Los Angeles, California
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ., M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEL: (805) 901-2693
October 16, 2014
(Today's date)
March 17, 2011
(Original date)
**UPDATE(Denotes NEW information added to blog after original blog)
*(Denotes change in original blog, either information added to or deleted from original blog)
This updated version of the blog is submitted and contributed as part of the "War on Racial Discrimination" *(WRD) in California *(and the United States), and it is dedicated to Christopher Dorner *and Aaron Alexis especially; but also to Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin.
****WHO WILL BE THE FIRST *JUDGE CHARGED OR REFERRED TO A GRAND JURY FOR INDICTMENT FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION BY THE “NEW” PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES ?
*****WHEN IS THE LAST TIME A JUDGE, STATE OR FEDERAL, WAS REFERRED TO A GRAND JURY FOR INDICTMENT FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES?
WILL THE “NEW” PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION HAVE THE COURAGE TO PRESENT A STATE OR FEDERAL JUDGE TO A GRAND JURY FOR INDICTMENT FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, WHERE THERE IS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT AND PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE TO DO SO ?
INDICTABLE CRIMINAL ROSTER (ICR) FOR THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES
******NOTE : Last year *(2013), the U.S. Attorney's Office in L.A. obtained grand jury indictments against 18 L.A. County Sheriff deputies for various civil rights violations. Among those charged were two lieutenants. It is highly probable that these lieutenants are considered "public officials", so they would have answered the question about the "first" public official referred to a grand jury for indictment, if it wasn't answered before (and I believe it may have been). *Moreover, Senators Ronald Calderon and Leland Yee, who were recently indicted, would also satisy the public official designation. So, I have now *simply reduced the category to "judges".
The Public Integrity Section has now demonstrated that it will go after the "puppies", but how about the big dogs, especially judges? *That's another story.
*Also, the question was also answered as to whether the first public official indicted would be a judge. It wasn't. So, the next time this blog is published, i.e., No. 59, I will remove the question : "Will it be a judge?" And, I will also re-characterize the main question that is asked. Instead of "the first high level official", it will simply be "the first judge".
Round #1 began the start of a new and continuous blog that will monthly *(information here deleted), *and sometimes bi-monthly, address the issue of who will be the first public official, and judges are such officials, to be indicted for a civil rights violation per prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office in Los Angeles. Once again, here, as I did with the previous ICR, I offer candidates to the U.S. Attorneys Office who are readily available and should be indicted for civil rights and other crimes. And, as long as they are not prosecuted, they are being held above the law, while other citizens are being prosecuted daily for the same or similar crimes. For example, the perjury trial of baseball star Barry Bonds. While perjury requires the additional element of "under oath", the central crime is "making a false statement", and there are several individuals on the ICR who have been charged with making a false statement in violation of federal law. Yet, none of them have been prosecuted or indicted. So, the question is: Why? Clearly, thusfar, the U.S. Attorney's Office has either chosen not to or not found the courage to prosecute judges for their federal criminal civil rights conduct. Therefore, Los Angeles has created a "haven" for corrupt and/or crooked and/or racist judges ( and here, I define racist as purposeful or intended discrimination against a person of another race, whether it is based on a feeling of superiority or simple malice). California judges can commit any crime they wish knowing that the most that will happpen is that they will be forced to resign or retire from office. And usually that's done in secret. What's the connection?
This passage is not meant to condemn all judges in California or the Los Angeles area, only those who have committed crimes (or have been charged with committing such through a federal criminal complaint). There absolutely are some fair and decent judges in California and Los Angeles(and one that comes to mind immediately has the initials "S.R." and is a member of the Ninth Circuit) and every now and then one can read about the just and fair treatment a judge has implemented, such as the judge who found the confession of a 15 year old boy to be illegal, and (*some information here, in the original blog, has been excluded after I learned later that a judge that I thought was fair, was not fair after all; and the information that I had cited as an example of fairness was likely a biased fairness for specific individuals, rather than a consistent fairness overall as a judge). *Another fair judge whom I am distinctly aware of is Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County judge Kathleen Kennedy. As I have stated before in another blog, judge Kennedy is a "special" judge, especially in L.A. County Courts. When judge Kennedy implements justice, it is "fair" justice, and she is consistent with it. I had the opportunity to observe judge Kennedy preside over an entire criminal trial, People v. Roderick Wright, and I must say, I was both delighted and impressed with her sense of fairness for both sides. Judge Kennedy is truly "special".
