Você está na página 1de 8

Case No.

18-55461
__________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BILLY Z. EARLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, in her individual and official capacity


as the Executive Director of the Board of California; GLENN
MITCHELL, in his individual and official capacity as the Executive
Director of the Physician Assistant Board of California; ZACHERY
MORAZZINI, in his individual and official capacity as Chief
Director, Office of Administrative Hearings; DOES, 1-100,

Defendants-Appellees,

On Appeal from the United States District Court


for the Central District of California
No. 5:16-cv-02274-AB-SK
Honorable Andre Birotte Jr.,

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Billy Z. Earley
Appearing in Propria Persona
2144 Wembley Lane, Corona CA 92881
Telephone: (714) 615-4956
E-mail: bze2101@aol.com

Self-Litigant for Appellant


MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Appellant-Plaintiff Billy Z.

Earley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, hereby request that the

Court take judicial notice of the following in further support of the Appellant’s

Reply and Optional Brief.

Exhibit #A: The data contained in Exhibit A is general public knowledge

that is readily available to public and private citizens seeking this information from

the California Corona Police Department. Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice

of Exhibit A is a True and Certified Public Disclosure Copy of an Initial Crime

Report dated August 21, 2012.

The Corona Police Department Crime Report is substantial to this appeal

because Appellees were working with the Corona Police and the DEA in joint

investigation of Appellant being the Target. Appellant’s family was kidnapped at

gunpoint and father beaten by several masked individuals claiming to work for the

Police and the DEA.

This request for Judicial Notice comes after Appellant have testified that him

and his family, including two small children, were the victims of retaliation,

discrimination, and verbal threats made by law enforcement and DOJ prosecutors,

including death threats to Appellant and his former attorney Lee Durst.
Exhibit #B: The data contained in Exhibit B is general public knowledge

that is readily available to public and private citizens seeking this information from

the California Corona Police Department. Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice

of Exhibit B is a True and Certified Public Disclosure Copy of an Initial Crime

Report dated November 11, 2014.

The Corona Police Department Crime Report is substantial to this appeal

because Appellees undercover police officer “Tosha Thomas” photo-shopped a

signature off a subpoenaed chart and when Forensic Evidence proved this fact. An

unknown individual(s) broke into Appellant’s clinic and searched through the

chart-rack where Tosha Thomas chart should have been filed, but it was hide in

another location.

The Attorney Lee Durst, the Corona Police, and the Manager at the clinic all

evaluated the crime scene and only the charts where Officer Thomas chart was

located at was sought by the individual(s). The Attorney Lee Durst said the

Appellees were looking to get the Chart to prevent the Forensic Testing from

occurring, or thwart the allegations, etc.

Judicial Notice of Exhibit B is vital to this case because it involves

allegation of evidence tampering and tampering with subpoenaed evidence to

convict innocent citizens and unsuspecting healthcare providers in California and

Exhibit B is directly related to the complaint and evidence submitted.


Exhibit #C: The data contained in Exhibit C is general public knowledge

that is readily available to public and private citizens seeking this information from

the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice of Exhibit C is a True and Correct copy of a

FOIA dated March 2, 2012, Case Number 15-00437-P.

The U.S. Department of Justice FOIA is substantial to Appellants case

because an unknown individual(s), identified in Exhibit A, held guns to head of

Appellants two small children and wife and then proceeded to beat and injure

Appellants 78 year-old-father with the a gun until he was bloodied.

The information is also substantial because one of the individuals posing as

the DEA told the other individual who beat plaintiff’s father, “YOU DID NOT

SUPPOSED TO DO THAT!” This report also identifies that the DEA was casing-

out Appellant’s home and they had identified Appellants father in the report.

Request for Judicial Notice is proper because Appellant was suing CVS for

discrimination and calling his American Black patients “niggers” which later, also

Appellees Prosecutors called them “NAACP” members and laughed. Established

evidence shows CVS has crushing influence of the DEA (see Tom Marino Bill)

and Appellees were identified by Appellant and his Attorney Lee Durst; they were

questioned numerous times after they were captured tracking Billy Earley’s lawsuit
against CVS and they gave the lawsuit to their expert witnesses, showing their

interest in protecting CVS by having their Expert Witnesses evaluate the lawsuit.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(d), judicial notice may be taken at any

stage of the proceeding, including by an appellate court during the pendency of an

appeal. Fed. R. Evid. 201(d); see also Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th

Cir. 2003); Bryant v. Carleson, 444 F.2d 353, 357-58 (9th Cir. 1971); Circuit

Advisory Committee Note Seven to Ninth Circuit Rule 27-1. The Court may take

judicial notice of any matter “not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is

generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably

be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

The Crime Report were Appellants father was beat and hospitalized for 3

weeks; the breaking and entering of the Appellants clinic looking for Tosha’s

chart; and the FOIA detailing DEA involvement is the proper subject of judicial

notice.

A court may take judicial notice of figures contained in official documents,

including documents appearing on a government website. See, e.g., Daniels-Hall v.

Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010) (judicial notice of

information displayed on school district website); Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass’n v.

City of Simi Valley, 864 F.2d 1475, 1479-80 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1989) (“We take
judicial notice of these figures, contained in the reports of a public body, pursuant

to Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).”).

The Corona Police Crime Reports and the FOIA Reports are all official

reports from their perspective offices therein stated. These documents are

authenticated because they were obtained directly from those offices and each

document bears the certification and or letterhead seal, respectfully.

This data is relevant because it supports Appellants’ position that the

Appellees-Defendants engaged in a pattern of misconduct, which included making

death threats against Appellant and his former Attorney, attacking and injuring his

family and his 78-year-old father, breaking into his business, creating an

atmosphere where American Black patients of the clinic were called niggers and

racial epithets daily, including DOJ Prosecutors racially attacking people of color,

NAACP folks, and leading up to the Settlement Hearing in the Administrative

Court were the Prosecutor John McKenna, and the Judge continued to threaten,

coerce, conceal, retaliate, and manipulate the factual evidence of what had

happened.

These Exhibits for judicial notice are consistent with the history and the

actions of the Appellees and they are required for this court determine what was

going on before the Administrative Hearings, in April of 2016. The Request for

Judicial Notice is vital because of its Exculpatory and Innocence property values of
the evidence with respect to the complaint sequences and procedural history. The

exhibits will also help the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court determine if any stipulation

or agreement done was by virtue of severe Economic, Coercion, Menace, Threats

of Bodily Harm, and Retaliation by Unknown Corrupt Enforcement employees

working with and for Appellees or any of their associates.

Respectfully submitted

Date: August 21, 2018

Billy Z. Earley
2144 Wembley Lane
Corona, California 92881

.
Billy Z. Earley

Self-Litigant for Appellant


Appearance in Propria Persona
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY Z. EARLEY

Appellant-Plaintiff , District Case 5:16-cv-02274-AB-SK


v. Court of Appeals No. 18-55461
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER ET. AL.,

Appellees-Defendants,
________________________________|

I am employed in the Country of Riverside. I am over the age of eighteen (18)


years and I am not a party to the above-entitled action. I served the following:
 APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the following party by placing a true copy and correct copy thereof in a
sealed envelope, with first-class postage prepaid thereon, and deposited said
envelope in the United States mail at or in Corona, California to:

John Echeverria Rosemary Luzon


Deputy Attorney General Deputy Attorney General
300 South Spring Street, #1702 600 West Broadway, #1800
Los Angeles, California 90013 San Diego, California 92101

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 21, 2018.


.
Maria Earley

Você também pode gostar