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