But, like there may be bad lawyers and executives, there are bad judges. And when such judges are found to be bad, they should be prosecuted like anyone else. The public often comments that celebrities receive special treatment when it comes to discipline for misconduct, but no one ever raises the issue about the special treatment that judges receive, especially in California, for their misconduct and/or criminal conduct. Part of the reason is because the public doesn't know about the misconduct. It's kept secret by the government and the major print and broadcast (mostly white) media or press. That's one of the first things that should be addressed if there is ever to be an attempt to not hold judges "above the law".
Previously, I renamed the roster of individuals on the "ICR". The listing shall forthwith be called the "Indictable Criminal Roster", rather than the Indictable Candidate Roster (but as can be ascertained, the symbolic letters will remain the same, "ICR"), and this is based on the four stages of criminality affecting the designation of the term "criminal" to an individual or person. In Stage I, when an individual commits a crime, as a matter of fact and law, that individual is a criminal and remains a criminal until caught, that is, arrested or apprehended, or voluntarily submits himself to authorities and otherwise reaches an agreement that substitutes for an arrest or prosecution, e.g., an NPA (a non-prosecution agreement--which requires payment of restitution).
An example that I have used before for clarity is the case of the woman walking down a street who gets her purse snatched by a man with noticeable scars on his face and with his face uncovered. If the woman is able to clearly see and identify the man, through his face and other identifiable characteristics (and here, we assume she is), she knows who her attacker is; and after the man physically takes the woman's purse and frightens her in the process, and thereafter flees with her purse, he has robbed her of her purse and he is a "criminal". And if the woman files a criminal complaint against the man with the respective law enforcement body (and here, we assume she will), the matter then undergoes criminal investigation of the man based on his description and any other evidence the police may possess, and the man remains a "criminal". This is Stage I. In Stage II, if the man is caught and arrested and charged, he then enters the criminal justice system and process. The criminal justice process then cloaks the man with a "presumption of innocent until proven guilty", and during this process, he is not a "criminal". He is an "innocent man", until proven guilty or is otherwise released from the criminal justice system without proof of guilt. This is Stage II. In Stage III, there will either be a dismissal, a trial, a plea agreement of some kind, or some other disposition of the charges. The man will leave Stage III as either a "criminal" (because he was tried and convicted or was found guilty) or innocent (because he was found not guilty after a trial or because his case was otherwise dismissed without a finding of guilt) or completely innocent (because there was insufficient or no evidence of guilt). This is Stage III. Stage IV is the actual exit (from the criminal justice process) designation of an individual. That designation is either "criminal", or "innocent", or "completely innocent". Because everyone on the ICR is in Stage I, I have changed the name of the roster to match the Stage (and designation) in which the complained about individuals are in. Therefore, they are "criminals"(also known as "crooks").
Moreover, if there is any question about the appropriateness of producing the ICR, a Manhattan, New York judge made it clear that it is appropriate. According to the L.A. Times, "N.Y.can release data on teachers", January 11, 2011, Manhattan Judge Cynthia S. Kern, speaking on teachers, stated, "The public has an interest in the job performance of public employees, particularly in the field of education...." "Courts have repeatedly held that release of job-performance related information, even negative information such as that involving misconduct, does not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy." Further, Judge Kern found that "the reports 'may be released regardless of whether and to what extent they may be unreliable or otherwise flawed." The judges and other officials on the ICR are "public employees" and the information relates to their "job performance" or "negative information such as that involving misconduct". According to the article, "Lawyers representing the media in the case hailed the decision (to "publicly release performance ratings for more than 12,000 teachers based on their students' test scores") as a victory for the public, establishing the public's right to objective performance measures of government employees."
For clarification, whenever the terms "charged" or "charges" are used below, they refer to what complainants complained about in a federal criminal complaint filed with the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles.
It should be noted, to my knowledge, that none of the individuals listed below has been cleared by the U.S. Justice Department or the U.S. Attorney's Office, that is, the Justice Department has not declined to prosecute based upon a lack of evidence. Therefore, the individuals remain under criminal investigation.
