Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Linda Shao, Petitioner v. McManis Faulkner, LLP
Supreme Court briefDec 11, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
-
No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
Linda Shao
Petitioner - Appellant,
VS.
McManis Faulkner, LLP, James McManis,
Michael Reedy, Catherine Bechtel
Respondents App ellees.
-
—000—
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To the
California 6th District Court of Appeal re its Order
Dismissing Appeal on July 10, 2018 (an appeal from
Santa Clara County Court's Vexatious litigant
orders, H042531) California Supreme Court denied
review on September 12, 2018 [S250729]; related
Petitions 11-11119, 17-82 (closed), 18-344, 18-569
PETITION FOR WRITOFCERTIORARI
(STAY REQUESTED; RECUSAL REQUESTED)
Yl TAI SHAO, ESQ. In proper
SHAO LAW FIRM, PC
4900 Hopyard Road, Ste. 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588-7101
Telephone: (408) 873-3888
FAX: (408) 418-4070
Email: attorneyshao@aol.com
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The questions presented in this case are:
1. Does due process require reversal of the
dismissal of appealbased on the fact that the
California 6th District Court of Appeal
fraudulently dismissed the appeal by
concealing from Petitioner's notice its short
notice of the July 9, 2018's new due date of
Opening Brief, directing Petitioner to wait for
the Court's ruling on her objection for
insufficient records on appeal and motions
rather than to file an Opening Brief before
the ruling, and thereby setting a trap for a
secret and prompt dismissal of this appeal
with the excuse that Petitioner did not file
her Opening Brief, in disregard of the facts
that Petitioner had filed part of her appellate
brief--- Motion for Judicial Noticein support of
her Opening Brief, that the Court was aware
that Petitioner would have filed her Opening
Brief but for the insufficiency of the records
on appeal (All of the papers filed by
Petitionerwith the trial court in response to
Respondents' motions on vexatious litigant
orders were not included in the records on
appeal),when, in fact, 13 minutes before the
Court's issuance of the notice of acceptance
for filing of her Objections and Motions, the
Court had already secretly ordered a new
short due date for the Opening Brief to be
July 9, 2018 without waiting for 15 days as
required byRule 8.54(b)(1) of California Rules
of Court with clear anticipation that
Petitioner would miss the unnoticed due date
when the secret order of July 3, 2018 and the
11
dismissal order of July 10, 2018 were not
entered into the docket until after July 11,
2018?
Does due process require reversal of the
dismissal of appeal and disqualification of the
Court of Appeal based on the fact
thatRespondent James McManis has an
unidentified Justice client at the 6th District
Court of Appeal who he had given gifts of his
free legal services regarding the Justice's
private affairs in violation of Canon 40(5) of
California Code of Judicial Ethics and Rule 5300 of California Rules of Professional
Conduct?
Does due process require reversal of the
dismissal of appeal and change venue based
on the fact that the Presiding Justice Mary J.
Greenwood failed to disclose her conflicts of
interest in that she is the spouse of Judge
Edward Davila who started the illegal
parental deprival orders 8 years ago,
conspired to cause the parental deprival of
August 4, 2010 to become "permanent"
(Petition No. 11-11119), conspired to dismiss
all appeals in order to constrain the judiciary
corruptions directed by Respondent James
McManis within his clients courts' control, to
ensure Judge Patricia Lucas's parental
deprival order to be a permanent firm order
(Petition No. 18-569), to achieve the common
goal of the conspiracy to allow
theRespondents to have an excuse to apply
collateral estoppel of Judge Patricia Lucas's
November 4, 2013's decision at the trial court,
the client of Respondent James McManis
111
which being Respondents' sole defense
against Petitioner in this underlying legal
malpractice lawsuit (see App, Declaration of
Meera Fox), where actual prejudice has been
shown by Justice Greenwood's proactive
dismissal of Petitioner's 4 appeals deriving
from the family court case and this legal
malpractice case within 2 months of her
swearing-in to the seat of Presiding Justice at
the 6th District Court of Appeal, directly (e.g.,
Petition No. 18-569) or indirectly (through
Justice Franklin Elia and Justice Adrianne
Grover who acted on behalf of her), in
violation of Canon 2(B)(2),(7) and (8) of
California Code of Judicial Ethics?
4. Is there severe obstruction of justice that a
Justice with prior history of bias and
prejudice against Petitioner and is currently
sued by Petitioner, silently dismissed the
appeal on July 10, 2018 without giving notice
to Petitioner, after the Justice actively
blocking Petitioner from filing her Opening
Brief, by double deceiving measures where
the Court defrauded Petitioner with an
anticipation that the Court had accepted
Petitioner's motions for filing on July 3, 2018
and would rule on that 15 days later pursuant
to Rule 8.54(b)(1), but in fact already ruled on
that secretly by sending to the extinct email
13 minutes prior and further delayed
docketing the July 3's orders until dismissal,
and did not give proper notice of dismissal to
Petitioner, to ensure that Petitioner would be
deceived into not filing her Opening Brief by
iv
the July 9's due date hided in the July 3,
20 18'sorders?
Does a court have the jurisdiction to
sanction dismissal underRule 8.122 when
there is no indication that Petitioner
abandons appeal and there were already two
motions ordered to be considered along with
the Opening Brief?
Has Justice Elias violated due process by
denying Petitioner's motion to augment
records for the six significant papers in
violation of Rule 8.155 where the trial court's
clerk is mandated to provide records in
conformity with the designation ofrecord?
Does due process require reversal of
California Supreme Court's order of
September 12, 2018 denying review as the
Chief Justice of California Supreme Court
failed to decide on Petitioner's request for
recusal where James McManis swore that a
Justice at California Supreme Court was his
client regarding the private affairs without
charging any legal fees in violation of Canon
4(B)(5) of California Code of Judicial Ethics
and Rule 5-300 of Rules of Professional
Conduct where according to California Code
of Civil Procedure §170.3 that the Chief
Justice must be disqualified in failing to
answer to the request for recusal nor
conducting an investigation as to the direct
conflicts of interest?
Does due process require reversal of the
dismissal of the appeal as both the trial court
and appellate court conspired to deter the
records on appeal to be prepared for more
than two years, and when eventually
prepared (after Petitioner's filing of Petition
17-82), they jointly caused the records on
appeal to exclude all significant filings made
by Petitioner in defending the vexatious
litigant motions filed by the law firm of their
attorney James McManis, but instead caused
a fraudulent certificate of completion to be
filed in violation of California Penal Code
Sections 132, 134, 470, 182 and 96.5 and
Canon 2(B)(2),(7) and (8) of California Code of
Judicial Ethics?
Does due process require reversal of the
vexatious litigant orders and change venue of
the trial court where Santa Clara County
Court has been a representative client of
Respondent McManis Faulkner, LLP and
Respondent James McManis admitted that he
was the trial court's attorney and both
Respondents are appearing as defendants in
the underlying legal malpractice lawsuit in
front of Santa Clara County Court which
persisted on repeatedly denying Petitioner's
requests to change venue in disregard of this
direct conflicts of interest?
Does due process require reversal of the
vexatious litigant orders, disqualification of
the Santa Clara County Court and change
venue based on undisclosed quasiemployment relationship where Respondent
James McManis has been appointed by the
trial court as its Special Master for many
years and is appearing in front of his
employer court as a defendant for this legal
malpractice case?
vi
Does due process require reversal, and change
venue from Santa Clara County Court, based
on the fact that the court failed to disclose
their long term regular social relationship
with Respondent James McManis and
Respondent Michael Reedy through two
chapters of the American Inns of Court in
California where Respondent McManis
Faulkner, LLP has been a major donor and
financial sponsor of the American Inns of
Court, where Petitioner has suffered actual
prejudice by these vexatious litigant orders
that were deterred from appeal for more than
2 years but were ordered despite the Court
made a finding that Respondent McManis
Faulkner's "arguments and evidence to be
incomplete"?
Should judges who are members of the
American Inns of Court be required as a
matter of due process to disclose their social
relationship with lawyers who are members
of the Inns of Court and who are appearing
before the judge-members?
Should all appellate writs and appeals that
are derived from the same underlying family
court case be counted as "one litigation", for
the purposes of calculating what should
constitute 5 litigations within the preceding 7
years?
Does due process require invalidating the
prefiing order which was not granted in the
June 16, 2015's Order, not supported by a
statement of decision, not entered into the
docket until about July of 2017 with a forged
backdating entry on the case docket as having
vii
been entered on June 16, 2015 in violation of
California Penal Code Sections 132, 134, 470,
182 and 96.5?
Does due process require invalidating the
vexatious litigant order for the reason that
Judge Folanacted as Respondents' attorney in
suasponte adding 10 adverse decisions as the
basis to declare Petitioner as a vexatious
litigant when Respondents raised their
arguments based on only 5 adverse decisions
out of 7 year and actually there were no
qualified 5 adverse decisions despite Judge
Folan tried hard to interpret the decision in
favor of Respondents and had found
Respondents' "arguments and evidence to be
incomplete", and disallowed Appellant to
provide evidence or make argument to rebut
this new issue raised by the Court shown in
its tentative decision at the June 16, 2015's
hearing where such act violated Canon
3.E(5)(a) of California Code of Judicial Ethics?
Is the Prefiling vexatious litigant order void
for being lack of a statement of decision?
Does the courts' joint deterrence of records on
appeal to be prepared for two years constitute
violation of Petitioner's fundamental right to
appeal and access the court as a matter of law?
Should the vexatious litigant orders be
reversed when the trial court has lost Volume
5 and failed to provide the material records
that are designated by Appellant for appeal?
viii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner is Yi Tai Shao, aka Linda Shao ["Shao"],
an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
California since 1996, who is the mother in the
underlying appeal now pending with the Supreme
Court in Petition No. 18-569.
Respondents are McManis Faulkner, LLP, James
McManis, Michael Reedy and Catherine Bechtel.
They are represented by Janet Everson Pearson,
Bradley & Feeney; 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor;
San Francisco, CA 94108-5530.
INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES; REQUEST FOR
RECUSAL OF 8 JUSTICES ROBERTS, THOMAS,
BEYER, ALITO, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYER,
KAGAN AND GORSUCH
Interested third parties: Chief Justice John G.
Roberts, retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Justice Thomas Alito, Justice Stephen
Beyer, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia
Sotomayerat the US Supreme Court.
I, Yi Tai Shao, declare
1. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, retired Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice Clarence
Thomas, Justice Stephen Beyer, Justice
Samuel Alito, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia
Sotomayer, the US Supreme Court, Jeff
Atkins who is in charge of filing of Request for
Recusal, Jordan Bickel who is in charge of the
proceeding after Writs are issued, are in
default in the lawsuit of 1:18-cv-01233-RC
since August 23, 2018 that is pending with
the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia.
Thisdirect conflicts of interest is well beyond
their being sued, as the relief requested was
to impeach them. Petitioner filed Affidavits
requesting entry of default on October 16,
2018 when the due date for their responses to
the First Amended Complaint was August 23,
2018. (App.179-189)
On November 19, 2018, the same date when
this Court denied Petitioner's Petition for
Writ of Certiorari in 18-344, the US Attorney
for the District of Columbia filed a frivolous
Responses of the U.S. regarding the affidavit
of default. It is frivolous as the US Attorney
failed to comply with the rules of procedure to
seek the order of the U.S.D.C. for the District
of Columbia for intervention and provided
false fact via an incompetent declaration to
allege that US Attorney was never served
with the Summons and Complaint of the
lawsuit with the case number of 1:18-cv0 1233. See ECF#140 and 142 (motion to
strike the Responses of the US); see also
App.188.
The US Attorney for District of Columbia
apparently was filing the Response with
malice in abusing 28 USC §517 as the
Responses mentioned ECF#20 on its Page 2
(ECF#140) but ECF#20 is a proof of service
made by a professional process server
attesting proper service of the Summons and
Complaint upon the US Attorney and her
office on June 25, 2018, more than 5 months
ago when no one ever challenged the proof of
service and it has passed the time for a
motion to strike ECF#20.
KI
The eight Justices were sued as they have
conspired together not to rule on Petitioner's
three requests for recusal in the conferences
of January 8, 2018 (17- 256 and 17-613) and
February 26, 2018 (17- 613), in abandoning
their Constitutional duty to decide and their
decline to decide the three requests for
recusal constituted a discriminative practice
as they have never refused to decide on a
request for recusal. The practice of this Court
is based on the decision of the Wisconsin
Supreme Court in State v. Allen (2010) 322
Wis.2d 372, 395.
Petitioner's requests for recusal were based
on the Justices'extrajudicial regular social
and financial relationship with the American
Inns of Court including sponsoring their
clerks' solicitation of the Temple Bar
Scholarship from the American Inns of Court
(App.16169) without disclosing the amount of
the gifts, where Respondent McManis
Faulkner law firm is a major sponsor and
James McManis is a leading attorney of the
American Inns of Court, Respondent James
McManis is socially closely related with Chief
Justice John G. Roberts (App.173) and there
are two chapters of the American Inns of
Court established in the names of Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg.
