Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bo Peng, Petitioner v. F.M. Tarbell Co.

No.

I 1

-S2>s

iilliii

supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

IN THE

AUG 3 1 2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

QFF1CE OF THE CLERK

Bo Peng

Petitioner

Vs.

F.M. Tarbell Co.

Respondent

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

TO The 2nd Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal

a

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Bo Peng

Pro Per

2332 Crystal Pointe

Chino Hills,) CA 9170

951-423-0594

RECEIVED

SEP - « 2021

~

Question(s) Presented

1. 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, (Kiugh v.

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

"A decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never

becomes final.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968)

“Every constitutional provision is self-executing to the extent that everything done in

violation of it is void.”( Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 127

Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 29 Cal.4th 300, 58 P.3d 339 .Constitutional Law 640)

Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject

matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be

attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is

properly before court. (People ex Rel. Brzica v. Lake Barrington, 268 Ill. App. 3d 420,425,

644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994))

“Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” (Nudd v. Burrows (1875),

91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290)

This case has experienced various forms of void orders, judgment, appealable

orders, and amended judgment. Any of these forms can reverse the void order

and judgment of this case, but the reality is that it has advanced freely, and even

passed California Supreme Court having jurisdiction over the largest judicial

system in the nation. How does the United States Supreme Court ensure the

authority of above published case laws and maintain the uniform of the national

case law?

l

*

2. The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the

jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 III. 472, 483 (1928).

The judges in the multi-judge corruption ring ignored and did not conduct the trial according

to Labor code §98.2 and 5 claims, and violated the due process of this case. Judgment which is

inconsistent with due process is void, The judgment rendered by judges in multi-judge

corruption ring was 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, (Kiugh v. U.S., 620

F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)"

The labor code §98.2 legal principle and 5 claims, are the due process of this case, which

control the entire process of this case, the trial must be strictly complied with. Multi-judge

corruption ring deliberately acted outside the limit ofjurisdiction of labor code 98.2 and 5

claims. The judges have no jurisdiction, no authority to hear and rule, and all decisions made are

void. The defendant and multiple judges claimed that the trial was tried in accordance with an

invalid independent contractor agreement declared by law; and they proceeded according to

invalid independent contractor agreement declared by law.

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 being contrary to the law (Gipson v. Davis Realty Co.,

supra, 215 Cal. App. 2d 190, 207).” (Resnik v. Anderson & Miles (1980) [109 Cal. App. 3d 570,

573]) [Emphasis added]

Because the contract cannot give corrupt Judges jurisdiction, the defendant is the prevailing

party of the contract, not the prevailing party of this case, and, they cheated the court in the

name of the prevailing party of the contract, extorted attorney fees in the amount of $72,519.03

from appellant, and seriously violated the 14 amendments to U.S. Constitution.

ii

How does U.S. Supreme Court stop that multi-judge corruption ring is in treason to the

Constitution and usurp the jurisdiction which is not given?

"Judges have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to

usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution".

Cohen . Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 149 U.S. 200

3. Injudicial system controlled by multi-judge corruption ring, they controlled the upper and

lower levels. They are in the color of the government and used the court as an instrument of

injustice; they violated due process clause of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by

depriving appellant of wage properties; they violated equal protection of laws clause of 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; they denied constitutionally entitled jury trial; they made

many void orders and judgments valid; they did not reverse this case which the law required to

reverse; they legalized defendant's wage theft, wrongful termination and misclassification; and

they benefited financially from this case.

