Why Is Ninth Circuit & Its Chief Judge
Sidney Thomas Covering Up For His Brethren’s Judicial Misconduct?
San
Francisco, January 18, 2018
 |
| Ex-Northern California Federal District Court Judge Ronald McLeod Whyte |
In 2017, a judicial misconduct charge/complaint, was lodged with the Chief Judge Sidney Thomas of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, complaining against ex-Northern District Court Judge Ronald McLeod Whyte, including among other things, for latter allowing the use of his public judicial office to special interests and permitting special interests defendants and their agents, in a pending case before him, to author judicial orders under his name, see http://
Ex. Judge Ronald Whyte has amassed multi-million dollar properties, for e.g. at 220 Prospect Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95032, where he resides in luxury, and also amassing a vacation home in Idaho, from his lifelong salary and benefits, which continues even after his removal/retirement, all paid at taxpayer's expense.
In a series of excuses, road blocks, and cover ups, first on April 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit refuses to investigate the charge citing “Judge Whyte retired and is no longer covered by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act”, see https://drive.google.com/
After “complainant was able to make a persuasive argument to the Ninth Circuit” the latter on April 27, 2017 reluctantly accepts the complaint admitting to its own error, seehttps://drive.google.com/
The second excuse, road block comes when on June 9, 2017, Ninth Circuit, via Circuit Judge Reinhardt [authored by staff attorney under Reinhardt’s name] protects the questioned Judge Whyte, dismisses the Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Whyte because “[i]nstead of submitting a statement of facts setting forth his allegations of misconduct, complainant pointed to a 200 plus page document [which contained direct evidence]..[adding that] a complainant may not circumvent Rule 6(b) [must not exceed five pages (five sides)] .. . by referencing other materials..Thus, this complaint must be dismissed”. Ironically the Order states “This complaint was assigned to Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §351 (c)”. However, 28 U.S.C. §351(c) does not authorize such assignment.
 |
| Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Court Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals |
Reluctantly, for the third time, the complainant, complied with Rule 6(b) and limited his facts to no more than five pages and re-lodged the complaint with the Ninth Circuit, asking permission “to go beyond Local rule 6.1(b) 1200 word limit” [See “Attachment” to the Complaint at the end of this post]
Yet again, you guessed it right, the Ninth Circuit, under Circuit Judge Reinhardt’s name, dismisses the complaint, this time citing that “[c]omplainant alleges that a district judge colluded with defendants and other "special interest groups in complainant's underlying civil cases and allowed them to "author" the judge's rulings”, but making a giant leap that a RICO conspiracy act is an adverse ruling and that “Adverse rulings are not evidence of conspiracy”.
Next, the Order makes a conclusory assertion that “complainant provides no objectively verifiable evidence to support these allegations, which are dismissed as unfounded”. If Judge Whyte’s own admissions, words, on docketed Court Reporter’s Transcript, and witnessed by third parties, who gave affidavit in support, in addition to complainant’s own affidavit, is not objectively verifiable evidence, then what is?
Worse, the day some Judge Whyte uttered the incriminating words, the Northern California San Jose, Federal District Court refuses complainant’s advance permission request to record his dealings with the Court. How can such heightened burden of proof be placed on a party who is prevented from obtaining such objectively verifiable evidence by the very agency that places that heightened burden of proof? Luckily a witness who was present when Judge Whyte made the incriminating comments, provided his sworn affidavit in addition to complainant own’s affidavit. But sadly, that, and the Court Reporter’s Transcript, recording Judge Whyte’s incriminating words, is deemed to be not good enough to be objective verifiable evidence. Even complainant’s request to preserve the Court security video footage was willfully ignored. In other words the crime remains hidden under excuses, pretexts, and “what goes in Vegas, stays in Vegas” curb. One would like to think that public institutions like the Federal Court would be transparent to the public.
Although the complainant gave objective evidence to the Ninth Circuit, which is even more than circumstantial evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court, under like circumstances on a showing improper motive by a government official, has determined that “circumstantial evidence can suffice to meet that burden; after all, direct evidence of another person’s bad faith, at this threshold stage, will rarely if ever be available. And although bare assertion or conjecture is not enough, neither is a fleshed out case demanded”, United States v. Clarke,134 S. Ct. 2361, 2367–68, 189 L. Ed. 2d 330 (2014).