The Temple Bar Scholarship is targeted at
the Clerks of this Supreme Court based on
their judicial function. The qualification of
such gifts explicitly stated so in
http://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/A`wards—and—
xi
Scholarships/Temple_Bar_Scholarships/MCI
Awards _and_Scholarships/Temple_Bar_Schol
arships/Temple_Bar.aspx?hkey=1df4d433
b273-4c76-a96b-357ecb5921e9. (App.170-72)
American Inns of Court published on its website for
Temple Bar Scholarship as below:
"How are Temple Bar Scholars selected?
The three principal selection criteria for Temple
Bar Scholars® are:
High academic achievement in law school
Experience as a law clerk for a judge or
justice of a leading appellate court, including
the Supreme Court of the United States
Demonstrated interest in international law
issues"
Therefore, the Temple Bar Scholarship should be
governed by "Judicial Conference Regulations on
Gifts" and Honoraria, Guide to Judiciary Policy
Vol.2C. See Guide to Judiciary Policy §620.25. (See
Petition for Rehearing, App. 14) As this is based on
the recipient's judicial status, subdivision (g) does
not apply and the scholarship is qualified as a gift.
The Temple Bar Scholarship applications by
7.
the 38 clerks violatedGuide to Judiciary Policy
§620.30 (Petition for Rehearing, App. 14; "A judicial
officer or employee shall not solicit a gift from any
person who is seeking official action from or doing
business with the court or other entity served by
the judicial officer or employee, or from any other
person whose interests may be substantially
affected by the performance or nonperformance of
the judicial officer's or employee's official duties.")
and Guide to Judiciary Policy §1020.30 (Petition for
xii
Rehearing, App.17 no receipt of payment made
because of the Clerk's status in the government.) as
the American Inns of Court have been doing
business with the US Supreme Court by holding its
annual conferences at the US Supreme Court for
years and at least its leading sponsoring attorneys'
interests of their cases at the Supreme Court may
be affected by these clerks. The most recent
business conference of the American Inns of Court
at the this Court was October 21, 2017 when
Michael Reedy, a Respondent in 17-256 and 17-82,
a partner to James McManis, was invited to attend.
(App. 175)
Such scholarships violate §620.35 (a) and
§620.45 of Guide to Judiciary Policy (Petition for
Rehearing, App.15, io) as (1) the American Inns of
Court is not a bar due to the secrecy of its
membership and restriction of its membership and
(2) the American Inns of Court is financially
supported by many rich attorneys who used this to
obtain their favors in the court, such as James
McManis.
This Court's Clerk's Office has committed the
same pattern of breaching the clerk's duties to file
and to maintain the docket as California 6th
District Court of Appeal. The irregularities in the
proceedings of the three Petitions, 17-82, 17-256,
17-613, 18-344 (refused to file Request for Recusal
on 11/20/2018) and 18-569 (refused to docket filing
of the Request for Recusal) suggest a public
appearance that this court and judiciary
administration were influenced substantially by
James McManis, the well-recognized leading
attorney of the American Inns of Court. These
irregularities constitute actual prejudice suffered
XII'
by Petitioner. Jordan Bickel acted beyond his
authority to bring in a nonamicus curiae clerk
named Donald Baker to deter filing the Amicus
Curiae motion of Mothers of Lost Children in No.
17-82 (not even returning the 41 copies mailed for
filing), delayfiling, de-file 2 weeks after filing of the
Amicus Curiae motion in 17-613, and re-file it later,
with many incidents of alteration of dockets in
Petition No. 17-613 (to reverse the child custody
order of Judge Patricia Lucas and to change courts),
and, concealing court's records by refusing to enter
into the docket the Appendixes for three Requests
for Recusal (one in 17-256, two in 17-613),
concealing the filing of the Requests recently in 18344 and 18-569.
10. On November 20, 2018, the US Supreme Court
rejected filing of Request for Recusal in 18-344
with an excuse that the court denied Petition for
Writ of Certiorari in 18-344 on November 17,
2018. (App.190) The Clerk's Office failed to
docket its receipt of the Request for Recusal in
18-344.
11.The Request for Recusal in Petition No. 18-569
that was filed with the US Supreme Court
simultaneously with that in 18-344 was not
returned but it was not entered into the docket
of 18-569.
12.After U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia
delayed by a month in knowingly refusing to
enter default, PRWeb published a news which
was picked up by 164 media within 2 hours.
(See a copy of the news release in A.01-03
attached to the Request for Recusal filed in 18
569.)Yet, Google suppressed such news
xiv
whichapparently was directeds by the Chief
Justice John G. Roberts.
The hacker who appeared to be associated with
Google, Youtube, McManis Faulkner, LLP and
Judge Theodore Zayner, has been hacking over
Petitioner since March 2018. The hacker's name
is Kevin L. Warnock whose name was found to
became the author for thousands of files
authored by Petitioner and has deleted more
than 44,024 files from Petitioner's back up discs
which could only be done by burglarizing
Petitioner's residence.A sensor sensing the
garage door opening and closing was discovered
recently which was illegally placed on the
garage door of Petitioner's residence. Mr.
Warnock got assistance from Esther Chung
whose names showed in some of the complaint
type documentary files as the author in place of
Petitioner.
Kevin L. Warnock is an expert on networking
for Intel Corp. whose attorney is Respondents
James McManis, Michael Reedy and McManis
Faulkner, LLP.
Google, Inc. was shown to have obtained special
favor from Chief Justice John G. Roberts in
Petition No.17 357 (obtained 2 months'
extension to file Petition for Writ of Certiorari, a
unique conference date of 1/5/2018, and was
able to file Supplemental Petition without
seeking leave of the court's order.) even though
Justice Kennedy was in charge of the 9th Circuit
area. Google and YouTube suspended
Petitioner's gmail accounts without any notice
alleging violations of their policies because
Petitioner published her YouTube radio show on
xv
this Court's Justices' sponsoring the Temple Bar
Scholarship. Kevin L. Warnock appeared to be
working with Google as well.Evidence of such
hacking has been very intensive up to present.
16. The hacker has deleted all soft copies of
depositions transcripts and entire files of this
civil case from all computers (6-7 computers) for
this trial court proceeding of Shao v. McManis
Faulkner, James McManis, Michael Reedy, et al.
at the residence of Petitioner. Likewise, Judge
Theodore Zayner illegally took the case files of
this case on or about July 20, 2016 and was
confirmed by Santa Clara County Court on July
11, 2017 that he "lost" Volume 5 of the court
files (App.202). Judge Zayner who maintained
parental deprival of Petitioner by 4 years also
illegally took from the Santa Clara County
Court the original deposition transcripts of
James McManis and Michael Reedy that were
lodged with the trial court for the jury trial set
to begin on 12/9/2015. (James McManis caused
his client court to stay the trial pending
disposition of the custody trial, which was
feloniously dismissed in May 2018 and now in
Petition 18-569.) Such large file deletion and
hacking including burglarizing into Petitioner's
residence were apparently related to Google,
James McManis, and Judge Zayner. There is a
reasonable appearance that the hacking by
Google was directed by Chief Justice John
Roberts, based on the appearance of special
favor that Chief Justice gave Google in Petition
17-357 (obtained from Chief Justice lengthy
extension to prepare Petition for Writ of
xv'
Certiorari and special conference date of
11512018 that was not on the court's calendar.)
The US Attorney for the District of Columbia,
Jessie K. Liu, who failed to disclose her conflicts
of interest that she is a proactive member of
Defendant the American Inns of Court, failed to
follow the rules of procedure and filed a
"Responses of the United States" on November
19, 2018 without filing a motion for intervention,
and presented an unqualified affidavit not from
the custodian of records to declare falsely that
the US Attorney for the District of Columbia
and her office were not served with the
Summons and Complaint. In fact, ECF#20 that
was filed 5 months prior, has proved that they
were truly properly served and no one ever
contested to this fact or file a motion to strike
ECF#20.
As how Respondent James McManis could have
such enormous influential power is by way of
being a major donor of the American Inns of
Court, and the judges/justices involved to
unreasonably withhold child custody return to
Petitioner are buddies to Respondents James
McManis and Michael Reedy through two
chapters of the American Inns of Court, and
none of the judicial officers or courts ever
disclosed such regular social relationship, the
American Inns of Court's function providing ex
parte communication platforms has been the
key question for each of the Petitions filed with
this Court since 2017, including 1782, 17236,
17-613, 17344, 17-569 and also this Petition.
Therefore there is an appearance of conflicts of
interest that requires recusal of the Justices
xvii
who have solicited gifts on behalf of their clerks
from the American Inns of Court and failed to
make a disclosure in violation of §620.30,
§620.35, §620.45 and §620.50 of the US Guide to
Judiciary Policy.
While this Court's Clerk's Office persisted on
refusing to e-post/e- file the appendix for the
three requests for recusal filed with this court in
Petitions 17-82, 17-256 and 17-613, two
material documents as evidence of conflicts of
interest were purged from the internet about
the same time. They are Pages 12 and 22 of the
suppressed appendix for the 3 Requests for
Recusal at issue in 1:18-c-01233-RC.
One is the snapshot regarding American Inns of
Court's video spoken by Attorney Emanuel
Sanches who stated "This is the only
organization that I know that the lawyers and
judges belong to the trial bar have a chance to
meet outside of the courtroom in a social setting
and really able to establish the rapport." Such
statement directly violates Rule 5-300 of
California Rules of Professional Conduct and
Canon 3 to disallow ex parte communications
and gifts with judges. (See, also, A.20 attached
to Request for Recusal filed in 17-569)
21.American Inns of Court put this video clip back
after Petitioner made the criticism in her
Renewed Request for Recusal filed in early
February along with her Petition for Rehearing
at Petition No. 17613 on or about Feb. 2, 2018.
22. The other was James McManis's news release
dated 08/13/2012 publishing his relationship
with Chief Justice John G. Roberts that he was
the third after Justice Roberts to receive the
xviii
highest honor of the Inns of Court--- Honorary
Bencher of the Kings' Inn. (See, also, A.19
attached to Request for Recusal filed in 17-569)
Petitioner declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the U.S. that her statement
above and all documents provided in the Appendix
is true and made in good faith pursuant to 28 USC
§455.
Petitioner declares that any reasonable person
will believe that Petitioner cannot have a fair
decision on this Petition based on direct conflicts
of interest with the 7 Justices when there are
pending requests for entry of default.
With this statement under the section of
"Parties to the Proceeding", in view of the US
Supreme Court's felonious refusal to file the
Requests for Recusal nor entering into the
docket of Petitions No. 18-344 and No. 18-569,
Petitioner respectfully requests 7 of the
originally named 8 Justices to be recused from
deciding this Petition. Petitioner respectfully
requests staying this Petition until resolution of
1:18-cv -01233 which is expected not more than 7
months.
I swear under the penalty of perjury under the laws
of the US that the foregoing facts and laws are true
and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Dated: December 11, 2018
By Is! Yi Tai Shao
Yi Tai Shao, Petitioner in pro per
xix
Table of Contents
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
.1
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING .......................... 1
interested third parties; request for recusal of 8
Justices Roberts, Thomas, Beyer, Alito, Ginsburg,
Sotomayer, Kagan AND GORSUCH........................1
Petition for writ of certiorari....................................1
OPINIONBELOW...................................................4
JURISDICTION ....................................................... 8
STATUTES INVOLVED (App.1-18) ........................8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................10
II. THE DISMISSAL STYMIED EXPOSURE OF
RESPONDENT Jame McManis'S ILLEGALGIFTS
TO THE JUDGES AND COURT STAFFS ............25
THIS CASE NAME HAS BEEN ALTERED
BY ALL APPELLATE LEVELS TO
CONCEALTHE NAME OF JAMES MCMANIS
27
EX PARTE CONTACTS THROUGH THE
AMERICAN INNS OF COURT.......................28
Special Master quasi- employment
relationship.......................................................32
Both experts perceived the public view of
conflicts of interest...........................................32
REASONS FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI: RULE
10(b) and (c)............................................................33
I. writ should be issued for the repeated egregious
court crimes that severely prejudiced significant
civil rights of liberty, human dignity, fundamental
right to appeal and have reasonable access to the
court........................................................................33
xx
A. Admission of court's crimes of concealing notice
of due date of appeal by the deputy clerk's failure to
deny or explain .......................................................34
The Sixth District lacks jurisdiction to issue the
Rule 8. 122dismissa1 sanction when the dismissal
was fraudulently played by the courtitseif ............ 37
orders violating Rule 8.54(b)(1) should be held
tobe void.................................................................38
To file an appeal without sufficient records on
appeal violates due process ....................................38
Prejudice to Petitioner for stalling appeal is
significant because both vexatious litigant orders
should have been invalidated if there were a fair
and impartial tribunal as a matter of law . ............ 39
LACK OF QUALIFIED JUSTICE AND
IMPARTIAL COURT..............................................40
A.Santa Clara County Court must be changed
VENUE................................................................40
1. Disqualify the Sixth District.....................42
CONCLUSION .......................................................42
verification..............................................................42
Cases
Borough ofDuryea v. Guarnien 564 US 379, 387,
131 S.Ct. 2488, 2494 (2011)..................................36
Cohen v. Huges Markets, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th
1693 .......................................................................39
Curie v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1070.
