Petition for Rehearing — Bo Peng, Petitioner v. F.M. Tarbell Co.

i

:

No.21-22

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

p

Si

'

Bo Peng,

I

Petitioner

v.

i:

i;

i

F.M. Tarbell Co.

Respondent

3

;!

'!

On Petition For A Rehearing Of The Order Denying The

Petition For The Writ Of Certiorari TO The 2nd Appellate

District Of California Court Of Appeal

*

I

?

PETITION FOR REHEARING

i

1

*.

I

Bo Peng

Pro Per

2332 Crystal Pointe

Chino Hills, CA, 91709

951-423-0594

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

PREAMBLE

1

II.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE

PETITION

3

A.

This case is an obvious miscarriage of

Justice and requires a reversal of the judgment. 3

The judgment and opinion of this case, made

B.

by them without jurisdiction and in violation of due

process, are void.........................................................^

C.

They violated the separation of powers of

the Constitution, arbitrarily overturned the statutes

and changed the established laws, violated the

clause of the equal protection of law of 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Judgment and

opinion in violation of the Constitution are void. 6

D.

False evidences were introduced since

Defendant attorney committed felony by tampering

with Plaintiffs evidences and offered the false

evidence to the court. The reversal of the judgment

is required.

E.

7

They all violated passive role of the judge

and committed the fraud upon the court. Judgment

and opinion made through a "fraud upon the court"

are void.

F.

7

Only the Supreme Court of the United

States has the paramount power and duty to

prevent the corruption, miscarriage of justice and

tyranny of a government outside the Constitution

under the guise of a state government, led by

Justice Hofstadt.

III. CONCLUSION

9

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

i

Cases

ArcieroQin

Ranches

, „ V- Meza <1993-) 17 Cal.App.4th 114

CheUet oCSotSS*300,

V' 0,16

1941

231 P.2d

832......................

’

Ba9kq,r "YT'" LLP V-

22 Cal-App.'sih 729?

231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 796 (2d Dist. 2018)

P

4

Coopery. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

12

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S.244, 382, (1901)

12

207^' DT ^alty C°-’ SUpra’ 216 Cal- APP- 2d 190

sdsvTsTsC'.^: S0D & mes <1980) [1°9 CaL APPHayes v. Brown (9th Cir. 200S) 399 F.3d 972 978......... ?

8

127

°fCaiversity of Califomi a (2002)

III Cfl.Rptr.2d 482, 29 Cal.4th 300, 58 P.3d

ody .Constitutional Law 640..........

7

Kiugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)

6

Kurtz v. Cutler, 178 Cal. 178, 172 P. 590(1918)........

6

Marshall

(2d n,sy S"1!!

404,103 R2d 240,.

App.2d^l^O^SO^S^Cal^^i^8^^0

^9^9^ 2^2

Nagel

v.

^

K™lV rBUr!T(1875)l 91 US 426- 23 Lad 28(1290.....9

Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633

bcheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U S 232 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 9

(1974)...........................

State v. Baxter, 686 N.W.2d 846 (Mi................................ 3

inn. Ct. App. 2004).

State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378,

Statutes

.... 11

215 A.3d 1154 (2019).

................................. 11

BUsubdP(h?' C°de’ § 10132, § 10137, § 10160’ § 10177,

CCP §631.8''IIZH..............................

iii

7

.....6

CCP 177.5........ ......................................... ....................

labor code §98.2............................................................

4

2, 5,6

Other Authorities

CRC Rule 10.1000........................................................

9

CRC Rule 2.30 (e.).......................................................

4

CRPC 3.5(b) (formerly CRPC 5-300(B))..................

4

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx........11

PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like and

Where It Is Hidden (2009) 118 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL

1900,1903..........................................................

1

Pahis’s Corruption in Our Courts, Page1907, Supra

3

Rule 44.2 of this Court........................................

1

Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Trial § 233 (2020).......

4

(

IV

/

I.