Ninth Circuit itself finds that “[t]he conspiracy here was clearly established by circumstantial evidence and this [Ninth] court has previously noted that the existence of a conspiracy can rarely be proved in any other way”, United States v. Cole, 448 F.2d 415, 416 (9th Cir. 1971). “Courts have recognized time and again that establishing conspiratorial complicity is rarely susceptible of direct proof, and that persuasive circumstantial
It now unquestionably appears that Ninth Circuit and the Chief Judge Sidney Thomas is looking for ways, excuses to cover up and protect his judicial brethren. There are countless public complaints of judicial misconduct against Federal Judges, for e.g. see http://
This is precisely the reason why we need an independent and objective oversight over this country's judiciary, including comprising of members outside of the already corrupted legal profession.
The public is growing increasingly tired, impatient, and frustrated with the attorney profession, a relatively small percentage of the overall population, monopolizing and cornering the market on this country’s justice system, raging havoc with life-changing orders against ordinary citizens.
The public is growing increasingly tired, impatient, and frustrated with the attorney profession, a relatively small percentage of the overall population, monopolizing and cornering the market on this country’s justice system, raging havoc with life-changing orders against ordinary citizens.
Ironically, it was not until the recent December 2017 public uproar over sexual harassment against Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski that led to latter’s shame, and eventually taking senior inactive status (retirement), but with no downside, with full life long taxpayer paid salary and employment benefits See http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.
No other profession rewards crimes by paying its employees, taxpayer paid, lifelong salary and retirement benefits. Also, in a 60 minutes interview about a year ago, Judge Kozinski astonishingly espoused use of guillotine as death penalty.
 |
| Alex Kozinski, ex-Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals |
SHAME
ON THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND SHAME ON CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY THOMAS FOR CONSPIRING
WITH, PROTECTING THE CRIMINALS, PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, et al. No
wonder the public’s confidence in the Ninth Circuit has waned.
 |
| Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals |
===========================================================
Attachment
1.
WHEN/WHERE
During
2014 to 2016 in case #s 13-0228 & 15-04377 both cases before Whyte
2.
THE COMPLAINT
[WHAT HAPPENED]
2.1.
Obstruction & Perversion of Course of
Justice; RICO; Whyte’s orders
authored/engineered by defendant/special interests
3.
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
3.1.
On
Jan. 27, 2017, Whyte admitted to me that an order adverse to me was not his
doing but that of the defendant & special interest party California
Judicial Council, see my “DECLARATION
RE. JAN. 27, 2017 ENCOUNTER WITH EX. JUDGE RONALD M. WHYTE”, 9th
Cir. #16-17119, #9-2, Exhibit C, ECFp.18:3-7, reproduced verbatim below:
“MR. HIRAMANEK: Remember, you are the one who issued an order calling
me a vexatious litigant
JUDGE WHYTE: not me. It’s the Judicial Council”
3.2.
The above Whyte’s admission was witnessed, who too
provided his own separate sworn declaration See 9th Cir. #16-17119,
#9-2, Exhibit F, “DECLARATION OF ED SUMMERFIELD RE. JAN. 27, 2017”, at ECFp.31:4, ¶12, reproduced
verbatim below:
“12. Mr. Hiramanek then asked that after all it was Judge Whyte who
labeled him vexatious. Judge Whyte acted surprised as if he didn't do it. He
then muttered someone else (sounded like Judicial counsel) did it.”
3.3.
Oddly
Whyte showed up Jan. 27, 2017, at the same floor, at the same location, at the
same time after the my conference with defendant ends, when Whyte has no
business to be there, since he left the bench months ago, and entering through
the same private entrance where his ex-client the Santa Clara County defendant
is stationed This is a sign of collusion with the defendant/special interests
in my case. Whyte admitted in his Nov. 2016 farewell video that he was
defending Santa Clara County [a defendant] before being a state court judge,
& was last employed by Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County
[another defendant] before appointed on the Federal bench.
3.4.
On
July 15, 2016, when confronted with the two allegations, Whyte disputes his
wife’s employment but does not dispute/deny allowing special interests to
author orders using his name. See reporter’s transcript, 9th Cir. #16-17119, #9-2, Exhibit
B, at ECFp.9:19-11:5, reproduced verbatim below:
“MR. HIRAMANEK: Just to be very
candid, I and lots of public members have reasonable doubt as to the neutrality
and detachedness as well as, you know, given the three, four years history that
we have seen, you know, I will admit that your communication with us has been
very cordial, but the bulk of the rulings are, to be very frank, they just defy
normal law. and I’m not an attorney, but if someone tells me a good reason why I'm
wrong, then I accept that. but a lot of your rulings, Judge, with due respect,
have, I mean, the ADA ruling, no one can swallow that.
