California Judicial Council Corrupting Federal Court Judge(s)?

California Judicial Council Corrupting Federal Court Judge(s)?

Federal Judges On Taxpayer Paid Salaries Outsourcing Their Job?

 

San Jose, November 18, 2016

  Documents filed recently in a pending U.S. District Court case # 13:0228 against the state court entities/agents, accuse the defendants’ and California Judicial Council (“CJC”) of authoring and engineering orders under Judge Ronald McLeod Whyte’s digital signature. Oddly enough, effective November 1, 2016, after Plaintiffs’ ongoing complaint, Judge Whyte is no longer on the Federal judicial bench. 

Ex Federal Court Judge Ronald McLeod Whyte

  Documents filed in the case state that plaintiffs “are consistently being victimized by “naziistic” and “defamatory” orders that purposefully create a false record and misapply law to fit the “fixed” outcome.. J. Whyte’s conflict of interest and judicial crimes transformed this case into a farce proceeding, a sheer four year waste of Plaintiffs’ efforts and time.” “Defendant/CJC et al. who are no strangers to corrupt the judicial process and exposing J. Whyte to public integrity law enforcement scrutiny”

  The document offers many examples of proof that J. Whyte did not author orders that bear his digital name, among which are the following:

1.            A verbatim quote of the July 15, 2016 court hearing, where Judge Whyte, upon being confronted, does not make any effort to deny the claim that orders under his name are not authored by him, while he denies other unrelated allegations.

2.            Likewise, when Defendant’s counsel, Mr. James Stanley Brown, of Sedgwick LLP, when confronted with the same allegation, does did not challenge or deny it either.

Mr. James Brown, Sedgwick LLP

3.            Order, under Judge Whyte’s digital signature contains clues that it is not authored by Judge Whyte. For example, mistakes in verbatim quotes of Judge Whyte’s own handwritten language provides a clue that “had J. Whyte authored the instant order (#758) he would not have difficulty recognizing his own handwritten words”

4.            “Yet another instance of foul play is when a raft of orders ..engineered by Def.’s were released as late as 6:30 p.m., on J. Whyte’s last day on bench (Oct. 31, 2016), on matters that were taken under submission 6 months ago, .. and J. Whyte’s cleanup work done by Def.’s/agents”

5.            “Further evidence of Def.’s and its agents authoring the Order is the legal standard .. is [a] verbatim copy of Def.’s pleading”

6.            Another clue, unlike an order authored by a rational judge, is when the “Def.’s engineered order discredits the entire world that testifies against them, with frivolous and “Get-Smart” type over-smart “gotchas” ”.

7.            Per document, another clue is when “[h]aving interacted with Def.s’/CJC counsel Mr. Brown, Pltf. can tell that the language and choice of words in [Judge Whyte’s] order, “in each instance that defendant elicited testimony” are words commonly used by Mr. Brown, his standard vocabulary, and never heard from J. Whyte, further solidifying the fact that the Order is engineered/authored by Def.s’/CJC and its agents”

8.            Per document, yet another clue is when Defendants and CJC authored order contradicts what J. Whyte verbally stated during an August 2016 trial, per reporter transcribed trial transcript. “Def.’s engineered Order’s backtracking that “review of the complete transcript for that court day” now changes J. Whyte’s “looking back at the transcript” is nothing but a fraud on this court, self-serving, and rings hollow”.

9.            When Plaintiff complained about J. Whyte frustrating justice he got penalized. Per document filed, “frustrating justice is a crime of legal and moral conscience. It is shameful that J. Whyte would allow his name to be associated by publishing this Order. It’s kind of like Nazi party calling the Jews complaining about frustrating of justice, as the intimidators vs. truly being the opposite”

10.         Instead of addressing the California Judicial Council and Judge Whyte’s judicial crimes, documents recently filed reveal that Plaintiffs’ have been threatened further with “other sanctions, including termination of electronic filing permission and monetary sanctions”.  In short it appears that the reported crime is being covered up and silenced.

Ms. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chair of California Judicial Council

  The document adds that “[w]hen justice is not served but rather abused to achieve an ulterior end, the engineered orders carry as little weight as the “fixed” orders of the German courts against innocent Jews’ legitimate claims in the 1930s-40s.” “It is abundantly clear that Def.’s/CJC continues to publish a false record and reasoning under a Federal Judge’s Whyte’s name and the latter is willing co-conspirator to it.” “Public trust in the integrity of this court is totally shattered when this court allows California state authorities to be proxy, and dictate to this court the “fixed” outcome. Either cure the “rigged” orders by ruling on facts, merits, proper law, or provide public sufficient notice that this court is not open for adjudication of claims against state entities, and individuals associated with state entities so that the public, including Pltfs’, do not waste and toil over years in the hopes of justice.”

  Under the circumstances public has a right to know whether Judge Whyte’s properties all over the country for e.g. the 320 Prospect Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95032, the Ketchum, Idaho property, and the other (41) forty one individual separate investment assets, are all acquired on taxpayer paid salary as a Federal Judge, while Judge Whyte outsources his job to special interest entities like the California Judicial Council?

Mr. Martin Hoshino, Administrative Director, California Judicial Council

  The United States District Court Judges at the San Jose Federal Court consists entirely of ex-California Superior Court Judges, for e.g. Judge Edward Davila, Judge Lucy Koh, Judge Beth Freeman, Judge Jeremy Fogel, and Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who effective Nov. 1, 2016 is no longer on the Federal Judicial Bench .

  The Federal court plaintiff in the underlying case has complained the Judge Whyte and the California Judicial Council are covering up for the civil rights violations of the California State Judiciary and its affiliated individuals.

  The public suspicion of RICO (racketeering and corrupt) acts between certain Northern California U.S. District Federal Court Judges and the Defendant(s) California Judiciary appears to be intensifying and attracting attention and scrutiny from the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

  Please direct your comments and queries to judicialirregularities@gmail.com