PREAMBLE

Pursuant to Rule 44.2 of this Court, Petitioner Bo

Peng, respectfully petitions for a rehearing of the order

denying the petition for the writ of certiorari to The 2nd

Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal.

“Judgment absolutely void on its face is subject to

attack anywhere, directly or collaterally, whenever it

presents itself, either by parties or strangers; judgment

is simply a nullity and neither basis nor evidence of any

right whatever; when judgment on face of judgment roll

is void for lack of jurisdiction, it may be attacked at any

time.”1

According to the inalienable rights of property

protection guaranteed by the California Constitution, in

order to recover the employer's intentional non-payment

of wages of $28,268.01, the appellant sought relief from

the court in accordance with the Labor Code §98.2. As a

result, without the trial under the Labor Code, the

appellant was not only deprived of his wages property,

but also was extorted from attorney fees of

US$72,519.03 by the judge using a non-existent contract

action without jurisdiction in this case. The reason is

that the defendant used a large amount of illegal

proceeds to influence and corrupt the judges of the

judicial system, thereby purchased judgments that are

favorable to the defendant. “Judicial corruption can be

understood as the selling and purchasing of legal

decisions.” 2

For such obvious miscarriage of justice and lawless

violence to allow that employers are free not to pay

wages at will and Employees can only be the helpless

victims, Justice Hofstadt of the Court of Appeal did not

Nagel v. P &amp; M Distributors, Inc. (1969) 273 Cal. App.2d

176, 180, 78 Cal. Rptr. 65

2 PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like and Where It Is

Hidden (2009) 118 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL 1900, 1903

1

supervise and stop, but affirmed in full. This obvious

miscarriage of justice and the violation of "EQUAL

JUSTICE UNDER LAW" cannot be tolerated. The

appellant filed U.S. Supreme Court the petition for writ

of certiorari.

"No judicial process, whatever form it may assume,

can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of

the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is

issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these

boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." 3

A strong public policy favors full and prompt

payment of wages due an employee. However, the jury

trial of legal principles of labor code §98.2 and the 5

claims was not conducted. In violation of the due process

in this case, Justice Hoffstadt, Judge Moreton and

Judge Linfield repeatedly without jurisdiction deprived

the appellant of wages property in different modes, that

is, deprived the appellant of $28,268.01 of wages,

unreasonably punished the appellant of $500, extorted

attorney’s fees of $72,519.03, totaling more than

$100,000, and approved placing a hen on appellant’s

real property. They blatantly violated 14th Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution. Because they violated the U. S.

Constitution, they lost their official status.

'When a state officer acts under a state law in a

manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he / she

comes into conflict with the superior authority of that

Constitution, and he /she is in that case stripped of his /

her official or representative character and is subjected

in his/ her person to the consequences of his

/her individual conduct. The State has no power to

impart to him / her any immunity from responsibility to

the supreme authority of the United States." 4

3 Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859).

4 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

2

• -‘-V

The names of the above judges must be pointed out,

mainly to distinguish them from judges who enforce the

law impartially and to protect good judges.

Based on factual evidence, the Constitution and the

law, petitioner pointed out the following facts:

The defendant used large amounts of illegal proceeds to

influence and corrupt judges at the upper and lower

levels of the judiciary, and formed a government outside

of the Constitution, led by Justice Hofstadt from court of

appeal, composed of trial corrupt Judge Moreton and

Judge Linfield, acted under color of state government,

and not bounded by the Constitution. They have the

common unlawful objectives set by the defendant. They

knew that they could not accomplish it alone and must

accomplish in collaboration. Justice Hoffstadt affirmed

the void judgment rendered by members of the trial

court valid, to accomplish their common unlawful

objectives and benefit financially from this case together.

The above three judges, Justice Hoffstadt, Judge

Moreton and Judge Linfield, are abbreviated to as

"They".