Further, and ironically, as long as the current Complaints are pending in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, all accused or "Defendants" in the Complaints are "fugitives" in a sense, as to other jurisdictions or states, in that they are susceptible to and can be arrested and/or indicted and/or arraigned in any other jurisdiction or state that they travel to, based on the California Complaints, at the discretion of the respective U.S. Attorney and/or FBI agent of the state or jurisdiction in question. That is, while the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles has refused to secure an arrest and indictment of any of the judges and other individuals on the ICR, some U.S. Attorneys in other jurisdictions or states may do otherwise. Although the Defendants would likely be transferred back to California for indictment and/or arraignment and/or trial, they certainly can be arrested in other states, based on the California Complaints. And, if they happen to commit a federal offense (or state offense) while traveling to and in another jurisdiction, they could be indicted, arraigned, and tried in that jurisdiction as well (for both the state and federal offenses, by the separate sovereignties of course). So while the accused in the Los Angeles' Complaints may feel safe or relieved while residing and traveling in California, they will have to "tip-toe" while visiting other states or jurisdictions, based on the California Complaints.
Some differences for future Rounds are that : (1) instead of posting 10 names or more for each posting, I will now post all names for each round ; and (2) if I add some new information for one or more of the candidates, or if the candidate is newly added to the roster, I will place an asterisk (*) by the name of the candidate, or where the new information is being placed.
Further, the ICR will no longer be listed on a more serious to less serious offenses basis. Henceforth, they are simply listed at random, or in no particular order. But, ordinarily, most recent additions will be at the end of the listing.
Finally, another additional feature to the roster is that each month, I will send a copy of the blog to an organization or individual. Sometimes, I will identify the organization or individual, other times I will not, and I will simply designate the organization or person "Mystery" *(and this designation also means that I may or may not be sending a copy out). I will place a particular emphasis on the legal community, since the ICR involves legal principles.
This month's organization /individual is: Mystery
***Denotes individuals that have had a criminal civil rights Complaint filed against them as of July 4, 2012.
#-Denotes newly added members as of *April, 2014.
The individuals who could and should be indicted for civil rights and/or other violations are:
For the month of October, 2014
1. Steven Hintz*** , ex-judge of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County, who is now running for treasurer-tax collector of Ventura County (Update: Hintz is now the new Ventura County Treasurer-tax collector, according to a Ventura County clerk in that office: Hintz has been charged with intentionally acting to deny the civil and constitutional rights of a black lawyer , based on race (or racial discrimination), and with conspiring with other Superior Court judges to do the same. He is also charged with commiting election and/or voter fraud in the primary and general elections of 2010 . Hintz’s actions caused the unlawful eviction of the Black lawyer from his home-law office and the shutdown of his law practice in Ventura, California. Hintz is a member of theJudicial Seven. Some specific conduct: In a civil unlawful detainer jury trial, Hintz, as presiding judge, intentionally answered an outcome-determinative jury question that was required to be answered by the jury, which caused an eviction judgment against a Black lawyer. Thereafter, without any request for one,*Hintz declared in open court that he would not be granting a stay of the eviction judgment to the same Black lawyer. By the general election ballot remaining the same or unchanged regarding Hintz's ballot designation, he clearly defrauded Ventura County voters in the general election, even if there was some question regarding the primary election. In reference to the general election fraud, an amended complaint has now been filed against Hintz and James Becker, the Assistant County Clerk-Recorder, for conspiracy to violate federal and state voting rights and civil rights laws. As stated above, Hintz is now the new treasurer-tax collector for Ventura County, and most of the Ventura County voters who voted for him likely know nothing about his being forced to retire by the Justice Department and fraudulently misleading Ventura County voters in order to obtain their votes. NOTE: even though the Ventura County Star endorsed Hintz for treasurer-tax collector, I have not discovered a major story by the paper recognizing and celebrating his "victory". Based on my knowledge and belief, the Star has kept Hintz's victory "quiet as kept". I wonder why? If the Star has produced a major celebratory story of Hintz's victory, I welcome someone to point it out to me in the comment section. Otherwise, I maintain my postion that there has not been one, purposely.
2. Barry Klopfer***, ex-judge of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County: Klopfer , while serving as an appellate judge, was charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny civil and constitutional rights under color of law and based on race (or racial discrimination). He was also charged with making a false statement during a judicial proceeding. Klopfer is a member of the Judicial Seven. Some specific conduct: As an appellate judge, ignored the most significant question raised on appeal,i.e., a jury question, and made several false statements in an appellate opinion directed to the plaintiff's burden of proof in the aforementioned unlawful detainer trial.
