9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONDONES “JIM CROW” ACTS

9^th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONDONES “JIM CROW” ACTS  

San Jose, May 20, 2016.  An urgent motion (see link below) complaining of corruption, “Jim Crow” and “Naziistic” kind of acts, crimes of California State Judiciary [California State Court and California Judicial Council] in collaboration with Federal Judge Ronald M. Whyte was filed today before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8cp1MkxZWRtLW5FWXlWTHhmRWM/view?usp=sharing

An 55 year old Petitioner and an 86 year old elder widowed disabled woman allege that they have been subjected to the U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s 3+ years, of one-sided discriminatory misconduct that is akin to “Nazi” style atrocities and “Jim Crow” kind of rulings/conduct. For e.g. the motion complains that Judge Whyte has retaliated against the Petitioner within 3 days of the filing of Petitioner’s Writ on the same case, and is threatening to label the Petitioner as a vexatious litigant by creating a false record, and under frivolous grounds, threatening to take away Petitioner’s ADA[1] accommodation, forcing Petitioner to reveal the testimony of his impeachment witnesses for the upcoming trial in the lower court case, et al., all because of Petitioner’s writ exposing the restrained person’s misconduct, a writ, which is a protected act, under the First Amendment petition to government of redress of his grievance, and California SLAPP statute, among others.

Petitioner alleges that Judge Whyte’s discriminatory misconduct stands distinctly apart, from the U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen, who presided over the underlying case for the first year, and from whom the case was uprooted and brought to the restrained person, whereupon “Jim Crow” kind of rulings and misconduct favoring state entity defendant ensued unabated.

The motion alleges numerous atrocities. .For e.g. on May 6, 2016, at 3:42 pm, when Petitioner, sought court clerk’s assistance on issuance of trial subpoenas on one discrete un-dismissed count  #35 in the underlying case, as being pro se Petitioner cannot sign the subpoena in his own name. Within hours, at 6:08 pm, Judge Whyte retaliated by issuing orders that barred the court clerk from issuing subpoenas to Petitioner, without the latter obtaining leave of court, based on false record defaming Petitioner, requiring disclosure of the necessity and nature of the testimony which is contrary to the law, and defeats the very essence of rebuttal/impeachment witness testimony. Petitioner claims that the Judge Whyte’s alleged above “Jim Crow” order is in bad faith, intended to pollute, subvert, and infect the normal trial proceeding in a manner that gives the state Defendant an edge.

Allegedly, Judge Whyte’s misconduct includes, among others, using, or allowing use of judge’s office to obtain special treatment for defendant state court, exchange of favors, having improper one sided conferences with defendant and its counsel at the expense of  complaining Petitioner’s exclusion, bias, prejudice, abuse of power, treating Petitioner in an egregious, hostile and defamatory fashion, engaging in partisan activity and making inappropriate partisan statements, retaliating against Petitioner for latter’s judicial misconduct complaints, permitting his orders to be authored by Defendant California State Court, violating the published precepts  of statutory standards of judicial conduct, and more.

The above, per the complaint, is in addition to Judge Whyte’s own admitted conflict of interest, where among other things, his last employer is the very defendant state court of the underling case, and his spouse, Anne Whyte, by his own admission, continues to make her living from the same defendant state court, and personally works with the named individual defendants/witnesses associated with the state court including L [Lincoln] Michael Clark, who is the named defendant in the underlying Federal Case

The complaining Petitioner states that he has to contend not just with the named defendant, but Judge Whyte too, who advocates for, and is de-facto the more formidable defendant, misusing his power.

The complaint adds, that during the 4 years case history, 50+ appealable issues have piled up as appeal of “off-limits” interlocutory orders that finally adjudicates issues and dismisses the party, is not allowed in bad faith. It is alleged that Judge Whyte’s purposeful delay on appeal is in bad faith, aimed to limit the claims to the low odds of appellate success, and intended to delay, as appeal will outlive the mortality of the 86 year old co-Plaintiff.