Decisions, absent corruption, would not be prima

facie wrong or in violation of another law.5

II.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE

PETITION

A. This case is an obvious miscarriage of

Justice and requires a reversal of the

judgment

After the establishment of the government outside of

the Constitution, led by Justice Hoffstadt, they are

highly partial towards the defendant. They and the

defendant decided every matter of this case through

5 Pahis’s Corruption in Our Courts, Pagel907, Supra

3

improper ex parte communication, which deprived

plaintiff s right to speak.

Improper ex parte communications between an

arbitrator and a litigant can serve as a basis for a

corruption, fraud, or other undue means finding as

would support the vacation of an arbitration award.6

Persons with whom contact prohibited: CRPC 3.5(b)

(formerly CRPC 5-300(B)) applies to a judge or

judicial officer. (Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Trial § 233

(2020)) [Emphasis added]

Without motion, without hearing, the defendant

unilaterally drafted the order exempting himself from

all penalties. Without giving appellant the opportunity

to oppose, they approved the order without changing a

word, which is a violation of the constitutional due

process. The constitutional due process requires a notice,

a hearing in front of an impartial judge and impartial

court with jurisdiction. Order made in violation of the

Constitutional due process is void, they then ordered to

prevent appellant from presenting claim; they forced

appellant to comply with their void order; and otherwise

they would impose a sanction of $500. In the end, they

violated CCP 177.5 and CRC Rule 2.30 (e.), unjustified

sanctioned appellant $500 without due process, violated

the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; which

are miscarriage of justice and tyranny.

This case was the jury trial in which labor code §98.2

is legal principle and in which the five claims are

subjects of action of this case. Removing all penalties for

defendant is a matter tried by jurors, not by the Judge.

The Constitution and the law did not authorize them to

make that order. They have no jurisdiction and have no

authority to approve the defendant one sided drafting

6Baker Marquart LLP v. Kantor, 22 Cal. App. 5th 729, 231 Cal.

Rptr. 3d 796 (2d Dist. 2018).

4

y-

order exempting defendant from all the penalties. Thus

the order is void.

Since they hollowed out the jury trial by approving

the exemption of all penalties for the defendant and

using the defendant’s unilateral jury trial binder which

deprived plaintiffs right to speak, the jury trial was

returned by the honest judge. Not only did they not

correct it, but fabricated a non-existent re-application of

jury trial and denied the constitutionally entitled jury

trial in order to accomplish defendant’s unlawful

objectives.

"This '"denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally

entitled thereto constitutes a miscarriage of justice and

requires a reversal of the judgment. ifiif 7

B. The judgment and opinion of this case, made

by them without jurisdiction and in

violation of due process, are void.

They dared not exercise the jurisdiction granted to

them by Labor Code §98.2, because they knew that if

they exercised the jurisdiction of Labor Code §98.2, the

defendant would lose this case. So in order to complete

the defendant’s unlawful objectives, they conspired with

defendant to echo with each other through improper ex

parte communication, they used defendant’s oral motion

of CCP §631.8 to overturn the legal principle of labor

code §98.2 and the 5 claims of this case. The

Constitution and the law did not authorize their

jurisdiction to approve the motion of CCP §631.8. They

have no jurisdiction to make that judgment.

In particular, jurisdiction of a subject matter over

which a court has otherwise no jurisdiction cannot be

7 Arciero Ranches v. Meza (1993.) 17 Cal.App.4th 114, 126, 21

Cal. Rptr.2d 127, quoting People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe

(1951.) 37 Cal.2d 283, 300, 231 P.2d 832.

5

conferred by motion,8 and contract.9

This case is a jury trial in which Labor Code §98.2 is

the legal principle and the five claims are the subjects of

action, which governs the whole proceeding of this case

and must be strictly complied with. Because they

intentionally departed from the jury trial in which labor

code §98.2 is the legal principle and in which the 5

claims are subjects of action of this case, they violated

the due process of law of this case. Judgment and

opinion made by them without jurisdiction and in

violation of due process are void.

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered

judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of

the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due

process.10

C. They violated the separation of powers of

the Constitution, arbitrarily overturned the

statutes and changed the established laws,

violated the clause of the equal protection of

law of 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. Judgment and opinion in

violation of the Constitution are void.

They violated the separation of powers of the

Constitution and overturned the statutes of the "Bus. &

Prof. Code, § 10132, § 10137, § 10160, § 10177, subd. (h)"

which declared that a licensed real estate salesman is

an employee and which had existed for over half a

century. They also violated related laws that “ we

conclude, therefore, that a salesman, insofar as his

relationship with his broker is concerned, cannot be

classified as an independent contractor. Any contract

which purports to change that relationship is invalid as

8 Kurtz v. Cutler, 178 Cal. 178, 172 P. 590 (1918)

^Marshall v. Phillips, 39 Cal. App. 2d 404, 103 P.2d 240 (2d Dist.

1940)

10 Kiugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)

6

being contrary to the law”.11 They forcibly and

wrongfully found a licensed real estate salesman as

independent contractor, made the independent

contractor agreement which law declared invalid , valid.

“Every constitutional provision is self-executing to

the extent that everything done in violation of it is

void.”12

D. False evidences were introduced since

Defendant attorney committed felony by

tampering with Plaintiffs evidences and

offered the false evidence to the court. The

reversal of the judgment is required.

By tampering with Plaintiffs evidences, defendant s

attorney committed felony prescribed by Penal Code 132,

which required to go to prison for 1 to 3 years.

Defendant already lost this case.

The Ninth Circuit has declared that reversal is

» J »

once it is established that

virtually automatic

false evidence was introduced.

« < a

E. They all violated passive role of the judge

and committed the fraud upon the court.

Judgment and opinion made through a

"fraud upon the court" are void.

In order to accomplish defendant’s unlawful objectives,

Judge Moreton fabricated a non-existent re-application

of jury trial and denied the constitutionally entitled jury

trial

In order to shelter the member of the government

outside of the Constitution, Led by Justice Hoffstadt,

11 Gipson v. Davis Realty Co., supra, 215 Cal. App. 2d 190, 207.

Resnik v. Anderson & Miles (1980) [109 Cal. App. 3d 570, 573]

12 Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 127

Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 29 Cal.4th 300, 58 P.3d 339 .Constitutional Law

640'3 Hayes v. Brown (9th Cir. 2005) 399 F.3d 972, 978.

7

and to cover its corruption, Justice Hoffstadt

intentionally used disinterested clerk as disguise ,

raised the question of CCP 581c motion that does not

exist in this case (in fact, it was his question). “Truth

needs no disguise”. Then on his opinion, he further

fabricated a whole jury trial by the non-existent CCP

581c motion to commit a "fraud upon the court" to deny

the right of constitutionally entitled jury trial, which is

the error of constitutional dimension; which the

Constitution required to reverse the judgment, but he

refused to do so and made Judge Moreton's void

judgment valid. Thus his opinion in violation of the

Constitution is void.

In order to accomplish defendant’s unlawful

objectives, Judge Linfield fabricated contract action

which the court has no jurisdiction; committed the fraud

upon the court to extort attorney’s fees of $72,519.03

from appellant.

In order to shelter the member of the government

outside of the Constitution Led by Justice Hoffstadt, and

to cover its corruption, Justice Hoffstadt further

committed the fraud upon the court to extort the

attorney's fees from appellant through fabricating a

contract action in the labor commissioner and made

Judge Linfield's void judgment valid.

Judgments and opinions through a "fraud upon the

court" are void.

“Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which

it enters,” 14 The affirmance of a void the judgment upon

appeal imparts no validity to the judgment, but is itself

void by reason of the nullity of the judgment appealed

from.15

14 Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290

15 Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633

8

F. Only the Supreme Court of the United

States has the paramount power and duty to

prevent the corruption, miscarriage of

justice and tyranny of a government outside

the Constitution under the guise of a state

government, led by Justice Hofstadt.

Justice Hoffstadt from court of appeal affirmed in full

the void judgments rendered by trial court, which means

that he shall bear full responsibility for violations of the

Constitution, the Law, and the Rules committed by the

trial court.

In addition, he personally wars against the

Constitution, which manifested that he has the

pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case. Justice

Hoffstadt cannot try the case that he has interests. He

should disqualify himself. Not only did he not withdraw

from this case, but he violated the CRC Rule 10.1000,

without approval procedures, personally transferred this

case to himself for proceeding after this case has been

randomly assigned to Division one for half a year. This

constitutes miscarriage of Justice. Its purpose is to

prevent the exposure of the existence of a government

outside of the Constitution led by him and the existence

of the corruption.

His opinion is based on the labor commissioner's

determination and the independent contractor

agreement which both have been declared invalid by the

law, thus opinion made by him based on invalid matters

is also void.

Under color of the state government, they legalized

the defendant's wage theft of deliberately not paying

wages; legalized wrongful termination in violation of

public policy; legalized the defendant’s willful

misclassification; exempted the defendant from million

dollar of damages compensation and tens of millions of

government fines; accomplished all the unlawful

9

objectives given by defendant to them, and made every

member, in the government which is outside of the

Constitution, led by Justice Hoffstadt and composed by

corrupt Judge Moreton and Judge Linfield, obtaining

considerable financial benefits from this case.

In summary, corruption has a potentially infective

quality and flourishes when those higher up in the

hierarchical structure engage in it. The government

outside of the Constitution, led by Justice Hoffstadt,

composed of corrupt judges, acted under the color of the

state government, and not bounded by the constitution,

has been formed.

The government outside of the Constitution, led by

Justice Hoffstadt is above the law, no one dares to touch

and supervise. California Supreme Court is mute.

Therefore, the government outside the Constitution, led

by Justice Hoffstadt became more and more reckless,

openly violated the separation of powers of the

Constitution, aggregating power of legislator and

judiciary into their own hands, overturning statutes and

changing the established laws and rendering many void

judgments as valid. They caused no right law to follow,

so as to exercise their arbitrary powers. Due to their

unchecked powers, they openly committed miscarriage

of justice, openly wars against the Constitution, they not

only violated U.S. Constitution, but also violated the

similar State Constitution. 1) They violated 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 2) They violated

separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution article 1,

article 2, and article 3. 3) They violated right to Jury

trial guaranteed by 7th amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

They openly imposed tyranny, administering

judiciary according to their will, exposing the people to

the oppressions of arbitrary power, and openly

trampling on the "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

10

-

;-fk

The primary purpose of the doctrine is to prevent the

commingling of different powers of government in the

same hands.16 The doctrine is premised on the belief

that too much power in the hands of one governmental

branch invites corruption and tyranny.^

“As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged

with ensuring the American people the promise of equal

justice under law and, thereby, also functions as

guardian and interpreter of the Constitution,”16 only U.S.

Supreme Court has the paramount power to exert its

full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of

the Constitution.

“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can

war against the Constitution without violating his

solemn oath to support it.”19

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the

theory of a government outside of the supreme law of

the land finds lodgment in our constitutional

jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court

than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of

the principles of the Constitution.” (Downs v. Bidwell

182 U.S.244, 382, (1901))

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this Petition, Petitioner

Bo Peng requests this Honorable Court grant rehearing

and his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

Bo Peng

Date: 10/26/21

16 State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378, 215 A.3d 1154 (2019).

j8 State v. Baxter, 686 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

19 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

11

CERTIFICATION OF RO PKNrn

I hereby certify that this petition for rehearing is

presented in good faith and not for delay, and that it is

restricted to the grounds specified in Supreme Court

Rule 44.2.

Respectfully submitted,

Executed on 10/26/ , 2021

By:

Bo Peng, Petitioner, Pro Per

12