So there is evidence, I
mean your spouse essentially getting income from the superior court and all the
players in fact working very closely with the defendant of this case, that all
raises fairness question.
And given the fact that a lot of these orders practically what we -- I think it has been authored by the defendants.
THE COURT: I don't want to
get into a position right now where we discuss the merits of my rulings, but I
would just say that my wife has never been employed by the county.
MR. HIRAMANEK: No, but she is
getting her income as a Child Abused Advocate, working simultaneously with Lincoln
Michael Clark and with the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, your
ex-employment is directly from Santa Clara County. You know, there's just way
too many conflicts of interest.
And finally, the fact that
these orders are so one-sided all the time and they don't have any proper
foundation of law. And even the context, syntax, I can go on and on. You will
not like what I'm saying, but I want to be honest, but I don't want to
displease you.
THE COURT: Well, I can
understand that, that you don't want to displease me. I'm sorry you have the
feelings that you do. But in any event lets go on to”
3.5.
When
confronted, even defendant’s counsel Brown does not dispute Whyte’s order being
authored by special interests
3.6.
Whyte’s
order [#758, case #13-0228] misquotes his own handwriting which leads to an
inference that whoever authored the order under Whyte’s name could not read
Whyte’s handwriting and inaccurately quoted it. 9th Cir. #16-17119, #9-2, Exhibit C, at ¶19, also Dkt. #782,
ECF p.6:1. If Whyte had authored his order (Dkt. #758) he would not have
difficulty recognizing his own handwritten words
3.7.
Timing
of defendant’s filings show that they are authoring orders in Whyte’s name as
their own filings are prepared in advance knowledge of Whyte’s orders. For e.g.
Defendant’s filed its Bill of Costs, #761, containing an extensive table, and
15 pages of Exhibits, (a feat that should take considerable time), within hours
of Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial. This can only happen, as
Defendant’s’ engineered the order, and/or knew its outcome beforehand.
3.8.
Whyte’s
orders are authored by special interests because a raft of orders engineered by
Defendant’s were released as late as 6:30 p.m., on Whyte’s last day on
bench (Oct. 31, 2016), on matters that were taken under submission [6] six
months ago. Clearly Whyte’s cleanup work is done by Defendant’s/special agents.
Whyte is not working at the court, on his last day, as late as 6:30 p.m.
3.9.
Further
evidence of Defendant’s and its agents authoring the Order is the legal
standard a verbatim copy of Defendant’s pleading language in order (#758,
#13-0228 case)
3.10. Another clue, unlike an
order authored by a rational judge, is when the Defendant’s engineered order
discredits the entire world that testifies against them, with frivolous and
“Get-Smart” type, over-smart “gotchas””
3.11. The language/choice of
words in purported Whyte’s order (#758), for e.g. the words “in each instance that defendant elicited
testimony” is Mr. Brown’s standard vocabulary, vs. that of Whyte, proving Whyte’s
Order is engineered/authored by Defendants’/CJC
3.12. In order to fix the
outcome, the author of Whyte’s order
(#758) states contrary to what Whyte stated during the Aug. 2016 trial, on
court record
3.13. Author of Whyte’s order is defendants because
they hide their tampered Juror Meeks identity, but do not hesitate to disclose
another prospective, but unselected juror’s name e.g. Cherie Tien and Tin Tran.
This shows the author of Whyte’s Order is the Defendants/special interests.
3.14. In order to suppress the
questioned crime, Whyte misuses his office to foreclose any discovery on him,
or permitting James Brown [defendant’s counsel], or himself to be questioned or called as witnesses, see case
# 13-0228, #782-1, 17ECF p.37:16
3.15. Other public complaints, including
a SJPD sergeant, of Whyte permitting special interests to author his orders
3.16. Statistics show that when
govt. agencies are sued, Whyte’s permits them to author orders under his name,
see 9th Cir. #16-17119,
#9-2, Exhibit H
3.17. Special interests CJC authoring
Judges’ orders is a common complaint in state court.
3.18. See also CJC
corruption http://abc7news.com/news/exclusive-judges-react-to-racially-charged-court-employee-photos/2218010/
Permission
requested to go beyond Local rule 6.1(b) 1200 word limit.
========================================================
For
comments and queries, please email to drainjudicialswamp@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment