Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
18-55461
__________________________________________________________________
BILLY Z. EARLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Defendants-Appellees,
Billy Z. Earley
Appearing in Propria Persona
2144 Wembley Lane, Corona CA 92881
Telephone: (714) 615-4956
E-mail: bze2101@aol.com
Page
TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………..……….….1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………..………………...N/A
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 7311………………………………………………………….....11
28 U.S. Code § 453………………………………………………………….4
28 U.S.C. § 1291…………………………………………………………….3
28 U.S.C. § 1331…………………………………………………………….3
42 U.S.C. § 1983..............................................................................................2
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Rules
FRCP Rule 57 ..................................................................................................3
FRCP RULE 60…………………………………………………………….13
Other Authorities
Addendum
iii
INTRODUCTION
Adviser for Black Doctors Matter and an Advocate for the World Sickle Cell
in Washington DC, Cannon Office Building, Room 122, on April 25, 2018.
regarding the Department of Justice statutory relationship with the Medical Board
of California, and how they have both adopted very dangerous unlawful policies.
massive state police misconduct being committed against their licensees and the
privilege; thus, chilling all Due Process and Constitutional rights in California.
identified state police misconduct, involved in: (i) Photo shopping signatures off
with the intent to remove Medical License; (iv) Concealing evidence and
complaints with the perpetrators leading to serious physical and hostile retaliation.
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for civil rights’ violations and for declaratory and
injunctive relief. The nature of the action sought remedy and redress for violations
of Appellant’s individual rights under color of law, including but not limited to;
was good cause to file complaint. See OC Exhibit F – A letter sent to Appellees
after threats and extortion by the Prosecutor threatening and charging Appellant
$20,000.00 dollars for each day of the hearing if he fought the unlawful charges.
tamper with charts and she removed documents. See OC Exhibit A, and B – her
identity was concealed and she sued for similar accusations alleged by Appellees,
even though, her “recorded” testimony stated that Appellant did nothing wrong.
2
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The United States District Court for the Central District of California has
jurisdiction of this complaint since it involves federal and civil rights violations
under color of law. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Venue is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Appellees are state government officials and
Appellant lives within this district. Respectfully, Appellant is hereby appealing the
following Court orders; ECF 57 entered on May 10, 2017, ECF 85 entered on
November 29, 2017, and ECF 96 and Appellant is appealing the Court Judgement
ISSUES PRESENTED
Judge have violated their oath and they have no oath of office or fidelity bonds
filed with the Secretary of State; they lack authority all rulings must be invalidated.
it did not apply to Appellant’s case, it does not apply to Defendant Zackery
3
ARGUMENT
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
Each judge of a superior court, the county clerk, the clerk of the court, the
executive officer or court administrator of the superior court, and the recorder shall
file a copy of his or her official oath, signed with his or her own proper signature,
in the office of the Secretary of State as soon as he or she has taken and subscribed
his or her oath. This was not done, in violation of the California Constitution.
and section 1770 (i) of the California Constitution provides; An office becomes
vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the
term: “His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath or bond within
There are more reasons to invalidate the District and Magistrate Judge
rulings based on the 1363(a)(3) history, which includes: (i) Magistrate Steve Kim
lawful award granted to Appellant, see ECF 57; (ii) Magistrate Steve Kim
recommended a supplemental briefing on the Res Judicata, a statute that did not
apply to Appellant’s case, see ECF 96; and (iii) The District Judge ruled on an
erroneous statute to recuse and he refused to correct the record, see ECF 85.
4
COURT ERRED IN DISMISSAL OF RES JUDICATA BECAUSE
STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO CASE
II. The Court erred in dismissal of the Res Judicata and the proper case
law and defense was documented. The res judicata is not a one size fits all statute
and it has downfalls just like any other statute. The res judicata depends on the
judicial and administration of its application, a fact that Congress has held since
the creation of this statute. This statute was improperly applied to this case.
Appellant raised a proper objection with respect to the res judicata and how
it was introduced into the equation. The res judicata is invalidated if the
procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; and or (3)
novo Phillips/May Corp. v. United States, 524 F .3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Appellant argued that the res judicata does and cannot apply to this instant
rights in California and in the United States of America. See Docket 36, Plaintiff
violates state and federal laws. One such violation is a clear abuse of power by
allowing and encouraging “bad cops” to break the law and when citizens complain,
they simply tell them that they cannot investigate anything due to their relationship
with each other, and then sends the “confidential complaint” to the bad cops.
In addition, the res judicata cannot apply to this particular case because the
Administrative Procedure Act has steps and guidelines that the courts must follow.
grinding halt, which is unconstitutional. This violation of the State police powers
to harass and violate state and federally protected laws of its citizens is not and
The res judicata is a defense used to abort legal claims against their
opponents. The Magistrate introduced the res judicata, a strategic move designed to
enable the defendants to continue their wraith of destruction against the Medical
Community. Appellant believes this type of practice of law from the bench is a
clear violation of oath and the Magistrate’s Delegation of Authority and his Bonds
does not provide promise for this type of conduct. Appellant requested his oath,
bonds, and delegation of authority and he terminated the case for doing so, which
was a clear abuse of discretion because Appellant was correct. See Docket 81.