3. David Long***, ex-judge of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County: Long, while serving as an appellate judge, was charged with a conspiracy to deny civil and constitutional rights under color of law and based on race (or racial discrimination). He was also charged with making a false statement during a judicial proceeding. Some specific conduct: The same as that for Barry Klopfer above.
4. Ken Riley***, ex-judge of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County: Riley, while serving as an appellate judge, was charged with a conspiracy to deny civil and constitutional rights under color of law and based on race (or racial discrimination). He was also charged with making a false statement during a judicial proceeding. Some specific conduct: The same as that for Barry Klopfer above.
5.Dickran Tevrizian***, ex-judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California: Tevrizian is charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny constitutional and statutory rights under color of law, and based on race (or racial discrimination). He committed multiple acts of misconduct. He committed acts against both a white female client and a black lawyer. Tevrizian is a member of the Judicial Seven. Specific conduct: Tevrizian denied a plaintiff bringing a disability discrimination complaint her right to counsel, without a hearing; denied a pro hac vice motion without a hearing; ignored the law dealing with defaults; and acted without jurisdiction to grant a summary judgment motion.
Tevrizian also conspired with judge Harry Pregerson to have Tevrizian retire, likely with benefits, rather than having him face discipline and probably losing those benefits.
6.Terry Hatter, Jr.***, senior (and reired) judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California: Hatter was charged with
obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny constitutional rights. Hatter is a member of the Judicial Seven. Specific conduct: Hatter ignored specific identified law in order to deny a man social security disability compensation, and conspired with other judges to do the same.
7. Thomas P. O’Brien***, ex-United States Attorney for Los Angeles : O’Brien and his Office are charged with making a false and fraudulent statement during an executive proceeding and with obstruction of justice. He was subsequently charged with committing mail fraud . O’Brien is also a member of the Judicial Seven. Specific conduct: O'Brien, together with some of his assistant USAs, submitted a false statement to victims of a crime in a letter sent from his office, and failed to inform victims of their statutory rights, as required by law.
8. William Schwarzer***, senior (and retired) judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California : Schwarzer, while already retired and serving as a visiting member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on a three-judge panel, was charged with obstruction of justice , conspiring to obstruct justice, violation of civil and constitutional rights under color of law, and for violation of a federal statute providing relief for the denial of relief benefits, e.g., social security disability benefits , based on race (I relied on my race in relation to a white client). Schwarzer is a member of the Judicial Seven. Specific conduct: Schwarzer relied on a false standard in order to deny a man social security disability compensation, and ignored the correct standard to do the same.
9. Cathy Catterson***, ex-Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Catterson was charged with, among other things, making and using a false and fraudulent document in violation of federal criminal law. Catterson was charged with the same or similar allegations of misconduct as those for Mary Schroeder (when she was Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit). Catterson is a member of the Judicial Seven. Specific conduct: Catterson, among other things, intentionally and fraudulently changed the title of a case and altered the case number, so that the public would not know the actual or true title and parties of the case--the true title named Catterson herself; and, for invidious purposes, she charged a disability discrimination plaintiff two appellate fees for filing the same appeal.
10. Harry Pregerson***, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : Pregerson was charged with obstruction of justice and making a false statement in a judicial proceeding. Specific conduct: Pregerson issued an initial questionable order, and, thereafter, issued another order to prevent review of the first one; he also filed a false statement and delayed acting on a judicial misconduct complaint in order to allow a judge, district judge Dickran Tevrizian, to retire and avoid discipline. Further, Pregerson also tampered with a federal file, by removing a docketed document(which tended to evidence the unlawful delay) ,also for the purpose of allowing the same judge to retire and avoid discipline. Thusfar, nothing has been done by the judicial system to have Tevrizian face discipline as he should have.
11. Unnamed Assistant U.S. Attorneys*** of the Citizen Complaint Unit at or about March, 2008, AUSAs of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles: the AUSAs were charged, along with the U.S. Attorney's Office, with submitting a false and fraudulent statement during an executive proceeding and for obstruction of justice.
Specific conduct: The ASUAs conspired with other members of the office to send a false and fraudulent letter to victims of crimes falsely stating that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not conduct criminal investigations.
12. Richard Tallman***, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Tallman was charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the intentional denial of constitutional and civil rights under color of law. Specific conduct: Tallman illegally acted on a petition for en banc review, without authority, and unlawfully denied a preliminary injunction appeal without a hearing.