On May 20, 2016 Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen Roy Reinhardt (age 85) and John Byron Owens summarily denied Petitioner’s Motion to seek prospective injunctive relief from Judge Whyte’s “Jim Crow” and Naziistic atrocities/acts. It is questionable whether the Ninth Circuit above judges even bothered to review the requested relief as the footnote on the order states “SMR/MOATT” which stands for Sean M. Rodriquez, Motions Attorney. It appears that Ninth Circuit Federal Judges, whose average age is in the 80s and way past normal retirement age, enjoy life long secured job, tax payer paid salaries, immunity from lawsuits, while their work is being delegated to lower level attorneys, who offer no reasoning, or basis for denial of requested relief, and merely gets the Order rubber stamped by such federally appointed judge.

Stephen Roy Reinhardt 

John Byron Owens

Petitioner complains that Rodriquez foretold him not to expect any ruling on his complaint, and it appears that Rodriquez followed through on his assertion, making the existence of Ninth Circuit Court, meaningless and a sham.

It is for this very reason that the control of judiciary should be transferred from the legal profession to the citizens of this country and the overall public.

The United States District Court Judges at the San Jose Federal Court consists almost entirely of ex-California State Court Judges, like Judge Edward Davila, Judge Lucy Koh, Judge Beth Freeman, Judge Jeremy Fogel, Judge Ronald M. [Mcleod] Whyte, the latter  residing at Prospect Avenue, Los Gatos, California.

Federal Court Judges have life-long appointments, with no oversight, complete monopoly over the judiciary business, meaning no alternative competition. The judges have created their own civil judicial immunity that prevents them from being sued, or even deposed as  a witness in a case, on “mental process” immunity grounds. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”, John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

The public and media suspicion of RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] acts between the San Jose Federal Court Judges and the Defendant California State Court appears to be intensifying and U.S. Department of Justice has been asked to keep a close eye on it.

For feedback and inquiries, please contact judicialirregularities@gmail.com

---

[1] Under Title II, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 126

CORRUPTION BETWEEN CALIFORNIA STATE JUDICIARY AND THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE(S)?

CORRUPTION BETWEEN CALIFORNIA STATE JUDICIARY AND THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE(S)?

  

California Judicial Council Head Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye 

San Jose, April 19, 2016.       A writ (see below) complaining of corruption and crimes of California State Judiciary [California State Court and California Judicial Council] in collaboration with Federal Judge was filed today before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

  Writ asserts that allegations raised “equal FBI’s “Operation Greylord” ”. The complaint alleges that it is undisputed that public/world finds the California State Court and California Judicial Council, to be engaging in corruption & crimes, citing public protests of such corruption/crimes. The complaint goes on to state that this poison is now infecting the Federal Courts, and even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The complaint seeks relief on the “Naziistic” kind of misconduct and crimes under the color of law.

  The complaint alleges that for a year and a half, the underlying case was moving along just fine under Judge Edward Chen, until it is alleged that California State Court had it uprooted from him in bad faith and assigned to Judge Ronald M. Whyte who allegedly started enforcing his “Operation Greylord”, own created, unwritten and impermissible rules, including one on bar on claims against the State Court, no matter what. It is alleged that claims against private parties are fair game, but not against a State Court, even when legally permissible, like under ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], and authorized by prior J. Chen. Allegedly this “Off-limits” rule is enforced via bar on motion to amend/supplement claims, bar on discovery of previously permitted claims by J. Chen, bar on oral arguments, bar on written pleadings, bar on appeal, bar on ex parte relief, in essence “Naziism” style bar. This uneven bar/rule, per the complaint, directly implicates the equal protection of law clause (XIVth Amendment).

  The complaint seeks writ relief on Federal Judge’s  “off limits” bar, misconduct, prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts which amounts to an invidious discrimination against legitimate claims brought against his ex-employer, the state court. Allegation that the Federal Judge in collaboration with Defendant State Court “fixes” the case to cover up Defendant’s, his ex employer’s corruption. The misconduct is stated to resemble those in “Operation Greylord” and implicates the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 96, obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73, 28 U.S.C. §1985, et al..

  There is no law, policy, rule, memo, or sign posted outside a Federal Court stating that a legitimate claim against the state court is taboo, especially on ADA claim. To the contrary Federal Courts are supposed to rein in state abuses. Yet it is alleged that the Federal Judge Whyte makes it “off-limits”, claims that J. Chen permitted, engaging in misconduct of the worst kind.

  Allegedly, Judge Whyte’s misconduct includes, among others, using, or allowing use of judge’s office to obtain special treatment for defendant state court, exchange of favors, having improper one sided conferences with defendant and its counsel at the expense of  complaining Petitioner’s exclusion, bias, prejudice, abuse of power, treating Petitioner in an egregious, hostile and defamatory fashion, engaging in partisan activity and making inappropriate partisan statements, retaliating against Petitioner for latter’s judicial misconduct complaints, permitting his orders to be authored by Defendant California State Court, violating the published precepts  of statutory standards of judicial conduct, and more.

  The above, per the complaint, is in addition to Judge Whyte’s own admitted conflict of interest, where among other things, his last employer is the very defendant state court of the underling case, and his spouse, Anne Whyte, by his own admission, continues to make her living from the same defendant state court, and personally works with the named individual defendants/witnesses associated with the state court including L [Lincoln] Michael Clark, who is the named defendant in the underlying Federal Case.

L [Lincoln] Michael Clark, Judge, California State Court

  The complaining Petitioner states that he has to contend not just with the named defendant, but Judge Whyte too, who advocates for, and is de-facto the more formidable defendant, misusing his power.

  The complaint adds, that during the 4 years case history, 50+ appealable issues have piled up as appeal of “off-limits” interlocutory orders that finally adjudicates issues and dismisses the party, is not allowed in bad faith. It is alleged that Judge Whyte’s purposeful delay on appeal is in bad faith, aimed to limit the claims to the low odds of appellate success, and intended to delay, as appeal will outlive the mortality of the 86 year old co-Plaintiff.

  The United States District Court Judges at the San Jose Federal Court consists almost entirely of ex-California State Court Judges, like Judge Edward Davila, Judge Lucy Koh, Judge Beth Freeman, Judge Jeremy Fogel, Judge Ronald M. [Mcleod] Whyte, the latter  residing at Prospect Avenue, Los Gatos, California.

  Federal Court Judges have life-long appointments, with no oversight, complete monopoly over the judiciary business, meaning no alternative competition. The judges have created their own civil judicial immunity that prevents them from being sued, or even deposed as  a witness in a case, on “mental process” immunity grounds. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”, John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton.

  The public and media suspicion of RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] acts between the San Jose Federal Court Judges and the Defendant California State Court appears to be intensifying and U.S. Department of Justice has been asked to keep a close eye on it.

  For feedback and inquiries, please contact judicialirregularities@gmail.com 

California Superior Court Public Entity Is Gutting The ADA Statute While Pleas To U.S. Department Of Justice [DOJ] To Intervene Remain Un-Responded To, Even When U.S. DOJ Is Statutorily Required To Act

U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr

California Superior Court Public Entity Is Gutting The ADA Statute While Pleas  To U.S. Department Of Justice [DOJ] To Intervene Remain Un-Responded To, Even When U.S. DOJ Is Statutorily Required To Act.

February 11, 2016

The federal ADA [Americans with disabilities] lawsuit that began four years ago against the public entity California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, is scheduled for trial commencing from March 14, 2016.

The Defendant California Superior Court has conceded on all elements of the ADA claim and its only defense is contending that two pro se disabled Plaintiffs, including an 86 year old, disabled widow’s multiple written ADA requests for accommodations that sought ADA accommodations “beginning from x date” does not conform to California Rules of Court 1.100 as ADA requests can only be made for one specific date vs. beginning from the first specific court date. [Seriously?]. This late, first time raised excuse made by California Superior Court’s counsel is not borne out by the Defendant California Superior Court’s own produced evidence on ADA responses, which reject Plaintiffs’ ADA accommodation request on completely different grounds, outside of the excuse supra.