..................42
E.g., People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4t 1293....38
In Inquiry Concerning Harris (2005) 49 CalAth CJP
Supp.61..................................................................41
In re Marriage of Straczynski (2010) 189 Cal.App 4th
531 .........................................................................39
In State v. Putnam (1996) 164 Vt. 558 ...................41
xxi
Knouse v. Nimocks(1937) 8 C.2d 482, 66 P.2d 43842
Locada v. Deeds (1991) 498 US 430, overruled on
other grounds by Roe v. Flores Ortega (2000) 528
US470...................................................................36
Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 96839
People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Ca1.4th 690, 703, fn.1... 38
People v. Zarazua, 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1064
(2009)....................................................................38
Powell v. Anderson (Mm. 2003) 660 N.W.2d 107,
116-119 ................................ ... ................................ 40
Robinson v. Robinson, 2017- Ohio- 450 (Coiurt of
Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District, Meigs
County, released on 1/31/2017)............................36
Scott v. Kenyon (1940) 16 C.2d 197........................42
Smith v. SikorskyAircraft(C.D. Cal. 1976) 420 F.
Supp.661, 662 .......................................................40
U.S. v. Jordan (1985) 49 D.3d 152, Ft. 18..............41
United States v. Lilley, 581 F.2d 182 .....................34
United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir.),
Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S. Ct. 775, 46 L.
Ed. 2d 637 (1976)..................................................34
United States v. Ojala, 544 F.2d 940, 946 (8th Cir.
1976).......................................................................34
Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S.Ct. 1899, 1903 &
1905 (2016) ...........................................................40
Winthrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456,
1464 (1975) ...........................................................40
Statutes
§115,§132,§134,§470 ............................................. 10
§182..........................................................................35
§182, §96.5 ...............................................................10
§278.5. ...................................................................... 35
§96.5.........................................................................35
18 USC §371 ......................................................32, 36
18USC1001...........................................................32
xii
.32
18 USC2071(b)
182 ..............................................................................5
28 U.S.C. §2101(c)......................................................8
28USC1257............................................................. 8
28USC455............................................................. 11
965.............................................................................5
California Code of Civil Procedure 170.3(c)..............6
California Penal Code §278.5 ..................................10
California Penal Code Sections 132, 134, 470 ..........5
California Penal Code Sections 132, 134, 470, 182
and96.5...................................................................7
California Penal Code115, §132, §134, §470.........35
Government Code §6200..........................................35
US Const.Amend I ...................................................36
Rules
"Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts ................ 4
§620.25(g) of the Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol.2C.32
§620.30, §620.35, §620.45 and §620.50 of the US
Guide to Judiciary Policy......................................10
§620.35 (a) and §620.45 of Guide to Judiciary Policy
.....................5
Canon 2(B)(2),(7) and (8) of California Code of
JudicialEthics ........................................................5
Guide to Judiciary Policy §1020.30...........................4
Guide to Judiciary Policy §620.25.............................4
Guide to Judiciary Policy §620.30.............................4
Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol.2C...............................4
Rule 5300 of California Rules of Professional
Conduct. ................................................................ 41
Rule8.122 ................................................................37
Rule 8.54(b)(1)..........................................................38
US Sup. Ct. Rule 13.1 and 13.3.................................8
Treatises
13 WitkinCal.Proc. Appeal §917 .............................42
xli'
Regulations
Judicial Conference of the U.S., Committee on Code
of Conduct for United States Judges, Compendium
of Selected Opinions §3.6-6[1] (April 2013).........42
Table of Contents for the Appendix is after the last
page of the Petition, at the beginning of the
Appendix.
1
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner is Yi Tai Shao, aka Linda Shao ["Shao"],
an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
California since 1996, who is the mother in the
underlying appeal now pending with the Supreme
Court in Petition No. 18-569.
Respondents are McManis Faulkner, LLP, James
McManis, Michael Reedy and Catherine Bechtel.
They are represented by Janet Everson Pearson,
Bradley & Feeney; 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor;
San Francisco, CA 94108-5530.
INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES; REQUEST FOR
RECUSAL OF 8 JUSTICES ROBERTS, THOMAS,
BEYER, AUTO, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYER,
KAGAN AND GORSUCH
Interested third parties: Chief Justice John G.
Roberts, retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Justice Thomas Alito, Justice Stephen
Beyer, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia
Sotomayerat the US Supreme Court.
I, Yi Tai Shao, declare
1. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, retired Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice Clarence
Thomas, Justice Stephen Beyer, Justice
Samuel Auto, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia
Sotomayer, the US Supreme Court, Jeff
Atkins who is in charge of filing of Request for
Recusal, Jordan Bickel who is in charge of the
proceeding after Writs are issued, are in
default in the lawsuit of 1:18-cv-01233-RC
since August 23, 2018 that is pending with
the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia.
Thisdirect conflicts of interest is well beyond
2
their being sued, as the relief requested was
to impeach them. Petitioner filed Affidavits
requesting entry of default on October 16,
2018 when the due date for their responses to
the First Amended Complaint was August 23,
2018. (App.179-189)
On November 19, 2018, the same date when
this Court denied Petitioner's Petition for
Writ of Certiorari in 18-344, the US Attorney
for the District of Columbia filed a frivolous
Responses of the U.S. regarding the affidavit
of default. It is frivolous as the US Attorney
failed to comply with the rules of procedure to
seek the order of the U.S.D.C. for the District
of Columbia for intervention and provided
false fact via an incompetent declaration to
allege that US Attorney was never served
with the Summons and Complaint of the
lawsuit with the case number of 1:18-cv01233. See ECF#140 and 142 (motion to
strike the Responses of the US); see also
App. 188.
The US Attorney for District of Columbia
apparently was filing the Response with
malice in abusing 28 USC §517 as the
Responses mentioned ECF#20 on its Page 2
(ECF#140) but ECF#20 is a proof of service
made by a professional process server
attesting proper service of the Summons and
Complaint upon the US Attorney and her
office on June 25, 2018, more than 5 months
ago when no one ever challenged the proof of
service and it has passed the time for a
motion to strike ECF#20.
3
The eight Justices were sued as they have
conspired together not to rule on Petitioner's
three requests for recusal in the conferences
of January 8, 2018 (17-256 and 17-613) and
February 26, 2018 (17-613), in abandoning
their Constitutional duty to decide and their
decline to decide the three requests for
recusal constituted a discriminative practice
as they have never refused to decide on a
request for recusal. The practice of this Court
is based on the decision of the Wisconsin
Supreme Court in State v. Allen (2010) 322
Wis.2d 372, 395.
Petitioner's requests for recusal were based
on the Justice s'extraj udicial regular social
and financial relationship with the American
Inns of Court including sponsoring their
clerks' solicitation of the Temple Bar
Scholarship from the American Inns of Court
(App.161-69) without disclosing the amount of
the gifts, where Respondent McManis
Faulkner law firm is a major sponsor and
James McManis is a leading attorney of the
American Inns of Court, Respondent James
McManis is socially closely related with Chief
Justice John G. Roberts (App.173) and there
are two chapters of the American Inns of
Court established in the names of Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg.
The Temple Bar Scholarship is targeted at
the Clerks of this Supreme Court based on
their judicial function. The qualification of
such gifts explicitly stated so in
http://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/Awards—and—
Scholarship s/Temple_ Bar _Scholarship s/AIC/
Awards_and_Scholarships/Temple_Bar_Schol
arships/Te mple_Bar. aspx?hkey= 1 df4d43 3b273-4c76-a96b-357ecb5921e9. (App. 170-72)
American Inns of Court published on its website for
Temple Bar Scholarship as below:
"How are Temple Bar Scholars selected?
The three principal selection criteria for Temple
Bar Scholars® are:
High academic achievement in law school
Experience as a law clerk for a judge or
justice of a leading appellate court, including
the Supreme Court of the United States
Demonstrated interest in international law
issues"
Therefore, the Temple Bar Scholarship should be
governed by "Judicial Conference Regulations on
Gifts" and Honoraria, Guide to Judiciary Policy
Vol.2C. See Guide to Judiciary Policy §620.25. (See
Petition for Rehearing, App.14) As this is based on
the recipient's judicial status, subdivision (g) does
not apply and the scholarship is qualified as a gift.
7.
The Temple Bar Scholarship applications by
the 38 clerks violatedGuide to Judiciary Policy
§620.30 (Petition for Rehearing, App. 14; "A judicial
officer or employee shall not solicit a gift from any
person who is seeking official action from or doing
business with the court or other entity served by
the judicial officer or employee, or from any other
person whose interests may be substantially
affected by the performance or nonperformance of
the judicial officer's or employee's official duties.")
and Guide to Judiciary Policy §1020.30 (Petition for
5
Rehearing, App.17; no receipt of payment made
because of the Clerk's status in the government.) as
the American Inns of Court have been doing
business with the US Supreme Court by holding its
annual conferences at the US Supreme Court for
years and at least its leading sponsoring attorneys'
interests of their cases at the Supreme Court may
be affected by these clerks. The most recent
business conference of the American Inns of Court
at the this Court was October 21, 2017 when
Michael Reedy, a Respondent in 17-256 and 17-82,
a partner to James McManis, was invited to attend.
(App. 175)
Such scholarships violate §620.35 (a) and
§620.45 of Guide to Judiciary Policy (Petition for
Rehearing, App. 15, 16) as (1) the American Inns of
Court is not a bar due to the secrecy of its
membership and restriction of its membership and
(2) the American Inns of Court is financially
supported by many rich attorneys who used this to
obtain their favors in the courts, such as James
McManis.
This Court's Clerk's Office has committed the
same pattern of breaching the clerk's duties to file
and to maintain the docket as California 6th
District Court of Appeal. The irregularities in the
proceedings of the three Petitions, 17-82, 17-256,
17-613, 18-344 (refused to file Request for Recusal
on 11/20/2018) and 18-569 (refused to docket filing
of the Request for Recusal) suggest a public
appearance that this court and judiciary
administration were influenced substantially by
James McManis, the well-recognized leading
attorney of the American Inns of Court. These
irregularities constitute actual prejudice suffered
by Petitioner. Jordan Bickel acted beyond his
authority to bring in a non-amicus curiae clerk
named Donald Baker to deter filing the Amicus
Curiae motion of Mothers of Lost Children in No.
17-82 (not even returning the 41 copies mailed for
filing), delayfihing, de-file 2 weeks after filing of the
Amicus Curiae motion in 17-613, and re-file it later,
with many incidents of alteration of dockets in
Petition No. 17-613 (to reverse the child custody
order of Judge Patricia Lucas and to change courts),
and, concealing court's records by refusing to enter
into the docket the Appendixes for three Requests
for Recusal (one in 17-256, two in 17-613),
concealing the filing of the Requests recently in 18344 and 18-569.
On November 20, 2018, the US Supreme Court
rejected filing of Request for Recusal in 18-344
with an excuse that the court denied Petition for
Writ of Certiorari in 18-344 on November 17,
2018. (App.190) The Clerk's Office failed to
docket its receipt of the Request for Recusal in
18-344.
The Request for Recusal in Petition No. 18-569
that was filed with the US Supreme Court
simultaneously with that in 18-344 was not
returned but it was not entered into the docket
of 18-569.
12.After U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia
delayed by a month in knowingly refusing to
enter default, PRWeb published a news which
was picked up by 164 media within 2 hours.
(See a copy of the news release in A.0103
attached to the Request for Recusal filed in 18569.)Yet, Google suppressed such news
7
whichapparently was directeds by the Chief
Justice John G. Roberts.
The hacker who appeared to be associated with
Google, Youtube, McManis Faulkner, LLP and
Judge Theodore Zayner, has been hacking over
Petitioner since March 2018. The hacker's name
is Kevin L. Warnock whose name was found to
became the author for thousands of files
authored by Petitioner and has deleted more
than 44,024 files from Petitioner's back up discs
which could only be done by burglarizing
Petitioner's residence.A sensor sensing the
garage door opening and closing was discovered
recently which was illegally placed on the
garage door of Petitioner's residence. Mr.
Warnock got assistance from Esther Chung
whose names showed in some of the complaint
type documentary files as the author in place of
Petitioner.
Kevin L. Warnock is an expert on networking
for Intel Corp. whose attorney is Respondents
James McManis, Michael Reedy and McManis
Faulkner, LLP.
Google, Inc. was shown to have obtained special
favor from Chief Justice John G. Roberts in
Petition No.17-357 (obtained 2 months'
extension to file Petition for Writ of Certiorari, a
unique conference date of 1/5/2018, and was
able to file Supplemental Petition without
seeking leave of the court's order.) even though
Justice Kennedy was in charge of the 9th Circuit
area. Google and YouTube suspended
Petitioner's gmail accounts without any notice
alleging violations of their policies because
Petitioner published her YouTube radio show on
this Court's Justices' sponsoring the Temple Bar
Scholarship. Kevin L. Warnock appeared to be
working with Google as well.Evidence of such
hacking has been very intensive up to present.
