9th
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
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
