Federal Court Lets State Court Off The Hook With A “Slap On The Wrist” On Latter’s Egregious Discovery Violations

Federal Court Lets State Court Off The Hook With A “Slap On The Wrist” On Latter’s Egregious Discovery Violations

Senior District Judge
Ronald M. Whyte

San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 6 - 4th Floor
280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113

San Jose, September 9, 2015

In the discovery phase of a Federal lawsuit in the United States Court, Northern California District, filed against the Defendant California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara (“Superior Court”), Plaintiff complains of  Defendant Superior Court committing egregious acts of discovery disobedience.

It is ironic that the very institution, the California Superior Court that is supposed to epitomize justice and which compels the rest of the world to follow discovery rules and statutes in cases before them, itself, appears to engage in blatant disregard for Federal Discovery rules and law.

Here, Plaintiff complains that Superior Court engaged in multiple practices of discovery disobedience by failing to serve all parties to the case with its discovery response, failing to engage in the required oral meet and confer, failing to produce required documents, failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery in a good faith and in a straightforward manner, et al.

Defendant Superior Court’s discovery disobedience is even more egregious given its refusal to permit its employees and Judges, in their individual capacity, to be deposed or be subjected to written discovery, raising road blocks like mental process privilege. 

The rest of the world is held accountable for its wrongs, but not employees and Judges of the California Superior Court.

Although the Federal Court grants, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel some written discovery, most of which Plaintiff believes is superficial, it “bails out” the Superior Court from the bulk of the required discovery and sanctions requested against them, essentially letting them off the hook and engaging in what public may perceive to be an RICO act. See attached Court Order, dated September 9, 2015.

The United States District Court Judges at the San Jose Federal Court consists entirely of ex-Superior Court Judges, like Judge Edward Davila, Judge Lucy Koh, Judge Beth Freeman, Judge Jeremy Fogel, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, the latter being the assigned judge on this instant case, despite his close association and immediate last employment with the Defendant California Superior Court, in the same Santa Clara County, and despite his open admission that his spouse, Ann Whyte, earns her living provide services to the Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

Plaintiff’s 28 U.S.C §455 et al. conflict of interest motion is denied by assigned Judge Whyte, despite admitting to the conflict of interest.The public suspicion of RICO acts between the San Jose Federal Court Judges and the Defendant California Superior Court appears to be intensifying and may result in a public inquiry and a Department of Justice investigation.

70 YEARS AFTER AUSCHWITZ LIBERATION, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT LOOKS THE OTHER WAY ON AMERICAN NAZI CRIMES/ ATROCITIES & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

70  YEARS AFTER AUSCHWITZ LIBERATION, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT LOOKS THE OTHER WAY ON AMERICAN NAZI CRIMES/ ATROCITIES  & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

January 27, 2015 marks the 70the Anniversary of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp reminiscent of Nazi Germany crimes. Unfortunately Nazi crimes continue even in this day and age in the so called "the land of the free", the United States of America.

Same time as the 70th anniversary of Auschwitz Concentration Camp liberation, on January 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court looked the other way on a petition that raised before it, Nazi style crimes, performed by none other than the American judiciary.

The  Petition for Certiorari [Case # 14-7182] sought U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention on the American, Nazi style atrocities and human rights violations, For e.g.:

“Petitioner, a law abiding U.S. Citizen, has been victimized and restrained from his three minor children for the past 5 years, and ordered to be restrained for life long. State has permanently deprived Petitioner of his owned property via an “unlawful taking” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner has been falsely framed with criminal forgery charges, which have been proven to be unfounded. Petitioner has been deprived of a legal forum to seek address to his grievances. In light of this, what’s the difference between the atrocities of German Nazi’s against the Jews in the 1930s-40s and the atrocities against Petitioner?”

Ironically, coinciding with the Auschwitz liberation, the United States still continues to perpetrate Nazi style crimes on its own citizens, and worse, even fails to address or recognize them, even when it is raised before the highest court of the land.

How can United States preach human rights violation to the world when it is guilty of those violations itself?

This case originates from a California Family Court, which are notoriously famous for its criminally enterprising schemes [see for e.g. http://www.weightiermatter.com/]. This is compounded by no checks and balances against the corruption, nepotism, racketeering et al. of the State Courts, and its immune judges. State Courts invariably do not allow parties to bring in cameras, or record proceedings. State Court has Eleventh Amendment immunity against being sued, and the State Court Judges have judicial immunity from civil prosecution. No other profession in this county gets total immunity from malicious, bad faith acts, except the judges/judiciary. Noteworthy is that the doctrine of judicial immunity is an judge own created doctrine, based on a flawed logic, which logic could easily be applied to say doctors or other professions, but it is not.

As a result, the American judiciary is running amuck, left essentially unchecked, and the purpose and existence of U.S. Supreme Court, as an overseeing authority, is rendered meaningless and powerless when its determination on accepting petitions, is politically motivated, and when American Nazi atrocities on its own citizens, do not get  on their radar screen, perhaps intentionally.

No wonder there is so much public mistrust with the judiciary and racial tension in United States. It is time for people to have their OWN PEOPLE COURT(s) vs. a state run judiciary comprised of special interests that is of the attorneys, for the attorneys and run by the attorneys [judges are ex-attorneys].

The current United Supreme Court justices include:

1.                  John G. Roberts, Jr, his wife Jane Roberts, and two children - Josephine Roberts and Jack Roberts.

2.                 Antonin Scalia, his wife Maureen Scalia and has nine children - Ann Forrest Scalia, Eugene Scalia, John Francis Scalia, Catherine Elisabeth Scalia, Mary Clare Scalia, Paul David Scalia , Matthew Scalia, Christopher James Scalia, and Margaret Jane Scalia

3.                 Anthony M. Kennedy, his wife and his three children.

4.                 Clarence Thomas, his wife Virginia Thomas and child, Jamal Adeen Thomas

5.                 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, her husband Martin D. Ginsburg, and a daughter, Jane Ginsburg, and a son, James Ginsburg.

6.                 Stephen G. Breyer, his wife Joanna Breyer, and three children – Chloe Breyer, Nell Breyer, and Michael Breyer.

7.                 Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., his wife Martha-Ann Alito, and two children – Philip Alito and Laura Alito.

8.                 Sonia Sotomayor

9.                 Elena Kagan