13. N.Randy Smith***, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith is charged with making or using a false statement or document in violation of federal law and obstruction of justice. Specific conduct: Smith made a false statement in an appellate decision; and, thereafter, issued an invalid and unconstitutional order to prevent review of the false statement order.
14. M.Margaret McKeown***, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: McKeown is charged with making or using a false or fraudulent statement or writing in violation of federal law and obstruction of justice. Specific conduct: McKeown made a false statement as part of an appellate opinion, and thereafter, attempted to and did prevent review of the false statement.
15. Ronald Gould***, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Gould was charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, violation of civil and constitutional rights under color of law, and violation of statute providing for relief benefits (and denial of benefits based on race), and violation of statute prohibiting racial discrimination. Specific conduct: Gould denied a social security disability claimant his constitutional due process rights by ignoring the applicable law for relief; discriminated against litigant's Black counsel, and therefore, the litigant himself, by unlawfully denying oral argument on a case that had been calendared for argument.
16. Richard Paez***, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Paez is charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice and denial of equal protection of the law. Specific conduct: In a case where two petitioners, one white and one black, relied on the same premise for relief, and sought the same relief, Paez granted relief to the white petitioner, but denied relief to the black petitioner, and provided no reason for the different treatment.
17. James B. Becker, Assistant County Clerk, Ventura County: Becker is charged with with voting rights violations , obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud, and conspiracy to deny constitutional and civil rights. Specific conduct: Becker allowed Steven Hintz, a candidate for treasurer-tax collector, to designate and use a misleading title on the general election ballot, in violation of California regulatory and election law and federal election law.
18. Ventura County Election Officials (including Monica Terrones) at the Ventura County Government Center: Specific conduct: Election officials refused to allow a black citizen to copy candidates statements in the originally completed form, in violation of California regulatory law and federal election or voting rights law.
19. Molly C. Dwyer***, current Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Dwyer is charged with making a material false or fraudulent statement or representation and/or making or using a false writing or document knowing the same to contain a materially false statement or entry in violation of federal law. Specific conduct: Dwyer intentionally entered false information for the title and parties of a case filed in the Court of Appeals.
20. Michael Pastor*** , judge of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County : Pastor is charged with conspiring with the Medical Board of California to deny Dr. Conrad Murray his constitutional rights, and under color of law and based on race. Specific conduct: Pastor , at the urging of the MBC, acted to suspend Dr. Murray’s medical license prior to a due process hearing or trial, knowing that such action had the potential of causing harm to Murray's livelihood and his patients before a due process finding of liability or guilt. After Murray's conviction at trial, Pastor acted to deny Murray bail pending sentencing, where, under the circumstances, e.g., Murray was already out on bail, bail ordinarily would have been continued or granted. At sentencing, Pastor sentence Murray to the maximum sentence possible, where, under the circumstances, others in Murray's situation and with Murray's background, e.g., no criminal record, would have been sentenced to a much lesser sentence.
21. Medical Board of California***, medical licensing agency of the State of California : the MBC is charged with conspiring with judge Michael Pastor, during the preliminary hearing for Dr. Conrad Murray, to deny Dr. Murray his constitutional rights, and under color of law and based on his race. Specific conduct : The MBC is charged with urging judge Pastor to suspend the medical license of Dr. Murray prior to a due process hearing or trial, knowing that such action had the potential of causing harm to Murray's livelihood and his patients before a due process finding of liability or guilt.
22. Robert J. Perry***, judge of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County:
judge Perry is charged with intentionally usurping the domain of the jury and substituting his judgment for that of the Los Angeles County jury in dismissing a gun allegation and granting a new trial after the jury had found the gun allegation to be true, i.e., that defendant Johannes Mehserle had personally used a firearm in the commission of involuntary manslaughter. Perry also provided Mehserle with double jeopardy protection against a re-trial, notwithstanding that on paper Mehserle was only granted a new trial and not an acquittal. Specific conduct: Perry specifically used "acquittal" language in a new trial motion Order of relief in order to provide Mehserle with greater protection than Mehserle had sought.
23. Superior Court of California*** (and Los Angeles and Ventura Counties): Charged with a pattern of denying Black males, *especially Black male professionals, their constitutional rights, due process and other, while they undergo the judicial process in the Superior Court of California, particularly with jury trials, through conspiring with, either directly or indirectly, various Superior Court judges who perpetrate the denial of rights through their judicial actions, i.e., under color of law.
24. Andre Birotte*** , U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles : Birotte and his office, including the Citizens Complaint Unit, are charged with submitting a false and fraudulent letter to a citizen-victim, by mail, during the course of an executive proceeding, and obstruction of justice.
25. Unnamed Assistant United States Attorneys*** (AUSAs) in the Citizen Complaint Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office currently (or during the Birotte Administration): Charged with formulating and issuing a false and fraudulent letter to a citizen-victim by mail and obstruction of justice.
26. #Chris Sawyer, Clerk, U.S. District Court, Central District of Cal. : Crimes or criminal acts are conspriracy, through the clerk's office, to deny constitutional rights and/or denying constitutional rights under color of law with respect to having district judge Christina A. Snyder assigned to a case
for the specific purpose of denying a plaintiff his constitutional rights, under color of law, *and based on race or color. *3/14/2014
27. #Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, USDC, Cent. Dist. of Cal.: Crimes or criminal acts are accepting assignment to a case for the specific purpose of denying a *Black male Plaintiff his right to a fair judge and fair trial; and after being assigned to the case, denying the Plaintiff his constitutional rights under color of law by not acting on his pending TRO motion or other parts of the case. And, Snyder conspired with district judge Dickran Tevrizian to deny the same *Black male Plaintiff his constitutional rights, under color of law, by unlawfully accepting a transfer of a case that she knew was illegally transferred for the specific purpose of denying the Plaintiff his right to a fair judge, fair pre-trial proceedings, and a fair trial. *3/14/2014
28. #Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : Bybee committed the crimes or criminal acts of the denial of constitutional rights under color of law, based on race or color, especially as it relates to violation of the Crime Victims Rights Act and other aspects of the appeal of a district court case through a review of a petition for a writ of mandamus. In the appeal at issue, Bybee violated multiple provisions of the CVRA, and he also, together with judges Richard Clifton, and William A. Fletcher, conspired to deny a *,Black male appellant his constitutional rights under color of law, and based on race or color, and conspired to file a false and fraudulent statement as his "decision" on appeal; and conspired to and did obstruct justice by impeding the fair administration of justice with the requisite intent to do so. *3/14/2014
29. #Richard Clifton, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : Clifton, along with Jay S. Bybee and William Fletcher, conspired to deny an appellant his constitutional rights under color of law, based on race or color, in a review of a mandamus petition filed as an appeal, pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act(CVRA), where multiple provisions of the
CVRA were violated by Clifton and the others; further, Clifton and the others made a false and fraudulent statement as their "decision" on appeal, in violation of a federal criminal statute, and he also obstructed justice and conspired to do so. *3/14/2014
30. #William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : Fletcher, along with Circuit judges Jay S. Bybee and Richard Clifton, acted to deny an appellant his constituional rights under color of law, based on race or color, and conspired to do so, by violating multiple provisions of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA); by, alone with the others, making a false and fraudulent statement during a judicial proceeding as his "decision" in a case, and by conspiring to, and obstructing justice. *3/14/2014
31. #William K. Suter, Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court: Suter committed the crimes or criminal acts of conspiring to and denying an appellant his constitutional rights under color of law, based on race or color, while the appellant was attempting to appeal a judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on a ruling on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Suter usurped the authority of a Supreme Court Justice and acted to refuse to "construe" an Application to a single Justice as a certiorari petition when he did not possess the authority to do so; therefore, he acted without authority. Furthermore, he also refused to submit an Application to a single Justice when all the requirements were met to do so. Finally, he violated the Supreme Court's in forma pauperis statute (IFP)by refusing to docket an Application where required to do so. *Suter has now retired. Another retirement connected with a Complaint (the letter triggering the Complaint against Suter was issued before Suter's purported "announcement" of his retirement). *3/14/2014
32. #Jeffrey Atkins, Deputy Clerk, U.S.Supreme Court : Atkins, together with William Suter, the Clerk, acted to deny an appellant his constitutional rights under color of law, based on race or color, and conspired to do so, by refusing to place a case on the Supreme Court docket in violation of Supreme Court Rules, by not "contruing" an Application for relief as a petition for a writ of certirari when he had no authority to do so or "without authority"; and by not submitting an Application to a single Justice as required by the Rules. *3/14/2014
33. #Jacob Travers, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court : Travers, together with William Suter, the Clerk, acted to deny an appellant in the Supreme Court his constitutional rights under of law by refusing to docket a case when it should have been docketed; and by refusing to submit an application to a single Justice although all the requirements were met for the Application to be submitted to a single Justice, and refusing to provide an explanation for not doing so. *3/14/2014
34. #Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, USDC, Central District of California : Carney committed the crimes of denying constitutional rights under color of law, based on race or color and obstruction of justice. In a district court case where he presided, Carney issued two illegal orders, and acted wthout authority in doing so. Carney also purportedly acted on a motion for a temporary restraining order(TRO) without affording the Black male Plaintiff with a hearing and without scheduling a date for a preliminary injunction. Furthermore, Carney delayed acting on the TRO to the extent that the Black plaintiff had to file a Petition for a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. *3/18/2014
******NOTE : All titles assigned to individuals on this list are the titles or functions that the individuals had or performed at the time that they committed the offenses or crimes that they committed. Therefore, even if the individuals change positions after they were initially placed on the ICR, their initial title will always remain and will be considered the title for the individuals as long as they are on the ICR, with the exception that sometimes they will be referred to as "ex" judge or other position, e.g., ex-judge instead of judge.