16. The hacker has deleted all soft copies of
depositions transcripts and entire files of this
civil case from all computers (6-7 computers) for
this trial court proceeding of Shao v. McManis
Faulkner, James McManis, Michael Reedy, et al.
at the residence of Petitioner. Likewise, Judge
Theodore Zayner illegally took the case files of
this case on or about July 20, 2016 and was
confirmed by Santa Clara County Court on July
11, 2017 that he "lost" Volume 5 of the court
files (App.202). Judge Zayner who maintained
parental deprival of Petitioner by 4 years also
illegally took from the Santa Clara County
Court the original deposition transcripts of
James McManis and Michael Reedy that were
lodged with the trial court for the jury trial set
to begin on 12/9/2015. (James McManis caused
his client court to stay the trial pending
disposition of the custody trial, which was
feloniously dismissed in May 2018 and now in
Petition 18-569.) Such large file deletion and
hacking including burglarizing into Petitioner's
residence were apparently related to Google,
James McManis, and Judge Zayner. There is a
reasonable appearance that the hacking by
Google was directed by Chief Justice John
Roberts, based on the appearance of special
favor that Chief Justice gave Google in Petition
17-357 (obtained from Chief Justice lengthy
extension to prepare Petition for Writ of
F
IE
Certiorari and special conference date of
1/5/2018 that was not on the court's calendar.)
The US Attorney for the District of Columbia,
Jessie K. Liu, who failed to disclose her conflicts
of interest that she is a proactive member of
Defendant the American Inns of Court, failed to
follow the rules of procedure and filed a
"Responses of the United States" on November
19, 2018 without filing a motion for intervention,
and presented an unqualified affidavit not from
the custodian of records to declare falsely that
the US Attorney for the District of Columbia
and her office were not served with the
Summons and Complaint. In fact, ECF#20 that
was filed 5 months prior, has proved that they
were truly properly served and no one ever
contested to this fact or file a motion to strike
ECF#20.
As how Respondent James McManis could have
such enormous influential power is by way of
being a major donor of the American Inns of
Court, and the judges/justices involved to
unreasonably withhold child custody return to
Petitioner are buddies to Respondents James
McManis and Michael Reedy through two
chapters of the American Inns of Court, and
none of the judicial officers or courts ever
disclosed such regular social relationship, the
American Inns of Court's function providing ex
parte communication platforms has been the
key question for each of the Petitions filed with
this Court since 2017, including 17-82, 17-236,
17-613, 17-344, 17-569 and also this Petition.
Therefore there is an appearance of conflicts of
interest that requires recusal of the Justices
10
who have solicited gifts on behalf of their clerks
from the American Inns of Court and failed to
make a disclosure in violation of §620.30,
§620.35, §620.45 and §620.50 of the US Guide to
Judiciary Policy.
While this Court's Clerk's Office persisted on
refusing to e-post/e -file the appendix for the
three requests for recusal filed with this court in
Petitions 17-82, 17-256 and 17-613, two
material documents as evidence of conflicts of
interest were purged from the internet about
the same time. They are Pages 12 and 22 of the
suppressed appendix for the 3 Requests for
Recusal at issue in 1J8c-01233-RC.
One is the snapshot regarding American Inns of
Court's video spoken by Attorney Emanuel
Sanches who stated "This is the only
organization that I know that the lawyers and
judges belong to the trial bar have a chance to
meet outside of the courtroom in a social setting
and really able to establish the rapport." Such
statement directly violates Rule 5-300 of
California Rules of Professional Conduct and
Canon 3 to disallow ex parte communications
and gifts with judges. (See, also, A.20 attached
to Request for Recusal filed in 17-569)
21.American Inns of Court put this video clip back
after Petitioner made the criticism in her
Renewed Request for Recusal filed in early
February along with her Petition for Rehearing
at Petition No. 17-613 on or about Feb. 2, 2018.
22. The other was James McManis's news release
dated 08/13/2012 publishing his relationship
with Chief Justice John G. Roberts that he was
the third after Justice Roberts to receive the
11
highest honor of the Inns of Court - -- Honorary
Bencher of the Kings' Inn. (See, also, A. 19
attached to Request for Recusal filed in 17-569)
Petitioner declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the U.S. that her statement
above and all documents provided in the Appendix
is true and made in good faith pursuant to 28 USC
§455.
Petitioner declares that any reasonable person
will believe that Petitioner cannot have a fair
decision on this Petition based on direct conflicts
of interest with the 7 Justices when there are
pending requests for entry of default.
With this statement under the section of
"Parties to the Proceeding", in view of the US
Supreme Court's felonious refusal to file the
Requests for Recusal nor entering into the
docket of Petitions No. 18-344 and No. 18-569,
Petitioner respectfully requests 7 of the
originally named 8 Justices to be recused from
deciding this Petition. Petitioner respectfully
requests staying this Petition until resolution of
1:18-cv-0 1233 which is expected not more than 7
months.
I swear under the penalty of perjury under the laws
of the US that the foregoing facts and laws are true
and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Dated: December 11, 2018
By 1st Yi Tai Shao
Yi Tai Shao, Petitioner in pro per
1
Table of Contents
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING..........................1
interested third parties; request for recusal of 8
Justices Roberts, Thomas, Beyer, Alito, Ginsburg,
Sotomayer, Kagan AND GORSUCH........................1
Petition for writ of certiorari....................................1
OPINION BELOW...................................................4
JURISDICTION.......................................................8
STATUTES INVOLVED (App.1-18) ........................8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................10
II. THE DISMISSAL STYMIED EXPOSURE OF
RESPONDENT Jame McMams'S ILLEGALGIF1'S
TO THE JUDGES AND COURT STAFFS ............25
THIS CASE NAME HAS BEEN ALTERED
BY ALL APPELLATE LEVELS TO
CONCEALTHE NAME OF JAMES MCMANIS
27
EX PARTE CONTACTS THROUGH THE
AMERICAN INNS OF COURT.......................28
Special Master quasi- employment
relationship.......................................................32
Both experts perceived the public view of
conflicts of interest...........................................32
.
REASONS FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI: RULE
10(b) and (c)............................................................33
I. writ should be issued for the repeated egregious
court crimes that severely prejudiced significant
civil rights of liberty, human dignity, fundamental
right to appeal and have reasonable access to the
court........................................................................33
2
A. Admission of court's crimes of concealing notice
of due date of appeal by the deputy clerk's failure to
deny or explain .......................................................34
IL The Sixth District lacks jurisdiction to issue the
Rule 8. 122dismissa1 sanction when the dismissal
was fraudulently played by the courtitseif ............ 37
orders violating Rule 8.54(b)(1) should be held
tobe void.................................................................38
To file an appeal without sufficient records on
appeal violates due process .....................................38
Prejudice to Petitioner for stalling appeal is
significant because both vexatious litigant orders
should have been invalidated if there were a fair
and impartial tribunal as a matter of law . ............ 39
LACK OF QUALIFIED JUSTICE AND
IMPARTIAL COURT..............................................40
A.Santa Clara County Court must be changed
VENUE................................................................40
1. Disqualify the Sixth District.....................42
CONCLUSION.......................................................42
verification..............................................................42
Cases
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnier.i 564 US 379, 387,
131 S.Ct. 2488, 2494 (2011)..................................36
Cohen v. Huges Markets, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th
1693 .......................................................................39
Curie v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Ca1.4th 1057, 1070.
.........................................42
E.g., People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Ca1.4th 1293; 38
In Inquiry Concerning Harris (2005) 49 Cal.4th C J P
Supp.61..................................................................41
In re Marriage of Straczynski (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th
531 .........................................................................39
In State v. Putnam (1996) 164 Vt. 558 ...................41
....
3
Knouse v. Nimocks (1937) 8 C.2d 482, 66 P.2d 43842
Locada v. Deeds (1991) 498 Us 430, overruled on
other grounds by Roe v. Flores Ortega (2000) 528
US470...................................................................36
Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 96839
People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 703, fn.1... 38
People v. Zarazua, 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1064
(2009)....................................................................38
Powell v. Anderson (Mm. 2003) 660 N.W.2d 107,
116- 119..................................................................40
Robinson v. Robinson, 2017-Ohio-450 (Coiurt of
Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District, Meigs
County, released on 1/31/2017)............................36
Scott v. Kenyon (1940) 16 C.2d 197........................42
Smith v. SikorskyAircraft(C.D. Cal.1976) 420 F.
Supp.661, 662 .......................................................40
US. v. Jordan (1985) 49 D.3d 152, Ft. 18..............41
United States v. Lffley, 581 F.2d 182 .....................34
United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir.),
Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S. Ct. 775, 46 L.
Ed. 2d 637 (1976)..................................................34
United States v. Ojala, 544 F.2d 940, 946 (8th Cir.
1976)...................................................................... 34
Williams V. Pennsylvania, 136 S.Ct. 1899, 1903 &
1905 (2016) ........................................................... 40
Winthrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456,
1464 (1975) ...........................................................40
Statutes
§115,§132,§134,§470 ............................................. 10
§182..........................................................................35
§182, §96.5 ...............................................................10
§278.5. ...................................................................... 35
§96.5.........................................................................35
18 USC §371 ......................................................32, 36
18USC1001 ...........................................................32
.32
18 USC2071(b)
182 ..............................................................................5
28 U.S.C. §2101(c)......................................................8
28USC1257 ............................................................. 8
28USC455............................................................. 11
96.5 .............................................................................5
California Code of Civil Procedure 170.3(c)..............6
California Penal Code §278.5..................................10
California Penal Code Sections 132, 134, 470 ..........5
California Penal Code Sections 132, 134, 470, 182
and96.5...................................................................7
California Penal Code115, §132, §134, §470.........35
Government Code §6200..........................................35
US Const.Amend I ...................................................36
Rules
"Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts ................ 4
§620.25(g) of the Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol.2C.32
§620.30, §620.35, §620.45 and §620.50 of the US
Guide to Judiciary Policy......................................10
§620.35 (a) and §620.45 of Guide to Judiciary Policy
...........................................5
Canon 2(B)(2),(7) and (8) of California Code of
Judicial Ethics ........................................................5
Guide to Judiciary Policy §1020.30...........................4
Guide to Judiciary Policy §620.25.............................4
Guide to Judiciary Policy §620.30 ............................. 4
Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol.2C...............................4
Rule 5-300 of California Rules of Professional
Conduct. ................................................................ 41
Rule8.122 ................................................................37
Rule 8.54(b)(1)..........................................................38
US Sup. Ct. Rule 13.1 and 13.3.................................8
Treatises
13 WitkinCal.Proc. Appeal §917 .............................42
5
Regulations
Judicial Conference of the U.S., Committee on Code
of Conduct for United States Judges, Compendium
of Selected Opinions §3.66[1] (April 2013).........42
Table of Contents for the Appendix is after the last
page of the Petition, at the beginning of the
Appendix.
1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a Writ of
Certiorari issue to review the California Sixth
District Court of Appeal ["the Sixth District"]'s
order of July 10, 2018 that fraudulently dismissed
Petitioner's appeal without notice according to the
failure to deny or admission of the court's Deputy
Clerk Beth Miller (App.29 and App.30), with direct
conflicts of interest, with false entry of docket a
notice of 6/15/2018 and a perjured certificate of
completion when after 2 years' delay in preparing
records, California courts knowingly excluded from
the records on appeal all critical filings of
Petitioner in severe violation of due process.
California courts' repeated deterrence of appeal is
part of the conspiracy to stymie all power of
Petitioner to change the permanent parental
deprival plan in order to help their attorney and
friend, Respondent James McManis, and his firm,
Respondent McManis Faulkner, LLP to suppress
evidence of their judiciary corruptions, and to apply
collateral estoppel of Judge Patricia Lucas's
custody order of November 4, 2013 (Petition No.
569) to establish their only defense against this
legal malpractice lawsuit.
As declared by Attorney Meera Fox,
"Since being Since being sued by Ms. Shao for his
malpractice, it has become important to Mr. Reedy
and the law firm of McManis Faulkner, for whom
Mr. Reedy works, to ensure that Ms. Shao not
regain custody of her child, since as long as she
does not get her child back, they can argue that
their failure to advocate for her did not cause the
damage that she suffered.Not coincidentally, the
2
judges who have denied Ms. Shao the return of her
child ever since have been very close bedfellows
with Michael Reedy and are two top executive
members of his social "club," the William A. Ingram
American Inn of Court." (App. 102; emphasis added)
The fraudulent dismissal of this appeal is in the
same pattern as the dismissal of child custody
appeal from Judge Patricia Lucas's November 4,
2013's order (pending with this Supreme Court in
Petition No. 18-569), in that both dismissal was
made by concealing notices and orders by sending
to an email of attorneylindashao@gmail.com which
had been ceased being the registered email for e
filing since March 22, 2018 and the Sixth Appellate
District's deputy clerk Beth Miller who has been in
charge of Petitioner's appeals, was made known on
March 27, 2018 that the reason of changing the
registered email was because Petitioner was unable
to have access to. (App.88).
As for the custody appeal in 18-569, the then
Presiding Justice at the Sixth Appellate District
Court, Rebecca Delgado at Santa Clara County
Court and Respondent McManis Faulkner law firm
conspired (App.114) to dismiss the appeal many
times to no avail, with the notorious fraudulent
dismissal being on March 14, 2016 where Ms.