The multi-judge corruption ring is organized and the division of work is clear. Each

corrupt judge knows its own functions and is the link of the multi-judge corruption ring

chain. They cannot accomplish the defendant's unlawful objectives alone and benefit from

it. They must conspire, cooperate with each other, shield each other, and complete their

own part of the task. The corrupt judges of the trial court arbitrarily rendered void

judgments because they knew that Justice Hoffstadt from the appellate court is their

umbrella. Justice Hoffstadt from the court of appeal with higher position in the multi­

judge corruption ring made the void judgment valid, which indeed protected the corrupt

judges of the trial court. The two levels of judges cooperated to finally accomplish the

defendant's unlawful objectives, so that every member of the multi-judge corruption ring

can benefit financially from this case.

in

“Not only is a biased decisionmaker constitutionally unacceptable, but "our system of

law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." In re Murchison,

supra at 349 U. S. 136; cf. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 273 U. S. 532 (1927). In pursuit

of this end, various situations have been identified in which experience teaches that the

probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be

constitutionally tolerable. Among these cases are those in which the adjudicator has a

pecuniary interest in the outcome, [Footnote 14] and in which he has been the target of

personal abuse or criticism from the party before him. [Footnote 15] “(Withrow v. Larkin,

421 U.S. 35 (1975))

This case has been established as Jury trial. Jury trial posed a great pressure to

defendant since defendant could not use illegal proceeds to influence and control many

jurors who are randomly selected, so Defendant gave the two unlawful orders to the

corrupt judges:

Ordering the judge that the court must preclude “emotional distress, lost wages, punitive

damages”. (AA 322,) which is worth over 1 million dollars calculated based on jury

instruction.

“This case must be taken from the jury and a decision rendered on the written and

admitted evidence at trial.” (AA 318) which destroyed the impartiality of our judiciary

system, namely, Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all (Constitution

Article 1, section 16)

Defendant’s 2 unlawful wills:

Change from a losing lawsuit to a winning lawsuit, finally being the prevailing

party.

Extorting the attorney’s fees. (1AA 401)

1) The role of Judge Moreton in the multi-judge corruption ring

He engaged improper ex parte communication with and conspired with the defendant;

he sold out his judicial power; without motion, he precluded over 1 million dollar penalty

against Defendant, Tarbell Co; he shared his judiciary power with defendant (defendant

can directly use court title to draft proposed orders and statement of decision, he and

IV

defendant did not give the appellant the opportunity to object); without motion, he denied

constitutionally entitled jury trial; he made void orders and judgment in favor of the

defendant, that is, corrupt decisions, and he exchanged interests with the defendant.

2) The role of Judge Linfield in the multi-judge corruption ring

Inherited and continued the corrupt decision made by the corrupt Judge Moreton

because he openly tied to the corrupt Judge Moreton; avoided the legal principle of labor

code §98.2 and 5 subjects of action in this case; violated due process; and used the

defendant’s illegal objectives to conduct hearings; was highly partial to defendant; made

orders and amended the judgment in favor of the defendant; and extorted attorney fees in

the amount of $72,519.03 for defendant from appellant. He exposed in the open court that

the Court of Appeal has his umbrella, that is, Justice Hoffstadt from the Court of Appeal

who will make void orders and amended judgments valid. Because of the sheltering from

the higher members of the Corruption Circle in the Court of Appeal, Linfield need not to

worry.

The role of Justice Hoffstadt in the multi-judge corruption ring

He made the void orders, void judgment, and amended judgment made by the corrupt

judges in the trial court valid, collaborated with the trial court’s corrupt judges to achieve

the defendant's illegal objectives, covered up the existence of the multi-judge corruption

ring and sheltered the corrupt judges from the trial court; he committed fraud upon the

court to fabricate an entire jury trial by non-existent CCP 581c motion to deny

constitutionally entitled jury trial on his first opinion. On his second opinion, he fabricated

a contract action in the labor commissioner. He finally accomplished the defendant’s

unlawful objectives and violated 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by depriving

appellant’s wage properties over $100,000 (wage, unjustified sanction, extorting attorney

fees) and approved lien appellant’s property; and he violated equal protection of laws

clause of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Facing the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land

found lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence, how U.S. Supreme Court

v

exerted its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the

Constitution?

