District Court Judge. She did not have an open mind when reviewing the evidence, and it is clear she did not set aside her personal views and fairly and impartially apply the law to the facts presented in my case, despite giving her assurances that she would do so. Perhaps the most shocking of Judge Freeman's actions is that she not only dismissed my independent action in equity by deliberately misconstruing the law; but she also granted the City of San Jose's motion to declare me a vexatious litigant. This was done despite the fact that San Jose city officials engaged in serious criminal misconduct during litigation of the lawsuit, in which, I'm seeking to overturn the judgment. Think of it this way. San Jose city officials violated my constitutional rights; they conspired with the courts and my attorney to cover up their bigoted, racist, and retaliatory acts by committing several obstruction of justice crimes during litigation; yet, Judge Freeman sees me, a black person, as the one abusing the judicial system for simply standing up for my rights. This is truly egregious and evil because Judge Freeman has permitted San Jose city officials to abuse the judicial system by using it as a weapon to oppress me because I am black, and because I retired from the police department because of a medical disability.

Based on her egregious actions and rulings on my independent action in equity, Judge Freeman is an imposter posing as a legitimate judge. She joins the ranks of the other phony judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - San Jose Division, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who have refused to protect the integrity of our judicial system and uphold our Constitution. They all have failed to display the one attribute that Judge Freeman say is most important for a judge: Adherence to the rule of law and precedent. 

The Jussie Smollett Hate Crime Hoax vs. A Real Hate Crime by San Jose City Officials and the Courts

 Post #69 - December 21, 2021 - By Fred Bates

The trial of ex-Empire actor Jussie Smollett concluded on December 9, 2021, with him being found guilty on multiple charges of lying and fraud related to the hate crime report he filed with the Chicago Police Department. Smollett alleged that he was attacked by two male Trump supporters wearing red MAGA caps. Smollett alleged that the attackers punched him in the face, placed a noose around his neck and yelled "this is MAGA country!" A Chicago Police investigation concluded that Smollett's claim of being attacked was a hoax staged by Smollett and two brothers from Nigeria, Abimbola and Olabingo Osundario. The apparent motivation for the hoax was Smollett's displeasure at how he was being treated by FOX, the channel where the Empire series aired. 

With the guilty verdict, Smollett will he held accountable for the hate crime hoax he staged with the Osundario brothers. Yet, a real hate crime against me by San Jose city officials and the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is being covered up by a hoax in the form of fraudulent litigation. In 2006, I filed a federal lawsuit against the City of San Jose and three police officials for discrimination based on my disability and race. The details of my case are discussed in several of my prior posts in this blog. As a matter of fact, the sole purpose of this blog is to expose this hoax. In response to my lawsuit, the City of San Jose filed a motion for summary judgment that was totally fabricated. U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted the City's motion in July 2008, thereby, dismissing by lawsuit against the City and three police officials. 

Judge Whyte's ruling in favor of the City violated the Constitution and federal statutory laws; and his ruling was also facilitated by fraud on the court perpetrated by the City, my attorney, and the U.S. District Court. Since his ruling in July 2008, I have been on a relentless campaign to have Judge Whyte's bogus decision overturned. I have filed several motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). All of my efforts have been to no avail because the Courts are engaged in a cover-up of this egregious scandal by dismissing my Rule 60 motions with summary dispositions. My latest effort to obtain relief from Judge Whyte's ruling on the City's summary judgment motion is an Independent Action in Equity. An Independent Action in Equity is a new complaint that is filed by a plaintiff for the purpose of overturning a judgment in a prior case. My independent action is currently being litigated. The Judge in this new case is Beth Labson Freeman. Just as in all of my prior legal actions to overturn Judge Whyte's bogus ruling on the City's motion for summary judgment, Judge Freeman entered her own bogus ruling dismissing my Independent Action in Equity by granting the City's motion to dismiss based on the law-of-the-case doctrine. Judge Freeman's ruling is clearly erroneous because the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply outside of the confines of the same case. As noted above, an independent action in equity is a new case. The purpose of an independent action in equity is for a court to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice by vacating a judgment in a prior case that was procured through fraud on the court, or by some other nefarious reason. Judge Freeman's cowardice and bias will be addressed in a different post. I am currently appealing her bogus ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the purpose of this post is to compare the apparent hate crime hoax of Smollett with the real hate crime perpetrated against me by the City of San Jose, the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that's being covered up by the bogus legal actions and rulings by the City and courts. Now the comparison of the Smollett hate crime hoax and the real hate crime against me: 

As already mentioned, Jussie Smollett alleged that he was attacked physically by two male Trump supporters because of his race and sexual orientation. Smollett is black and he is Gay. Smollett received a lot of sympathy from several politicians and media personalities immediately after he went public with his claim, even before there was an investigation. One media personality went so far as to call the alleged attack a modern-day lynching.  A Chicago Police investigation concluded that the alleged attack was a hoax staged by Smollett and the Osundario brothers. Smollett was charged with several crimes related to making a false police report. The Osundario brothers apparently made a plea deal, agreeing to testify against Smollett. Smollett was found guilty on five counts of disorderly conduct for making false reports that he was a victim of a hate crime.

In contrast to the Smollett case, the real modern-day or high-tech lynching hate crime that I am the victim of was perpetrated by several San Jose city officials that include former mayor Chuck Reed, and current mayor Sam Liccardo. Following my medical disability retirement from the City's police force, three police administrators, Chief of Police Rob Davis, Deputy Chief of Police Adonna Amoroso, and Captain Tuck Younis refused to issue me a CCW (carrying a concealed weapon) permit as is required by law. The refusal of these officials to issue me a CCW permit was done out of spite and for the purpose of causing me emotional pain and suffering because of my disability and race. I'm black/African American. The denial of my CCW permit had absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever. It was based on revenge that was motivated by hatred and racism. Unlike the Jussie Smollett case, the hoax is not the false allegation of a hate crime. The hoax is the cover-up of a real hate crime. Jussie Smollett is being held accountable for his actions, whereas San Jose city officials and the courts have avoided accountability by engaging in fraud during the litigation of my discrimination lawsuit, totally undermining the judicial process. Unlike the Smollett case that got an overwhelming amount of national media coverage, even though it was an apparent hoax, my efforts at exposing this real hate crime against me by numerous contacts with the media has resulted in no coverage. 

The take-away from the Smollett case and my case is this. If you are a black celebrity and make an alleged false report of being the victim of a hate crime, it will get a lot of media coverage. However, you will likely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for political reasons. But if you are just an average black person that is not a celebrity like me, and a real victim of a hate crime by government officials, there will be no media coverage, and no one will be held accountable for political reasons as well. You see, it not about justice and accountability. It's also not about hate-crimes based on race and sexual orientation being reprehensible. It's all about celebrity and a big news story. The Chicago Police Department is angry because it wasted a lot of resources investigating the Smollett case that they are now saying was a hoax. But it was their poor judgment that is the problem. They expended a vast number of resources simply because Smollett was a celebrity and there was a lot of media coverage. Many of the resources wasted on the Smollett investigation should have been utilized on the large number of unsolved murders in Chicago.