UPDATE--May 9, 2013
I believe there will be new members soon.
UPDATE--June 11, 2013
This update is merely for the purpose of indicating and acknowledging that thusfar, to my knowlege, no judge has been prosecuted by the Public Integrity Section since it declared that it was prosecuting civil rights cases, and those cases pertaining to public officials. Therefore, it *(the Public Integrity Section) has thusfar been a farce. Talking loud and saying and doing nothing. Judges are still being held above the law. *And the reason it continues is because of cowardly lawyers, *who, in denying their clients a defense, refuse to raise selective prosecution and/or equal protection defenses, or in any other way challenge the fact that judges and other public officials are not being prosecuted for crimes that their clients are being prosecuted for.
*Too bad we don't have Pakistanian lawyers as members of the bar (I mean real Pakistanian lawyers from Pakistan, not Pakistanian-American lawyers, for they are likely the same as white American lawyers in terms of any protest activity). In my opinion, Pakistanian lawyers are the bravest or most courageous lawyers in the world. American lawyers are probably among the most cowardly,*if not the most cowardly. When is the last time you've heard of American lawyers as a group protesting about a civil rights issue affecting them or their clients? Or, supporting another lawyer? And especially, protesting against the judiciary? It won't happen. And, I wonder what lies they tell their children about their fight for justice!
UPDATE--July 15, 2013
This update is especially dedicated to Trayvon Martin in the interest and pursuit of justice. George Zimmerman has now been found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin, which in itself is a travesty of justice, and I will write and post a separate blog regarding that decision, and the NAACP has now requested the Justice Department to pursue a civil rights action on behalf of the deceased Trayvon Martin. Good luck with that! One only needs to view what action the Justice Department has taken with respect to this ICR, on behalf of a black male--no action(with the exception of some informal FBI action by the George W. Bush administration that provided no relief to the victim). And review my blog regarding the murder of Oscar Grant. What action did the Justice Department take on behalf of Oscar Grant, where a white jury (with one exception) convicted the white Johanes Merserle of manslaughter rather than second degree murder, *and the manslaughter conviction was virtually wiped out by actions and/or rulings of the trial judge, Robert Perry.
UPDATE--July 25, 2013
Today, the L.A. Times published an article entitled, "Gay man wins bid to stay in U.S.", July 25, 2013. In the article, the Times credits Harry Pregerson, Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a member of this ICR, with writing the opinion which resulted in halting the deportation of an immigrant.
I'm not impressed. Harry Pregerson continues to be a crook, and the fact that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute him like they do other non-judge criminals who commit crimes does not prevent him from being a crook. He should not even be making judicial rulings. He shouldn't be on the bench. Richard Nixon made decisions after he was exposed for criminal conduct also. But, he also resigned prior to facing criminal prosecution. And, he never was indicted either. Pregerson, like Nixon, should at least have the decency to resign, even though he's not being prosecuted as he should be.
I'm not surprised at the L.A. Times trying to help Presgerson out by publishing some positive article. It has tried to rehabilitate bad character traits of other public officials who have demonstrated poor character. But, nearly always, once a crook, always a crook.
This is the end of the blog and ends Round 53 of the ICR.