Plaintiffs’ in their initial and operative complaint, named United States of America, through its U.S Attorney General, and U.S Department of Justice as a real party of interest, on among other things, including asserting that: “U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL” is a proper and generally a necessary party to proceedings, for instance, affecting the validity, administration, constitutionality, enforcement [42. U.S.C. §12117, §12188, 15 U.S.C. 1125], duty to investigate and undertake periodic compliance reviews, even commence its own civil action, impose civil penalties to vindicate public interest, promulgating regulations [42 U.S.C. §12134] of ADA, the Civil Rights, and other statutes implicated in this SAC [Second Amended Complaint]”

In fact the United States should have an interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §517 because this litigation implicates the proper interpretation and application of the ADA, Section 504, and the Department of Justice’s regulations implementing Title II of the ADA, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, and Section 504, 28 C.F.R. pt. 42, subpt. G.2

In particular, the Department has primary responsibility for enforcement of Title II with respect to the services, programs, and activities relating to state and local courts and the administration of justice. 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(6). Further, the Defendants receive federal financial assistance from the Department. Accordingly, the United States has a strong interest in the resolution of this matter.

Yet Plaintiffs pleas to the multiple individuals at the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Solicitor General’s Office, U.S. Attorney General’s Office has fallen to deaf ears.

TO U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL and U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL and zillions of attorneys at the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:

KNOCK! KNOCK! ANYBODY HOME? ARE YOU LISTENING?

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch

U.S. Dept. of Justice, acting assistant attorney general 
Vanita Gupta

FEDERAL COURT CALLS COMPLAINT RE. CALIFORNIA STATE SUPERIOR COURT’S PERJURY TO BE AN “INCOMPLETE REPRESENTATION TO [FEDERAL] COURT”

FEDERAL COURT CALLS COMPLAINT RE. CALIFORNIA STATE SUPERIOR COURT’S PERJURY TO BE AN “INCOMPLETE REPRESENTATION TO [FEDERAL] COURT”

San Jose, California, January 19, 2016

  Two private Plaintiffs’ have sued California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara for latter’s failure to comply with the ADA [Americans With Disabilities] Act. The lawsuit initiated in January 2013 is expected to reach trial in March 2016.

  The January 19, 2016, Federal Court Order, Docket #451, issued by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal of the United States District Court, Northern District, states in pertinent part

  “Plaintiffs jointly move for sanctions against SCCA [Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara] and [California Sixth District Appellate Court Clerk, Beth Miller] Miller’s counsel for violating a protective order, committing perjury and failing to appear at a deposition”, p.8:6-7

Beth Miller, California Sixth District Appellate Court Clerk

  “Plaintiffs’ perjury claim pertains to [California Superior Court] counsel’s representation that Plaintiffs did not provide Defendants with the audio or video recording”, p.8:12-13

  The Federal Court Order goes on to call Plaintiffs’ complaint of perjury as [California Superior Court, Santa Clara County] “counsel’s representation to the court was incomplete”, p.9:5-6

  The party whose representation to the court was incomplete is California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. The counsel for California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara is James (Jim) Brown, of Sedgwick, LLC.

California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara Counsel, James (Jim) Brown

  It is ironic that the very institution, the California Superior Court that is supposed to epitomize justice and which compels the rest of the world to make complete representations to it in cases before them, itself, appears to engage in blatant disregard of stating the truth under oath, and is not practicing what it preaches to the rest of the world.

  The United States District Court Judges at the San Jose Federal Court consists entirely of ex-California Superior Court Judges, like Judge Edward Davila, Judge Lucy Koh, Judge Beth Freeman, Judge Jeremy Fogel, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, the latter being the assigned judge on this instant case, despite his close association and immediate last employment with the Defendant California Superior Court, in the very same Santa Clara County, and despite his open admission that his spouse, Ann Whyte, earns her living provide services to the Superior Court, Santa Clara County and has been listed as working with state court judge L [Lincoln] Michael Clark, who is the named defendant in the underlying Federal Case.

Senior District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 6 - 4th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113

 

L [Lincoln] Michael Clark, Judge, California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara

 Federal Court Judges have life-long appointments, no oversight, complete monopoly over the judiciary business, meaning no alternative competition. The judges have created their own civil judicial immunity that prevents them from being sued, or even deposed as  a witness in a case, on “mental process” immunity grounds. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”, John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

  The public suspicion of RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] acts between the San Jose Federal Court Judges and the Defendant California Superior Court appears to be intensifying and is more likely than not to result in a public inquiry and a Department of Justice investigation.

  For feedback and inquiries, please contact judicialirregularities@gmail.com