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