UPDATE--August 9, 2013
Once again, the L.A. Times has published additional articles about cases that several members of the herein ICR have issued written opinions about, either authoring or being a member of the three judge panel deciding the case. Generally, the appellants in the cases have received positive relief from the judges. Therefore, it has a tendency to shade a good light over the judges in the public's eye. Another attempt by the L.A. Times to try and rehabilitate the judges' image and/or character in view of the fact that there are federal criminal complaints filed against them, and in view of the fact that they are still criminals or crooks. One of the articles, involving a teen convicted of rape, was authored by judge Harry Pregerson (and Pregerson apparently wrote that the teenager should have an opportunity to be released early. Another article was authored by judge Ronald Gould, with judge N. Randy Smith on the panel with Gould (apparently the Gould-Smith combination reversed a decision by a district judge, which allowed a lawsuit to be reinstated). But, the fact remains that Pregerson, Gould, and Smith are members of the ICR and all ICR members are criminals or crooks, and will remain so unless they are prosecuted and tried, and are thereafter found not guilty of the charged crime.
Consequently, Pregerson, Gould, and Smith are nothing more than "crooks performing community service".
It is similar to the case of convicted criminals who must perform community service as part of their sentence. Only these crooks *(Pregerson, Gould, and Smith) are performing community service while awaiting prosecution and trial after they have committed criminal acts (see above for some of the criminal acts).
So, Pregerson, Gould, and Smith remain unprosecuted criminals who have avoided prosecution because the U.S. Attorney, who is himself a criminal, has refused to prosecute them. They all are holding themselves above the law, and the public should be outraged, since these people are public and publicly-paid offcials who are impressed with protecting the public's (all of the public) rights.
UPDATE--October 4, 2013
See the new information added in the June 11, 2013 Update.
This is the end of Round 56 of the ICR.
UPDATE--November 14, 2013
It has come to my attention, again, via the news and especially a L.A. Times article, that U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte and District Judge Terry Hatter, Jr. were involved in a case involving purported racial discrimination, as exercised by Hispanics against Blacks. Birotte's office was responsible for prosecuting the Hispanics and Hatter presided over the guilty pleas and will be responsible for sentencing.
Of course any action taken against racial discrimination, towards the eradication of racial discrimination in our society is commendable; however, Birotte and Hatter remain on the ICR, therefore, their acts, though positive in their own rights, are still merely "criminals performing community service". I am a little reluctant to categorize Hatter that way because I believe that he received some "discipline" or "punishment" for *the actions that placed him on the list. Nevertheless, the action (i.e., discipline) was not officially communicated, and there was no restitution required or paid for his acts, therefore, Hatter remains on the ICR. As for Birotte, he's like the other members of the ICR.
This concludes Round 57 of the ICR.
UPDATE--March 14, 2014
New names were added to the list today, as well as some new information added to an original blog.
UPDATE--March 18, 2014
Another name was added to the list.
This concludes Round 60.
UPDATE--June 20, 2014
The L.A. Times has now *produced another article whereby one of the crooks on the ICR has written a decision which tends to have him held in a good light, although he is a crook. Once again, it is Harry Pregerson. In the article, "Court strikes down L.A. ban on living in cars", June 20, 2014, the Times credits Pregerson with finding that the homeless should be allowed to live in their cars without facing criminal prosecution.
Again, Pregerson is a crook, who should be prosecuted, and I don't care how many opinions he writes purportedly supporting the poor or minorities, he violated federal criminal law and should be prosecuted. He's a criminal. So, once again, his opinion supporting the homeless is simply "a criminal performing community service".
*This concludes Round #61
**UPDATE--August 4, 2014
Again, the L.A. Times has produced another article attempting to cleanse or rehabilitate the bad character of one of the people on this ICR. This time its District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the USDC, Los Angeles/Santa Ana. The Times, after my publication of the blog, "The 1st Annual List of Racist judges and Other Public Officials in California", which includes judge Carney, published an article noting that Carney ruled that "California's death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment." Carney's ruling like the rulings or acts of other defendants on this ICR is merely a criminal "performing community service."
*This concludes round #62.
**UPDATE--October 16, 2014
The L.A. Times has done it again, i.e., published a story about a judge on this list, indirectly trying to rehabilitate the judge's charcter (my interpretation). This time it's judge Robert Perry of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The Times published a story about Perry sentencing an individual (white) to prison for the murder of a Black woman. That's supposed to mean that Perry is not racist. Please! The case was likely assigned to Perry for the purpose of providing him with an opportunity to try and cleanse his character, or otherwise indicate that he is not racist. It didn't do it.
This concludes Round #63.
