I started this blog for the purpose of exposing 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. The San Jose City Attorney's Office engaged in criminal misconduct during litigation of a discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City in federal court in August 2006. At the very least, there is the appearance that several court officials, including two judges, were paid off based on actions they took in my case that were biased in favor of the City. Several City officials including Mayor Liccardo and officials with the US District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are engaged in a cover-up of this scandal. Several current and former City officials appear to have profited financially for their roles in this scandal. As is stated in my blog's title, justice is for sale.
During litigation in my lawsuit, the San Jose City Attorney's Office (the City) and my attorney filed a fraudulent stipulation of dismissal of a police administrator from my lawsuit that violated my rights and also committed perjury on two separate occasions. The evidence is indisputable that the police official in question, Tuck Younis, was paid off (quid pro quo) with a promotion from Captain to Assistant Chief (Younis is now Chief of Police of Los Altos, CA) for his perjured testimony. The evidence is compelling that my attorney, Stuart Kirchick, was paid off as well for his participation in the City's fraudulent scheme. After the dismissal of Younis from my lawsuit, the City filed a fabricated motion for summary judgment at the urging of the US District Court. In its motion, the City made false claims that contradict truthful admissions it made in its answer to my complaint for damages. The district court granted the City's motion knowing that the City's claims were false and that its ruling was inconsistent with the facts and law. Therefore, the ruling by law is null and void. When I filed a Rule 60 motion seeking to have the court vacate its illegitimate judgment based on fraud, the court falsified its docket entries by deliberately misstating the grounds for my motion as challenging the "Costs Taxed" awarded to the City. The court held a fraudulent hearing on my motion based on the false docket entries. Prior to the hearing, I was told that there would be no hearing, and that I did not have to appear because my motion would be decided on the "papers." During the hearing, the City was granted a default judgment by way of a "motion to dismiss" by the City because I did not appear after being told there would be no hearing. The verbatim account of the City's motion to dismiss was fraudulently omitted from the transcript and other records of the court, or it was made ex parte (in secret). The City's motion to dismiss is a mystery. The court has refused to provide me details surrounding this mystery motion. After the questionable hearing, the court entered a judgment falsely stating that the court had denied my Rule 60 motion on the merits. The Civil Minutes of the hearing by court clerk Jackie Garcia totally contradict the account of the hearing in the transcript by court reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge. It is if they witnessed two totally different hearings. Ater entering its final judgment, the district court refused to notify me of its ruling causing me to miss the deadline to file an appeal. It was necessary to petition the court for an extension of the deadline, which it did reluctantly. In a ruling dated July 21, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment based on the district court's written order which differs from the default judgment the district court entered during the hearing on my Rule 60 motion. The ruling of the court shows contempt for the truth and the rule of law, and it covers up the bigoted and malicious conduct of San Jose city officials that violated my constitutional rights.
Further evidence of the district court's contempt for the rule of law is its ruling dismissing my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel by giving preclusive effect to a small claims judgment the City won against me. The ruling is a clear violation of 28 USC Section 1738 (the full faith and credit act) which commands, dictates, requires federal courts to use state court judgments in the exact same manner as courts from the rendering state. Since the small claims judgment is from California, the district court was required to follow the preclusion law of California. Collateral estoppel does not apply to small claims judgments in California because of the informal nature of small claims proceedings. Even if it had been a judgment from a formal proceeding, it still would not meet the requirements for collateral estoppel because there is no record that pinpoints the issue that was "actually litigated" and determined. Furthermore, there was no litigation at all on the issue I raised in small claims court. The small claims court made an implied finding that it had no authority to grant the compensation I was seeking and ended the proceeding without hearing any testimony. It is not debatable that my lawsuit cannot be precluded on the basis of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel based on the full faith and credit act. The full faith and credit act (28 USC Section 1738) implements the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Because the district court violated the full faith and credit act, its order and the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court's order are unconstitutional and are not enforceable by law.
The fraud perpetrated by the San Jose City Attorney's Office during the filing and litigation of the City's motion for summary judgment, the flagrant violation of the full faith and credit act by the District Court, and the District Court's fraudulent hearing on my Rule 60 motion for relief is all part of a conspiracy by these officials to obstruct justice. The facts are clear that Mayor Sam Liccardo and the San Jose City Council are involved in this obstruction of justice scandal and its cover-up. The Mayor and City Council failed to respond to an email I sent to each on June 29 referencing this matter. Only one councilmember acknowledged receiving my email but failed to state if the City Council would take any action. I also brought this matter to the attention of Mayor Liccardo with a posting on his facebook page on or about July 12. He has not responded to that posting, which he has now removed.