Delgado, as instructed by her supervisor Susan
Walker, somehow entered into the courthouse of
Santa Clara County Court on Saturday, March 12,
2016to issue a false Notice of Non-compliance
against Petitioner for the purpose of dismissing the
custody appeal (App.131), within 24 hours following
the hearing in front of Judge Woodhouse regarding
staying the jury trial pending disposition, i.e.,
dismissal, of the child custody appeal (App.83)
3
when Respondents' attorney had predicted
dismissal of the custody appeal being the ground of
stay jury trial (App.110). Then, within 25 minutes
of the opening of the Sixth Appellate District court
of appeal on Monday, March 14, 2016, Beth Miller
processed the filing and service of the dismissal
order signed by Justice Conrad Rushing (App.129).
With the continued "shenanigans", including many
false notices, false docket entries (App.115-118), the
common scheme of dismissing the custody appeal
was eventually implemented by Justice Adrianne
Grover on May 10, 2018 without complying with
Rule 8.57 (required a noticed motion), in acting on
behalf of the new Presiding Justice Mary J.
Greenwood.
Justice Greenwood dismissed 4 appeals within 2
months of her swearing-in, without disclosing her
being the wife of Judge Edward Davila and failed to
obey Canon 2 and Canon 3 of California Code of
Judicial Ethics in making disclosure of such
conflicts of interest. Petition 18-344 was done by
her in person to disallow this trial court case to be
moved away from the control of Respondent James
McManis's client—Santa Clara County Court.
When the custody appeal after the appeal lasted for
more than 4 years and fraudulently dismissed,
there were no records on appeal to afford Petitioner
an opportunity to file her Opening Brief. The
custody trial hearing transcripts have been sitting
at the home of the court reporter for 5 years which
were blocked by the trial court from filing with the
Sixth Appellate Court. (18- 569)
Similar to that custody appeal, the common
scheme of the conspiracy was also to deter this
appeal as the trial court conspired with
4
Respondents to misuse the prefihing order to block
Petitioner's access to the court such as to ensure
their plot of permanent parental deprival when
they know Petitioner had been entitled to
immediate child custody change back to her
because she had obtained evidence 4 years ago
(Petition No. 14-1912; 14A677) that her ex-husband
has had dangerous mental illness. (See 18-569 in
its App. 178)
Santa Clara Court, the Sixth Appellate Court
and California Supreme Court have misused their
judicial power to advance their personal or
financial interest in violation of Canon 2 and 3 of
California Code of Judicial Ethics (see also, 28 USC
§455(c)). Such misuse of judicial power shocks the
conscience of the public and has caused numerous
counts of felonies. With the same scheme of
deterring filing, concealing filing, and alteration of
docket also took place in the US Supreme Court
where James McManis has grave influence via
American Inns of Court, Petitioner respectfully
requests the interested Justices at this Court to be
recused pursuant to 28 USC §455and Canon 3 so
that she may get a fair and impartial hearing.
OPINION BELOW
Petitionerwas entirely blocked from appealand was
not given a day at the court after California Courts
deterred appeal by refusing to file records on
appeal in compliance with Rule 8.130 (within 30
days) for more than 2 years. The appeal was
dismissed on 7/10/2018 for failure to file an
Opening Brief by the 7/9/2018's new due date
(App.25) but the due date was willfully concealed
from Petitioner, and her Motion for Judicial Notice
in support of her opening brief which is part of her
5
opening brief had been accepted for filing on
7/3/2018.
Please see discussion on the fraud and
admission or failure to deny or explain the
accusation of fraud by the deputy clerk Beth Miller,
in Section III of the Statement of the Case. Ms.
Miller followed instruction of some Justice to
conceal the 7/9/2018's due date by sending to
Petitioner's extinct email that was removed from
the e-filing Truefiling.com since 3/22/2018.
The reason why Petitioner did not file her
Opening Brief together with the Motion for Judicial
Notice was because all material filings opposing
vexatious litigant were not included in the records
on appeal; she discovered the certificate of
completion made by R. Delgado, the same clerk who
forged the Saturday Notice of Non-compliance in
child custody appeal (18-569) on 3/12/2016 did the
perjury. Ms. Miller instructed Petitioner to wait for
the court's ruling before filing Opening Brief, but
willfully concealed the ruling from Petitioner.
Justice Frank Elia as acting Presiding Justice
denied Petitioner's motion to vacate dismissal on
July 30, 2018. (App.32)There was no disclosure of
conflicts of interest made by either Justice Elia
["Elia"] (App.177-78) nor by Presiding Justice Mary
J. Greenwood ["Greenwood"] as required by Canon
3 of California Code of Judicial Conduct. The
incomplete records may be contributed by Judge
Theodore Zayner's illegal removal of the files as at
least he removed the original deposition transcripts
of his undisclosed buddies, James McManis and
Michael Reedy, that took place sometime after July
20, 2016 and confirmed Volume 5 of the court files
being missing by Record Unit's supervisor on July
17, 2017 (App.202).
California Supreme Court's Chief Justice failed to
rule on Petitioner's request for recusal, which,
according to California Code of Civil Procedure
170.3(c)(App.3), Chief Justice should have been
"deemed to have consented to he r disqualification",
but she denied review on 9/12/2018. California
Supreme Court took judicial notice of the conflicts
of interests and irregularities of the lower courts
through its decision in S242475 on 7/19/2017, but
never granted review on the same issues of conflicts
of interests and fraudulent irregularities
repeatedly brought up to the Supreme Court,
resulting in gross miscarriage of justice in violation
of California Penal Code §96.5:
S243350 (H040395/FL126882) on 7/24/2017
S248267 (H043851/FL126882) on 5/25/2018
S248449 (H045502/CV22057 1) on 6/13/2018
[Petition No. 18-344]
S248477 (H045501/FL126882) on 6/13/2018
S249444 (H040395/FL126882) on 7/25/2018
[Petition No.18-5691, and now
S250729 (CV220571) on 9/12/2018
Based on California Supreme Court Chief
Justice's apparent conspiracy in repeatedly willful
covering up the material issue of conflicts of
interest such as having caused miscarriage of
justice, in breach of her duty to "provide a forum for
the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes"
codified in Rule 10.603(a) of California Rules of
Court for many years, and now is a defendant in
Shao v. Roberts, et al. in 118-cv-01233 pending
with the U.S.D.C. in the District of Columbia,
Petitioner respectfully requests Chief Justice to
recuse herself from handling this Petition.
The trial Court's opinion is in App. 37-56,
which did not mention prefiling order. The trial
court's order ruled against Respondents' raising 5
proceedings in 7 years (App.44-45), then the court
suasponteraised a new issue acting as the attorney
for Respondents, to create 10 adversed decision
based on the appeals and petitions for writs made
by Petitioner with all derived from the same family
case, when such issue was beyond the scope of
Respondent's motion to declare Petitioner as a
vexatious litigant. The court explicitly made a
finding that Respondents provide d"incomp lete
arguments and evidence." (App.55) Despite
Respondents' motion was defective, the court still
granted declaration of vexatious litigant based on
its suasponte new argument and disallowed
Petitioner to present arguments or evidence in
response to the new issue at the hearing that the
court restricted to 10 minutes.
The Court failed to disclose its attorney-client
relationship with Respondent James McManis
["McManis"], falsely denied knowledge of such
attorney-client relationship, failed to disclose their
quasi-employment relationship with McManis, the
gifts received by many of its employees from
McManis, and their long term social relationship
through two chapters of the American Inns of Court,
the William A. Ingram American Inn of Court
["Ingram Inn"] and the San Francisco Bay Area
Intellectual Property Rights American Inn of Court
["S.F. Bay IP Inn"].
This order was immediately used by
Petitioner's ex-husband Tsan- Kuen Wang ["Wang"]
in the family court as an excuse to block Petitioner
from taking his deposition and to cancel all motions
and hearings [See Petition 18-5691 on June 24,
2015. There was no Prefiling Order attached to the
6/24/2016's filing by Wang as the Prefiling Order
was not issued yet.
The court back dated its filing stamp on the
Prefiling Order to be 6/16/2018 3:03 p.m. (App.58)
with proof of service stamped as at 3:20 p.m.
(App.59), when the true order was filed on
6/16/2018 at 10:56 a.m. (App.37) with proof of
service filed at 11:00 a.m. (App.57). The Prefiling
Order was not entered into the docket until about
August 2017, after Judge Zayer illegally grabbed
the court files into his chamber, with a backdating
entry of 6/16/2015.
JURISDICTION
California Supreme Court's order was entered
9/12/2018(App.19). Petitioner invokes this Court's
jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1257 as the decisions of
the California courts rejected Petitioner's claims
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. The Petition is
timely under 28 U.S.C. §2101(c) and US Sup. Ct.
Rule 13.1 and 13.3.
STATUTES INVOLVED (APP.1-18)
U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
28 U.S.C.S. §455(b)
The Guide to Judiciary Policy prepared by the
Judicial Conference of the United States Judicial
Conference of the United States, Committee on
Code of Conduct for United States Judges,
Compendium of Selected Opinions §3.6-6[1] (Apr.
2013) (emphasis added)
California Code of Civil Procedure §397(b)
California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3(c)(4)
California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule
5-300
Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol.2 C, §620
California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 1-4
California Rules of Court Rule 8.54
California Rules of Court Rule 8.130
California Code of Civil Procedure §391
California Government Code §68150
California Government Code §68151(a)(3)
California Government Code §68152(g)(16)
California Government Code §6200 (willful
destroy, falsify and alter records-felony)
California Penal Code §115 (forged
instrument-felony)
California Penal Code §132 (offer false
document in any court proceeding)
California Penal Code §134 (offer false
writing)
California Penal Code §470 (forgery;
corruption of records)
California Penal Code §182 (conspiracy to
obstruct justice)
California Penal Code §278.5 (malicious
parental deprival)
California Penal Code §96.5 (Judicial officer
knowing perverts or obstructs justice)
18 USC §2071(b) (custodian of a record
willfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates,
falsifies or destroys the record)
18 USC §1001 (judicial branch's false entries
to falsify, conceal or covers up a material fact)
18 USC §371 (conspiracy to commit offense or
to defraud U.S.)
10
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a typical judiciary corruption case where
California judges and justices at Santa Clara
County Court, California Sixth District Court of
Appeal and California Supreme Court participated,
or tolerated to conceal their corruptions with the
leading attorney of the American Inns of Court,
James McManis, involved with countless violations
of due process in the past 8 years, numerous
incidents of violations of California Penal Code
§278.5 (malicious parental deprival), § 115, § 132,
§134, §470 (falsifying notices, records and dockets,
concealing filings), § 182, §96.5 (conspiracy for these
crimes, obstruction of justice, and unlawful acts)
and Government Code §6200. The fraudulent
dismissal of this appeal from vexatious litigant
orders reached to the climax.
On August 4, 2010, at a Case Management
Conference, without knowing the conspiracy,
Petitioner was shocked at suddenly lost her child
custody completely, against the expressed child
wishes (See, 18-569, App.65). The minor was also
shocked at losing her mother, as having been
threatened by the colluded social worker Misook Oh
4 days prior (See, 18-569) forcibly placed under the
sole custody of her identified abuser, her father and
suffered abuses to a cruel extent to almost die.
On 8/5/2010, without a hearing, Judge Davila
filed a supervised visitation order declaring
Petitioner to have "emotional abuse" and a sibling
separation order to separate the 5-year-old's
protective 16 year old brother from the minor.
These orders made without a hearing were
admitted to be products of ex parte communications
among Sussman, Judge Davila and Jill Sardeson as
11
admitted by Jill Sardeson (App.74) and David
Sussman (App.75)
On 8/20/2010, Petitioner retained McManis
Faulkner law firm to protect her and try to get her
child custody back. On the first day of hearing,
8/23/2010, however, Judge Edward Davila held an
in-chamber meeting with David Sussman, exhusband Wang's attorney and Michael Reedy,
directed Reedy to betray Petitioner and not to file a
motion to set aside child custody, that there would
be no review on the 8/4/2010's temporary parental
deprival with the intent to cause permanent
parental deprival, and not to defend Petitioner on
Sussman's motion for vexatious litigant. Reedy
chose to harbor the conspiracy and took no effort to
get Petitioner's child custody back during the entire
7 months' representation when McManis Faulkner
terminated the retaining relationship as Petitioner
could not afford the extra high evergreen retainer
of $50,000.
Petitioner invites the Court to read the
summary of the case declared by Ms. Fox in App.
101 through 119.
After Respondents terminated the contract,
Petitioner filed a motion to set aside the orders of
August 4 and 5 of 2010. It was granted on
7/22/2011 but delayed until 10/31/2011 then based
one ex parte communications, Judge Mary Ann
Grilli signed David Sussman's proposed order,
concealing the cause of granting set aside. The
motion was brought based on violation of
Constitution due process for lack of an evidentiary
hearing before parental deprival, and extrinsic
fraud—evidence of conspiracy among Judge Davila,
Sussman and Sara Scofield, supervisor of Jill
12
Sardeson. The Order granted set aside but
maintained the original parental deprival orders to
be in place pending an evidentiary hearing (App.72,
73), which constituted another violation of due
process--- parental deprival without a preceding
evidentiary hearing.
In 2011, Judge Theodore Zayner succeeded the
seat of Judge Edward Davila, who was nominated
to be a USDC judge in San Jose. On 10/31/2011,
Zayner cancelled the evidentiary hearing, let Judge
Grilli signed Sussman's order and continued
parental deprival with an excuse of requiring
custody evaluation, when at that time Petitioner
just got her court-ordered one-sided psychological
evaluation with very positive report released in
June 2011. Zayner disregarded Petitioner's
constant asking child custody return after setting
aside the original parental deprival orders of Judge
Davila, for each hearing in the ensuing 2 years and
eventually set for trial in front of Judge Patricia
Lucas.
Judge Lucas, after hearing expert testimonies,
apologized to Petitioner about 3 times for the
parental deprival and promised on the record that
the order would never be the same, yet changed
attitude drastically the ensuing date, blocking
witness examination, dispose trial evidence
containing photos and medical records for child
injuries before her orders were issued. Judge
Lucas's 11/4/2013's Order appeared to be written by
McManis Faulkner law firm as it contained 5 pages
of recital of facts not presented at trial and
protected Edward Davila based on facts not shown
in the trial. Petitioner immediately appealed. Yet,
the court reporter delayed 6 months in generating
13
July 11, 2013's transcript and failed not deny
Petitioner's accusation the reporter was coerced
and threatened. 7/11/2013 was the date when
Judge Lucas apologized three times on the record.
The reporter was coerced in deletion such apologies
from the transcripts and the court instructed the
reporter not to file her trial transcripts with the
Sixth District. The transcripts have been still
sitting at the reporter's home for already 4 years.
The court fraudulently dismissed the child custody
appeal on 5/10/2018 when no records on appeal
were filed yet.
As mentioned above, Judge Carol Overton
dismissed the case based on her own motion in
February 2014 without disclosing her conflicts of
interest. In investigating this irregularity,
Petitioner discovered that Santa Clara County
court was a client of McManis Faulkner. She filed
another lawsuit at the USDC in San Jose and was
again dismissed by Judge Lucy H. Koh without
disclosing her conflicts of interest which was
appealed to this court in Petition 17-256.
Thus, Petitioner could not but return to the
State court seeking relief. Overton granted
Petitioner's motion to vacate her dismissal order
based on violation of due process.
At that time, Petitioner had pending Petition 141912 with this Court and asked for emergency
relief when the state courts knowingly disregarded
the very endangering mental disease of Wang that
Petitioner obtain subpoenaed discovery from
CIGNA Health Insurance Company and sought to
get her child custody back to immediate protect the
safety of the minor.
14
Then, for each Case Management Conference,
Petitioner asked to change court as there was direct
conflicts of interest of attorney-client relationship
as was posted by Respondent McManis Faulkner's
website that Santa Clara County Court was its
representative client. Yet Judge Folan disregarded.
Then, Respondents aggressively proceeded with a
motion (1) declare Petitioner as a vexatious litigant,
(2) seek prefihing order, (3) seek security order. Yet
there was no evidence submitted to the court other
than docket sheets and their speculation about
adverse judgments on at least two settled cases.
They alleged 5 adverse judgments out of the 7 years
when 2 of the alleged adverse litigations were
derived from the child custody appeal
Judge Maureen Folan made a finding that
Respondents' motion has insufficient arguments
and evidence (App.55), that Petitioner successfully
argued that Respondents proffered 5 adverse
litigations in the preceding 7 years, were not
satisfied (App.44-48). Yet, Judge Folan still
declared Petitioner as a vexatious litigant by
creating a new argument beyond the scope of the
motion, that all appeals/writs denials arising from
the family case were considered to be separate
"proceedings" and added them up to 10 adverse
litigations. The other requests were denied. No
where in the court's order mentioned a prefiling
order. The court filed the order at 10:58 a.m. on
6/16/2015.
On 6/24/2015, this order was attached to
Wang's response to Petitioner's motion to reopen
discovery (which actually is presumed reopened by
Family Code §216, yet the court has blocked
Petitioner from deposing Wang after 2010.) The
15
vexatious litigant order was immediately used for
the court to cancel family court hearings, requiring
Petitioner to seek permission from the Presiding
Judge who is Patricia Lucas, to file a motion at her
family court proceeding, and thus effectively
blocked Petitioner from vacating the parental
deprival orders and child support orders where
frauds of Wang was alleged.
On or about 6/25/2015, Petitioner received a
prefiling order which bore an envelop showing
6/18/2015. It was not entered into the civil case
docket until 2 years later, in or about August 2017,
which was likely being done by Judge Zayner as he
grabbed the trial court's files into his chamber
about this civil case and took away the original
deposition transcripts of James McManis and
Michael Reedy and had not returned to the court.
On 7/17/2017, the Record Unit Supervisor Eric
Rivas confirmed Volume 5 was lost (App.202),
which is a volume about court files related to the
vexatious litigant motion.
It is a logical inference that the prefiling
order was not in existence when Wang attached the
order on decision of Respondents' motion for
vexatious litigant, to his declaration and thus the
prefiling order was generated after Wang signed
his declaration. He signed on 6/23/2015 and filed it
on 6/24/2015.
Petitioner filed a motion to clarify the
veracity of the prefiling order and reconsider the
6/16/2015's order as it was beyond the scope of the
motion, a new issue not raised by Respondents, but
by the court suasponte which violated due process,
including a request to change court based on the
16
court's being a client of McManis Faulkner. Judge
Folan again denied.
Petitioner filed appeal on 6/25/2015. Less
than a month later, evidence of judiciary
corruptions surfaced by admission of James
McManis and Michael Reedy, as discussed below.
Just like in 11040395/18-569, the trial court delayed
preparing the records on appeal for 2 years, until
after they received Petitioner's Petition No. 17-82
that was filed with this Court, exposing the gross
miscarriage of justice that Respondent McManis
obtained from his own client court the vexatious
litigant orderto illegally block Petitioner from filing
any motion at her divorce case existing since 2005,
to ensure "permanent" parental deprival extending
from the August 4, 2010's Order of Judge Edward
Davila, Justice Mary J. Greenwood's husband. To
reverse the fraudulently obtained prefihing order
will cause Petitioner to be able to overturn the
permanent parental deprival, especially when her
ex-husband was discovered in September 15, 2014
that he had concealed his dangerous mental illness
which should have caused immediate child custody
change..
17-613 was based on the Sixth District's denial of
reversal of the vexatious litigant order, failed to
disclose conflicts of interest, and failed to change
venues of both trial and appellate court, based on
the notorious March 14, 2016's fraudulent
dismissal of the custody appeal and the
"shenanigans" developed since February 2017. The
3/14/2016's illegal dismissal of the custody appeal
was declared by Ms. Fox as sufficient to cause the
public view of existence of conspiracy among the
1V1
Presiding Judge of the Sixth District, James
McManis's law firm, and R. Delgado at the Santa
Clara County Court. (App. 114)
Mary J. Greenwood succeeded Judge Rushing as
the new Presiding Judge who dismissed 4 appeals
within 2 months. Petitioner later investigated and
discovered that Greenwood's husband is Judge
Edward Davila, but she failed to disclose the
conflicts of interest.
I.
FRAUDULENT DISMISSAL OF THIS
APPEAL
After more than 2 years' delay, on 12/21/2017, the
records of appeal were prepared with false
certification about completion of the records. The
certification of completion was false as the
Appellate Unit was fully aware of the fact exposed
on 7/17/2017 that the records were impossible to be
complete as Judge Theodore Zayner illegally
grabbed the case files into his chamber and "lost"
Volume 5 (App.202), the volume that includes
Plaintiffs motions challenging the vexatious
litigant orders.
6 essential pleadings were not in the Records on
Appeal. Notably, including even the Notice of
Appeal which was not among the lost Vol.5. They
are:
SHAO's Date of
Document
Significance
Design
Filing
name
to this
ation
appeal
Records
No.
23
7/1/2015
"Declaration
of Yi Tai
Shao for the
Motion to
This
contains all
material
evidence for
Reconsider
or Clarify
Order re
Motion to
Declare
Linda Shao
Vexatious
Litigant
Filed on
June 16,
2015 at 3:04
p.m., filed by
Plaintiff
24
7/1/2015
"Memorandu
m of Points
and
Authorities
for the
Motion to
Reconsider
or Clarify
Order re
Motion to
Declare
Linda Shao
Vexatious
Litigant
Filed on
June 16,
2015 at 3:04
p.m., filed by
Plaintiff'
this appeal
to support
SHAO's
argument
that the
prefihing
order was
fraudulently
made in
violation of
due process.
Thus, this is
one of the
core
documents
for appeal.
This
contains the
main
arguments
of the issues
that the
prefiling
order was
fraudulently
made in
violation of
due process.
Thus, this is
one of the
core
documents
for appeal.
WE
25
7/1/2015
45
9/2/2015
47
12/2/201
5
"Notice of
Motion to
Reconsider
or Clarify
Order re
Motion to
Declare
Linda Shao
Vexatious
Litigant
Filed on
June 16,
2015 at 3:04
p.m., filed by
Plaintiff'
Tentative
Decision for
Defendants'
Renewed
Motion to
Require
Plaintifff to
Furnish a
Security"
and the
entire
motion
Judge
Socrates
Manoukian's
Order to
strike and
recusal
This
provides
summary of
the contents
of why the
prefiling
vexatious
litigant
order was
irregularly
made.
This may
show the
difference of
the
tentative
decision and
the order.
This is very
significant
to prove
SHAO's
argument of
fraud and
conflicts of
interest that
20
48
6/25/201
5
Notice of
Appeal
have been
involved in
Santa Clara
County
Court's
proceeding.
It is
significant
to prove
existence of
conflicts of
interest and
to prove the
fraud of
Santa Clara
County
Court in
alteration of
docket in
violation of
Government
Code
Sections
68050 et
seq.
There is no
more
significant
for an
appeal than
to have this
Notice of
Appeal to be
included. It
contains the
21
subjects for
this appeal.
L
On July 2, 2018, SHAO filed the "OBJECTION TO
FALSE DOCKET ENTRY OF JUNE 15, 2018 and
INSUFFICIENT RECORDS ON APPEAL AND
REQUEST INVESTIGATION ON THE FRAUD
AND TO STRIKE BOTH THE FALSE DOCKET
ENTRY OF JUNE 15, 2018 AS WELL AS TO
STRIKE THE FALSE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED
FROM DEFAULT; MOTION TO AUGMENT
RECORDS; MOTION TO STAY THIS
APPELLATE PROCEEDING" [hereinafter
"Objections/motions"] as well as a "MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPENING
BRIEF AND "OBJECTION TO FALSE DOCKET
ENTRY ON JUNE 15, 2018 and GROSSLY
INSUFFICIENT RECORDS ON APPEAL AND
REQUEST INVESTIGATION ON THE FRAUD
AND TO STRIKE BOTH THE FALSE DOCKET
ENTRY OF JUNE 15, 2018 AS WELL AS TO
STRIKE THE FALSE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED
FROM DEFAULT; MOTION TO AUGMENT
RECORDS;MOTION TO STAY THIS APPELLATE
PROCEEDING".
On July 2, 2018, after filing, SHAO checked with
deputy clerk Beth Miller whether SHAO should
hold filing Opening Brief until resolution of her
motions, even though she had filed the motion for
judicial notice in support of the Opening Brief. Ms.
Miller instructed SHAO to hold filing the Opening
Brief until after decision on the
"Objections/Motions." SHAO asked to give her a
few days' notice to allow her to file the Opening
22
Brief if the Objections/motions were denied. Ms.
Miller responded "absolutely."
On July 3, 2018 at 3:34 p.m., SHAO received email
notice from truefiling.com that this court accepted
SHAO's two pleadings for filing. (App.20)SHAO
reasonably believes that email at 334 p.m. of
7/3/2018 being the confirmation of Ms. Miller's
promise and instruction made on 7/2/2018.
According to Rule 8.54, Respondents have 15 days
to file opposition. If they did not oppose, the court
may issue an order after 15 days. The Respondents'
counsel had filed an opposition to SHAO's motion
on October 3, 2016. (App.64)
SHAO checked on the docket on or about July 5 or
July 6, 2018 and did not see any additional new
entries. On July 13, 2018, SHAO saw on the
docket that the appeal was dismissed on July 10,
2018 (App.25) and there were two July 3, 2018's
Orders (App.22,23)
SHAO called the Clerk's Office, Scott informed
SHAO that the court always keep the record of
which clerk makes any entry on a docket. SHAO
called Beth Miller asking for evidence that she
made the entry on the docket on July 3, 2018 for
the two orders, especially on the order that
contains a new due date for the Opening
Brief SHAO also asked Ms. Miller to forward to
SHAO the emails Miller said she sent to
aomey1indashaogmai1.com regarding notices of
the court's orders of July 3, 2018.
On July 17, 2018, instead of sending SHAO the
proof of entering into the docket of the July 3,
2018's orders, Ms. Miller sent SHAO a proof of eservice of July 3, 2018. (App.26, 27, 31) The proof
of service proved that 13 minutes before Ms. Miller
23
sent SHAO the notice of acceptance of filing of the
objections/motions via the registered email on
efiling, i.e., attorneyshao@aol.com, Justice Ella had
already issued an order and that order was emailed
to SHAO's extinct email,
aUomey1indashao(gmai1.com, which was an email
that Ms. Miller was informed as early as on
3/27/2018 that SHAO could not have access to and
must open a new account with the Truefihing.com.
(App .89)
The only email that was registered with the
Truefiling.com by SHAO has been
attorneyshao@aol.com since 3/22/2018. (App .86&9 1)
There were many communications with Ms. Miller
via attomeyshao(aol.com. E.g., see an email of
4/25/2018 in App.90.
SHAO then sent an email in response to Ms. Miller
at 5:14 p.m. of 7/17/2018 (App.30):
"Dear Ms. Miller
Are you sure your proof of service under penalty of
perjury is accurate? 13 minutes after you said you
sent Justice Elia's orders to my old email of
attorneylindashao@gmail.com, you sent out a notice
of acceptance of filing of the same motions that
Justice Elia denied to attorneyshao@aol.com.
What made you to change mind to switch emails
within 13 mintues? To sendout Justice Elia's orders
to attorneylindashao@gmail.com at 3:21 p.m. of
July3, 2018 but send out acceptance of the motions
at 3:34 p.m. to this email--attorneyshao@aol.com?
Is there anyone directing you to conceal Justice
Elia's orders away frommy notice? As you may see
the First Amended Complaints you accepted
service on behalf of the court and the Justices, such
false notice sconstitute felonies. If you could inform
me who instructed you toconceal notice away from
me, I will not sue you."
Not hearing a response, SHAO sent a second
email on Jul 18, 2018 at 12:06 pm (App.29):
"Dear Ms. Miller:
I have not heard any response from you regarding
the forwarded email. If by 1 p.m. I have notheard
any explanation from you on what made you to sent
to two different email addresses in13 minutes on
July 3, 2018, I will presume that someone from the
court instructed you toconceal the orders of July 3,
2018 and July 10, 2018 from my knowledge by
sending to adifferent email address of
attorneylindashao@gmail.com (which I informed
you that I had noaccess to).
Do you have any proof that you entered the docket
on July 3, 2018?"
Ms. Miller failed to explain or deny.
On 7/19/2018, SHAO filed a motion to vacate
dismissal, reciting this extrinsic fraud.
On 7/30/2018, at 10:31 a.m., SHAO received a
notice that her motion to vacate dismissal was
accepted for filing. (App.33) 5 minutes later, SHAO
received a notice Justice Ella's order to deny, again,
in violation of Rule 8.54(b)(1). (App.34)
SHAO filed a Petition for Review along with a
conspicuous request to recuse Chief Justice Cantil
Sakauye. On 9/12/2018, the Petition for Review
was denied, but there was no decision on SHAO's
Request for Recusal.
The court's issuing notice of acceptance of filing,
without informing the 7/3/2018 orders, with an
instruction to hold filing of Opening Brief awaiting
the Court's ruling on the issues of insufficient
records misled SHAO into believing the court would
25
be issuing an order 15 days later, if no opposition
pursuant to Rule 8.54(b)(1).
Throughout history of this appeal, no motion was
decided by this court within a day, as this July 3,
2018's Order, before the opposing counsel
responded and before the court accepted for filing.
July 3, 2018 was the day that, 4 Justices and
the Sixth District were served with Summons in
the case of Shao v. Roberts, et al. pending with
USDC in D.C. with the case number of 1:18-cv01233.
There is no reason for Ms.Millerto suddenly use the
old email address of attomey1indashao(gmai1.com to
issue the orders to rule on the two pleadings on the
same date before it notified acceptance of the same
pleadings with the registered email of
attorneyshao@aol.com.
The same scheme of concealing notice from SHAO
by sending to the extinct email of
attomevlindashao(ZIgmail.com also took place in the
court's dismissing H040395's child custody appeal
on 5/10/2018. The child custody appeal was thus
silently dismissed in violation of Rule 8.57
(required a motion and a notice before records on
appeal is prepared) where for about 4 years, Santa
Clara County Court did not even prepare a record
on appeal. See 18-569.
II.
THE DISMISSAL STYMIED EXPOSURE
OF RESPONDENT JAME MCMANIS'S
ILLEGALGIFTS TO THE JUDGES AND
COURT STAFFS
Respondent James McManisadmitted in his
deposition on July 20, 2015, one month after
issuance of the vexatious litigant orders, that he
26
provided free (App.192) legal services to about 25
judges, courtroom clerks, court reporters and
bailiffs at Santa Clara County Court(App.194), an
unidentified Justice at the Sixth
District(App.195)an unidentified Justice at the
Supreme Court (App.194) on their "personal affairs"
(App.192).
In the transcript in Page 46, Lines311 (App.192)
read:
Q. Did you represent these judges on their personal
affairs?
MS. EVERSON: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
THE WITNESS: I think that's a good description.
MS. SHAO: Q: So you agree.
A. Yes.
He readmitted on P. 110, Lines 2-7 (App.192):
It
Q. was pro bono?
A. Yes.
Q: How many pro bono works you did for the
judges?
A. Idon't know.
Q. Those were all about personal affairs?
A. Yes.
From Page 119, Lines 10 through Page 120, Line 25
(App.193), Mr. McManis admitted:
Q. For the clerks and the judges that you were
representing in the past years in Santa Clara
County, did you communicate with them by way of
fax or email?
A. No.
Q. Letters?
A. No.
Q. Everybody verbal?
A. Yes.
27
Q. How many people were associated with the court
that hired you or had been your clients?
A. I don't know.
Q. Can I get a best estimate; more than 25, more
than 50 or something like that?
A. I would be very surprised if more than 50.
Might have been 25, more or less. I just don't know.
Most importantly, McManisadmitted having
represented Santa Clara County Court for an
unidentified matter. From Page 42, Line 15-24
(App. 192), the transcript reads:
Q. How many judges that your firm represented the
Santa Clara County Superior Court?
A. I don't recall.
Q. What kind of matter that you represented these
judges?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Were you personally involved with the
representation of Santa Clara County Superior
Court?
MS. EVERSON: Objection. Lacks foundation.
THE WITNESS: I can recalling one instance in
which I was.
As shown in the transcript at P.118, Lines 2-8
(App. 193), McManis's admission of "strict verbal"
communications with the judges suggests the
knowledge of impropriety involved in giving and
accepting free gifts of legal services:
"But conversations with the judges, it would be
strictly verbal. I can't think of anything in writing
that was ever exchanged with people. I might have
looked at some papers."
A.
THIS CASE NAME HAS BEEN ALTERED
BY ALL APPELLATE LEVELS TO
CONCEALTHE NAME OF JAMES MCMAMS
The Sixth District and California Supreme Court
concealed the name of Jams McManis by altering
the case name to be only Linda Shao v. McManis
Faulkner, LLP, the same happened to this Court on
10/25/2018, shortly following the docketing of 17613, Jeff Atkins walked to the deputy clerk
directing him not to include the names of James
McManis and Michael Reedy in docketing the
petition regarding Petitions derived from Shao v.
McManis Faulkner, LLP, James McManis, Michael
Reedy. This proved existence of ex parte
communications between James McManis's law
firm and the courts.
B. EX PARTE CONTACTS THROUGH THE
AMERICAN INNS OF COURT
On 7/22/2015, Michael Reedy admitted to his
regular social relationship with about 30
judges/justice through the Ingram Inn and
admitted that the key judges who blocked
Petitioner's child custody return were the members,
including Judge Patricia Lucas, Judge Theodore
Zayner, Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian for
10+ years. There were totally 100-110 members
including about 30 judges/justices and 60-70
attorneys. The attorneys sponsored all
expenses.They have email address of these judge
members, who lead the pupilage groups playing
privately with the attorneys and enjoy free meals
and awards. The membership is confidential and
the contacts are ex parte and private, in violation of
Rule 5-300.
Judge Carol Overton who dismissed the civil case
in February 2014 on her own motion is also a
member of this Ingram Inn for 10+ year.
29
After Judge Overton's dismissal, Petitioner
discovered that the website of McManis Faulkner,
LLP enlisted Santa Clara County Court as a
"representative client" of the law firm and thus file
a complaint with the federal court, which was,
however dismissed by Judge Lucy H. Kohwithout
disclosing her close relationship with James
McManis and Michael Reedy through being
Executive Committee membership at the Ingram
Inn and being a Master atS.F. Bay IP Inn. (Petition
No. 17256).
James McManis further influenced the federal
court. Judge J. Clifford Wallace,is the founder of
the American Inns of Court and a prior Presiding
Judge at the Ninth Circuit. When Petitioner filed a
28 USC §455 motion to disqualify the Ninth Circuit,
Judge Wallace promptly appeared as the panel
leader and denied the appeal without mentioning
the name of James McManis, with only 4 pages'
opinion omitting all issues for appeal. Petitioner
filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorai with this
Court but was returned.
The irregularities also boarded this Court,
including:
1. Irregular intervention of Jordan Bickel
beyond his authority to bring Donald
Baker to deny and conceal the filing of
Amicus Curiae motion of Mothers of Lost
Children in September 2017 in 1782,
delayed filing and delayed docketing the
same motion in 17-613. The docket of 1782 never showed the filing of the amicus
curiae motion, neither were the unfiled 40
copies of the motion being returned.
30
Clearly to cover up this irregularity,
Bickel made a "whirlwind" change of
personnel to replace a normal clerk
working on Amicus Curiae with Donald
Baker.
Unlawful alterations of the docket entries
of 17-613, including but not limited to
trying to defile the amicus curiae motion
on 12/9/2018, about 2 weeks after receipt.
Refused to e-file any exhibits that were
attached to Petitioner's three Requests for
Recusal filed in 17-256 and 17-613, while
such irregularity appeared to allow both
McManis Faulkner and American Inns of
Court to purge material evidence
contained therein. In or about late
January 2018, McManis Faulknerdeleted
from its website the news release about
McManis's leading role at the American
Inns of Court and his close relationship
with Chief Judge John G. Roberts.
(App. 173).
In November 2018, this Court refused to
file the 4thRequest for Recusal in 18-344
and returned it. (App.190) This Court did
not return the 5thRequest for Recusal for
18-569, but concealed it from entering into
the docket. See a copy of both notarized
Request for Recusal at ECF#142 in 1:18cv-01233-RC, for a copy of both Requests
for Recusal.
The American Inns of Courthas lost its professional
bar status about 12 years ago since the
membership for all chapters except 1 became
confidential and not available to the public.
31
Being a private club with confidential membership
for all chapters except one but misused the judicial
site of the US Supreme Court and the Justices to
conduct its annual conferences, American Inns of
Court has formed a large gang throughout the U.S.
by rich attorney-members who hold special favors
of the member judges by donating gifts, directly or
indirectly, to the judge-members and their clerks
who have the power to make recommendations of
the court's orders and appear in front of them. The
function in essence is to provide ex parte
communication platforms throughout the U.S. The
AIC publicized the video soliciting membership
called "American Inns of Court Member Services"
by using Attorney Emmanuel Sanchez stating:
"This is the only organization that I know that the
lawyers and judges belong to the trial bar have a
chance to meet outside of the courtroom in a social
setting and really able to establish the rapport."
Simultaneously with McManis Faulkner's
purging evidence of his relationship with Chief
Justice John G. Roberts from the internet, the
American Inns of Court also deleted Attorney
Sanchez's video from the YouTube. This video was
put back within days after Petitioner criticized this
spoliation of evidence in her Renewed Request for
Recusal in 17-613.
James McManis's social status was lifted by
being a major donor of the AIC, including becoming
the attorney representing Santa Clara County
Court and Santa Clara County Bar Association.
Judge Edward Davila was a prior President of the
bar association. This organization sponsored many
judicial seats. The influence of James McManisis
pervasive including up to this Court with the
32
irregularities mentioned above. This court clerks'
repeated alteration of docket and refusing to docket
receipt of motions actually violated the felonies of
18 USC2071(b), 18 USC1001 and 18 USC
§371(App.17-18).
Almost all Justices of the US Supreme Court have
sponsored their clerks to solicit huge amount of
gifts without disclosing their value from the
American Inns of Court annually since 1996
through its Temple Bar Scholarship. As the
scholarship is based on factors of judicial status, it
is not qualified to be exempted from being a gift
under §620.25(g) of the Guide to Judiciary Policy
Vol.2C. Thus, the maximum value of the gift
should be under $50 or not more than $100 a year,
yet the gifts involved are estimated to be $7,000 a
person, without knowing how much the "stipend" is
as no one recipient ever disclosed the dollar amount
of the gift. Besides, Chief Justice Roberts was
given two honors that his name is attached to this
Inns of Court. Retired Justice Kennedy and Justice
Ginsburg had two chapters established under their
names. These Inns were all supported by attorneys
who would have the chance to appear or have
appeared in front of the sponsoring Justices.
Special Master quasi-employment
relationship
James McManis further served as a Special Master
at the Santa Clara County Court and US District
Court in California. It is a logical inference that
the courts is unlikely to accuse its perennial Special
Master be able to committed legal malpractice.
Both experts perceived the public view of
conflicts of interest
33
Attorney Meera Fox reviewed the evidence and
wrote a declaration to support change venues of
child support appeal away from California Sixth
Appellate District Court of Appeal which was filed
with the Sixth Appellate Court in H039823 on April
27, 2017. Her declaration (App.101-34) as well as
the admission of James McManis (App.191-96)
contained in his deposition transcripts were taken
judicial notice twice of by California Supreme Court
twice in S242575 on 7/25/2017 (17-613) and
S249444 on 7/25/2018 (18-569).