6
MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HEALTHCARE RIGHTS
DUE TO DOJ ENFORCEMENT CORRUPTION
properly granted only “if the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is
contrary to the jury’s verdict.” Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002).
There are massive number of cases in California where the AG is just not
interested in holding crooked cops responsible for misconduct, this is very, and
Dookhan; who single handedly placed over 23,000 innocent people in jail.
Gloria Castro, the Supervising Deputy Attorney General has taken over the
position for Annie Dookhan in the state of California. Appellant reports at least 15
felonies. Refer to Docket 38, RJN, Exhibit 14, filed January 27, 2017. This is the
forwarded the complaint to the AG’s office. They stated, “We represent the people
your complaint outlines.” Then they said, “We are unable to comment.” Then, on
the last page, she forwards the confidential complaint to the prosecutor and the
medical director
misconduct
13.Lied about the patient findings and distorted the actual facts, and
complaint” from Gloria Castro, harassed, bullied, and the list goes on.
8
PERJURED FALSE TESTIMONY USED TO SET
ASIDE A FEDERAL DEFAULT IN COURT
his attorney John Echeverria, they all submitted perjured declarations to the Court
for the purpose of setting aside a lawful default motion awarded to Appellant.
Motion to set aside default (“PO”) and request for judicial notice (“RJN”), filed on
April 24, 2017. The record uncovered that Morazzini was a supervisor for the AG
Luzon, the Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) representing the other defendants,
she directly stated that the AG could not represent Morazzini, multiple times.
testimony that she contacted John Echeverria in the Government section of the AG
when they found out about the default judgement; this was far from the truth.
Morazzini’s attorney had to get permission from all agencies, all the defendants,
Appellant believes violated the Fair Political Practice Act. See pgs. 7 thru 9.
9
Morazzini, Boomer, and his attorney all conspired to say that they did
not receive the complaint, the only problem, they both admitted to receiving
the complaint twice. There was an error with the first service sent to them
and Appellant had to repeat the service. Boomer stated that she could not
accept for Morazzini but she accepted it twice. This was gross negligence
declarations in a federal court to set aside a motion. The real problem here
was the Magistrate had clear knowledge of the fabrications and false
statements and he welcomed these lies with open arms. See Declaration of
others to commit perjury and false statements, and the AG’s office paid to
represent his case when it was a conflict of interests and it was done among
friends and co-workers. The level of crime and corruption that Morazzini is
violate due process and equal rights of the law. Morazzini’s court dealings
10
REVIEW OF LEGAL STANDARDS
(quoting In the Matter of Samford, 352 So. 2d 1126, 1129 (Ala. 1977)).
shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection
of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error
as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless,
after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be
of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
for parts along with an executive order (10450) which further defines the law for
a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government
The Supreme Court has long been committed to the principle that due
process forbids the government from obtaining a conviction through the use of
false testimony. Through a long line of cases, the Court has condemned the
prosecution’s / attorneys use of false testimony. See, e.g., White v. Ragen, 324
11
U.S. 760, 764 (1945) (acknowledging that obtaining conviction through knowing
use of perjury violates due process); New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, 318
U.S. 688, 689 (1943) (same); Hysler v. Florida, 315 U.S. 411, 413 (1942)
plant, place, manufacture, conceal, or move any physical matter, digital image, or
video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being
charged with a crime.” The Department of Justice blanket policy to shield police
exculpatory evidence were seen in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). See
WASH. U. L.Q. 713, 755 (1999) (tracing protection against use of perjured
197, 201 (1978) (citing Mooney as originating duty). In Mooney, the prisoner
12
alleged that his conviction violated due process because the “prosecuting
authorities” knowingly used perjured testimony, which was the sole basis for his
conviction.
amendment... [makes] ... fraud an express ground for relief by motion; and under
the saving clause, fraud may be urged as a ground for relief by independent action
"fraud on the court" is a ground for invalidation of a judgment different from the
grounds which will sustain an "independent action"; the clauses using these
and their oath to protect the public in which they serve, "A court may at anytime
set aside a judgment for after discovered fraud upon the court. Hazel-Atlas Glass v.
Hartford ... Rule 60(b) ... expressly does not limit the power of a court to entertain
for Colorado's Families v. Gilbert, 172 P.3d 964, 967 (Colo.App.2007). The fact
of misconduct provides no doubt that Appellant should have been Granted Relief.
13
CONCLUSION
testifying that Zackery Morazzini and others committed Perjury and made
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be
Billy Z. Earley
2144 Wembley Lane
Corona, California 92881
_______________________________
Billy Z. Earley
14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 3,364 words, excluding the parts of the
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface using Microsoft Word
Billy Z. Earley
2144 Wembley Lane
Corona, California 92881
_______________________________
Billy Z. Earley
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by