Respondents' expert, Carrol Collins, III also
admitted to the public view of attorney-client
relationship between McManis Faulkner law firm
and Santa Clara County Court. (App.197-200)
REASONS FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI: RULE
10(B) AND (C)
I. WRIT SHOULD BE ISSUED FOR THE
REPEATED EGREGIOUS COURT CRIMES
THAT SEVERELY PREJUDICED
SIGNIFICANT CIVIL RIGHTS OF LIBERTY,
HUMAN DIGNITY, FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO APPEAL AND HAVE
REASONABLE ACCESS TO THE COURT.
An independent and honorable judiciary is
indispensable to justice in our society. This appeal
touches the issue of disruption of integrity and
independence of the judiciary system and the
fundamental fairness embedded in this civilized
judicial system that the US Supreme Court should
issue a writ.
The loathsome and dishonorable court crimes
jointly tolerated and harbored by California
Supreme Court, all for one objective—to suppress
their receiving gifts from James McManisdirectly
34
or indirectly and to help their financial supporters
out of mud, in sacrifice of the tremendous prejudice
that SHAD has suffered for eight years:
lost of reputation by the nature of the
vexatious litigant orders as a famous Chinese
American Attorney who was voted as top one
attorney in the U.S. by the Chinese21.com in 2009,
unfair oppression of her Constitutional
'substantive due process right of liberty in being
robbed away her child custody for already more
than 8 years by judiciary corruption, where her
then 5 years old and now 13 years old's daughter
has been placed in the sole custody of a dangerous
mental illness father who had record of attempting
to kill her for more than 8 years.
severe infringing SHAO's fundamental right to
appeal and to have reasonable access to the court.
A.
ADMISSION OF COURTS CRIMES OF
CONCEALING NOTICE OF DUE DATE OF
APPEAL BY THE DEPUTY CLERK'S FAILURE
TO DENY OR EXPLAIN
A. IN UNITED STATES V. LILLEY, 581 F.2D
182
(8th Cir. 1978), the Court held that "It is well
established that, as a general rule, when an
accusatory statement is made in the defendant's
presence and hearing, and he understands it and
has an opportunity to deny it, the statement and
his failure to deny it are admissible against him.
SeeUnited States v. Ojala, 544 F.2d 940, 946 (8th
Cir. 1976); United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d
1068 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S.
Ct. 775, 46 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1976). The context of
SHAO's statement to Ms.Miller is qualified as an
35
accusatory statement and Ms. Miller was unable to
explain nor deny why she was switching emails
within 13 minutes, other than that the court
instructed her to conceal from SHAO's notice by
inducing SHAO to reasonably anticipate an Order
may be made regarding the issues of insufficient
records on appeal when Ms. Miller instructed
SHAO to wait for the court's ruling before filing
Opening Brief, when Rule 8.54(b)(1) requires
minimum 15 days for the court to issue an order,
and when the opposing party might file an
opposition; where Ms. Miller concealed the 7/3/3018
from showing on the docket until dismissal and
further delay posting dismissal until after
7111/2018—SHAO saw the entry only on 7/13/2018.
Thus, according to the well-settled rule of adverse
inference, Ms. Miller has admitted existence of
malice, existence of conspiracy to dismiss this
appeal, which is consistent with the pattern of
dismissal by the new Presiding Justice Mary J.
Greenwood, apparently to suppress all judiciary
corruptions developed from her husband, Edward
Davila.
This malice and forgery (includes concealment) of
notices constitutes malicious violation of California
crimes for concealing notices in California
Government Code §6200, California Penal
Code115, §132, §134, §470 (App.15), conspiracy in
§182, knowing perverting or obstructing justice in
§96.5, and conspiracy to permanent parental
deprival of lawful child custody in §278.5.
B. B. SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONA
GUARANTEED RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED
WITH HISTORICAL CONSPIRACY OF CHILD
36
ABDUCTION BY THE JUDGES IN
HARBORING THEIR CORRUPTIONS
The U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right
"to petition the government for a redress of
grievances." US Const.Amend I. The Fist
Amendment right to petition includes the right to
have access to the court. Borough of Duryea v.
Guarn1eri 564 US 379, 387, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 2494
(2011). Structural error includes deterrence of
right to appeal. See, Locada v. Deeds (1991) 498
US 430, overruled on other grounds by Roe v.
Flores Ortega (2000) 528 US 470.
In Robinson v. Robinson, 2017-Ohio-450 (Coiurt
of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District,
Meigs County, released on 1/31/2017), the court
held that the right to access the court for divorce
proceedings was a substantive right that the
United States Constitution entitled a person to
enforce or protect.
What are affected here are not mere right to
appeal, right to access the court, but also
substantive due process right to liberty and the
systematic plan to harm Petitioner's reputation. It
is a rare judiciary child abduction case that has
unlawfully deprived Petitioner of child custody for
more than 8 years!
The admission constitutes a court crime of
violation of California Penal Code § 96.5, which is
the same as 18 USC §371. This is a case where
Justice Elia, under the direction of Judge Edward
Davila's wife, directing the deputy clerk Ms. Miller
to fraudulently induce Petitioner not to file her
Opening Brief and to effect a silent dismissal,
knowing the Chief Justice of California Supreme
37
Court would harbor this crime. Evidence of lost of
public's confidence is in App. 177- 178.
II.
THE SIXTH DISTRICT LACKS
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE RULE
8.122DISMISSAL SANCTION WHEN THE
DISMISSAL WAS FRAUDULENTLY PLAYED BY
THE COURTITSELF
Rule 8.122 is to sanction for failure to
prosecute appeal. There is no indication of
SHAO's abandoning this appeal that could cause
such a drastic sanction. In fact, as shown in one of
the July 3, 2018's Order, the court has accepted for
filing of SHAO's motion for judicial notice in
support of the Opening Brief, which is part of the
Opening Brief. (App.22) The order states:
"Appellant's request for judicial notice in support of
opening brief is deferred for consideration with
the appeal." The second order of July 3, 2018 did
not mention the "request for judicial notice in
support of opening brief."
SHAO would have filed her Opening Brief but
for Ms. Miller's instruction to wait and promise to
give time.
In secretly granting continuance of filing Opening
Brief until July 9, 2018, Justice Ella acknowledged
SHAO had good cause to delay filing SHAO's
Opening Brief, i.e., 6 material court documents
were not included in the records on appeal. The
records were all about the argument that the
prefiling vexatious litigant was fraudulently
antedated as the filing date of 6/16/2015 when it
was impossible to be in existence at that time, as (1)
the prefihing order was not referenced in Judge
Maureen Folan's statement of decision, (2) not
shown in Tsan-Kuen Wang's declaration filed with
..
the family case on 6/24/2015, (3) the prefiling order
was not entered into the court's docket until August
2017, and (4) it was received with post mark date of
6/18/2015. These arguments were contained in the
missing records for appeal. The Notice of Appeal
which is not in Volume 5 includes a copy of the
envelop showing it was not 6/16/2015.
ORDERS VIOLATING RULE 8.54(B)(1)
SHOULD BE HELD TO BE VOID
For this case alone, Justice Elia issued three
orders in violation of Rule 8.54(b)(1). A writ should
be issued to invalidate any orders issued in
violation of Rule 8.54(b)(1). There is no decision on
this. In People v. Zarazua, 179 Ca1.App.4th 1054,
1064 (2009), the court distinguished an application
from a motion and specifically considers requests
filed to dismiss an appeal (Rule 8.57), to augment
or correct an appellate record (Rue 8.155), to obtain
calendar preference (Rule 8.240) and for judicial
notice (Rule 8.252) to be classified as motions and
stated that "we should have waited until 15 days
after the motion was filed" but denied the appeal
because of lack of prejudice.
Here, the prejudice is significant as it was the
court's crime to pervert the justice to obstruct and
defraud Petitioner from filing her Opening Brief.
TO FILE AN APPEAL WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT RECORDS ON APPEAL VIOLATES
DUE PROCESS
Petitioner was hesitate to file her Opening
Brief due to lack of sufficient records. California
Supreme Court limits appellate arguments of facts
and laws to be the records on appeal. E.g., People v.
Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293; People v. Waidla
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 703, fn.1. California
39
Supreme Court has held that the due process and
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution requires the states
to provide sufficient records for adequate and
efficient review and points to be argued. E.g.,
People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Ca1.4th 826, 857-58.
Here, all records that contain evidence of the
fraud of the prefiling vexatious litigant order are
omitted from the records on appeal including
Designation of Records #23, 24, 25, and 48. Thus,
Judge Elia's July 3, 2018's order should be void for
violation of due process.
V.
PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER FOR
STALLING APPEAL IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE
BOTH VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDERS SHOULD
HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED IF THERE WERE A
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL AS A
MATTER OF LAW.
The 6/16/2015's order should be void as
Judge Maureen Folan'ssuasponte adding up losing
writs and appeals from the family case to be 10
when Petitioner was not allowed to present
evidence and time to offer argument on that issue,
constitutes a violation of due process, according to
Cohen v. Huges Markets, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th
1693 and In re Marriage of Straczynski (2010) 189
Ca1.App.4t11 531.
In addition, Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156
Cal.AppAth 963, 968 held that the vexatious
litigant prefiling is void as a matter of law for lack
of a statement of decision. No where in the
6/16/2015's statement for order mention the
prefiling order. Thus, the prefiling order is void
pursuant to Morton.
VI.
LACK OF QUALIFIED JUSTICE AND
IMPARTIAL COURT
This Court has held that appearance of bias
and prejudice or constitutional potential for bias is
the standard without requiring actual prejudice to
disqualify a judge. E.g., Williams v. Pennsylvania,
136 S.Ct. 1899, 1903 & 1905 (2016) A bias
decisionmaker is constitutionally unacceptable and
"our system of law has always endeavored to
prevent even the probability of unfairness."
Winthrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456,
1464 (1975)
A. SANTA CLARA COUNTY COURT MUST BE
CHANGED VENUE
McManis Faulkner's association with the
judges on this case create an appearance of bias
that is unusual.
First, McManis Faulkner has acted as
attorneys for the judges of the Santa Clara County
Court, a justice at the Sixth District and a justice
at the Supreme Court.
James McManis has admitted in his deposition that
he personally represented Santa Clara County
Court (App.191). Meera Fox attested to it.
Respondents' expert witness Carrol Collins III
admitted to the public appearance that Santa Clara
County Court itself is the client of Respondent
McManis Faulkner. (App.199)
The courts have held that where a judge has been
represented by attorneys or law firms appearing
before the judge, there is an appearance of bias
unless other facts dispel that appearance. Smith v.
SikorskyAircraft(C.D. Cal. 1976) 420 F. Supp.661,
662; Powell v. Anderson (Mm. 2003) 660 N.W.2d
107, 116-119.
41
Second, James McManis directly provided
gifts to the judges by his free legal service and
McManis Faulkner indirectly provided gifts to the
court by way of financially support of the Ingram
Inn and S.F.Bay IP Inn. The Ingram Inn sponsors
dinners and other events that are primarily paid
for by the participating attorneys. This gives the
member attorneys unique access to judges under
circumstances that the judges are receiving a
monetary benefit from their association with the
Inn. Such gifts provision violates Rule 5-300 of
California Rules of Professional Conduct.
Social association presents potential conflicts
of interest. In Inquiry Concerning Harris (2005) 49
Ca1.4th CJP Supp.61, the court considered the
failure to disclose a social relationship he had with
an attorney appearing before him as a "prejudicial
conduct." In State v. Putnam (1996) 164 Vt. 558,
the Vermont Supreme Court required
disqualification of an Administrative Judge for
failure to disclose "social relationship with a party"
and reversed the judge's decision. See also,
Richard v. Richard, 146 Vt. 286, 288 (1985).
Third, the appointment of Respondent's
attorneys as special masters in the Santa Clara
County Court appears as an endorsement of
McManis Faulkner lawyers that would be
inconsistent with Petitioner's allegation of
malpractice. In US. v. Jordan (1985) 49 D.3d 152,
Ft. 18, the 5th Cir.'s majority stated in Footnote 18
that:
"The public may not look favorably upon a
system that allows one colleague to pass on the
impartiality of another colleague who works closely
with the questioned judge. As discussed supra,
42
judges sitting in review of other judges do not like
to cast aspersions, especially upon colleagues in the
same district with whom they work so initimately
and confer so frequently."
There is an important policy to "ensure public
confidence in the judiciary." Curie v. Superior
Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1070.
1. Disqualify the Sixth District
Judicial Conference of the U.S., Committee on Code
of Conduct for United States Judges, Compendium
of Selected Opinions §3.6-6[1] (April 2013), requires
disqualification of the entire district when there is
a judge in the district being sued as a defendant.
California has a law for transfer a case from
the appellate court to the US Supreme Court. See
13 WitkinCal.Proc. Appeal §917; Knouse v.
Nimocks (1937) 8 C.2d 482, 66 P.2d 438; Scott v.
Kenyon (1940) 16 C.2d 197.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to
consider the 18 questions for certiorari.
VERIFICATION
I swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the US that the foregoing is true and accurate to
the best of my knowledge and made in good faith.
Dated: December 11, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
By Is! Yi Tai Shao
Yi Tai Shao
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.