“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))

vi

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

Related Cases

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. 19STCP00416, Los Angeles County Superior court of

California. Order entered at July. 23, 2020

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. 19STCP00416, Los Angeles County Superior court of

California. Order entered at Aug. 17, 2020

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. 19STCP00416, Los Angeles County Superior court of

California. Amended judgment entered at Aug. 18, 2020

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. B307484, 2nd Appellate District Of California Court of

Appeal. Opinion entered at May. 27, 2021

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. B307484, 2nd Appellate District Of California Court of

Appeal. Order entered at Jun. 15, 2021

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. S269724, Supreme Court Of The State Of California.

Order entered at Aug. 11, 2021

The following is the judgment of 19STCP00416 for the basis of order granting

defendant’s motion for attorney fees, order denying appellant's motion to tax costs,

amended judgment and opinion regarding attorney’s fees and costs. The judgment was

made without conducting the trial of labor code § 98.2 and 5 claims; which was made in

violation of due process of law: which was made by denial of a trial by jury to one

constitutionally entitled; which were rendered through fraud upon the court; which was

void; and which can be attacked at anytime and anywhere.

The following has provided to U.S. Supreme Court No. 21-22.

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. 19STCP00416, Los Angeles County Superior court of

California. Judgment entered at Feb. 3, 2020

Vll

The following is the opinion B304763 regarding judgment of 19STCP00416; which was

made by violation of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. B304763, 2nd Appellate District Of California Court of

Appeal. Opinion entered at Dec. 24, 2020

The following is order of the Supreme Court Of The State Of California;

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. S266512, Supreme Court Of The State Of California.

Order entered at Mar. 24, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

JURISDICTION

I.

Regarding the jurisdiction of the two opinions of Justice Hoffstadt from

California 2nd Court of Appeal with a higher position in multi-judge

corruption ring, and his affirmance in full of the void judgment, order

granting defendant’s motion for attorney fees, order denying appellant's

motion to tax costs, amended judgment

A.

1

In comparison with the legal principle of § 98.2 and the 5 claims in

this case, Justice Hoffstadt violated the due process....................................... .

B.

2

In comparison with California Supreme Court’s interpretation of

Labor Code §98.2; he asserted that the labor commissioner’s determination

valid, actually he hasn’t because actually it was completely nullified; and he

made an opinion based on statute that he tampered with; and by getting rid

of the constraints of Labor Code §98.2, he exercised his arbitrary discretion

outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court............................................... 4

C.

The statute of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 10132, § 10137, § 10160, § 10177,

subd. (h) and case law all declared that real estate salesman is employee.

Justice Hoffstadt publicly violated the equal protection of laws clause of the

vm

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so Justice Hoffstadt’s opinion is

void.

D.

5

In comparison with 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Justice

Hoffstadt violated Constitution by depriving appellant’s wage properties

7

without due process of law....................................................................................

E.

Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the court. Fraud makes

7

everything invalid.......................................................................... .........................

F.

Justice Hoffstadt used the method of rendering void order and

judgment valid, which played an important role in the multi-judge

corruption ring. He cooperated with the corrupt Judge Moreton and corrupt

Judge Linfield of the trial court to accomplish every defendant’s illegal

objective, namely 2 unlawful orders and 2 unlawful wills; covered up the

existence of the multi-judge corruption ring; and sheltered Judge Moreton

and Judge Linfield who are corrupt members of multi-judge corruption ring

in the trial court; and made members of multi-judge corruption ring benefit

financially from this case................................................................................................ 9

G.

Because Justice Hoffstadt, who is from California 2nd District Court

of Appeal with the higher position in the multijudge corruption ring,

violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he lost his official

status and should be held criminally responsible for his personal actions..... 9

II.

Two opinions from California 2nd district court of appeal are void

A.

The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt violated 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...................................................................

B.

10

10

The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt violated the due

process of the legal principle of Labor Code § 98.2 and 5 claims in this case. 11

C.

The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt acted without

jurisdiction..................................................................................................................

D.

11

The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud

upon the court..............................................................................................................

IX

11

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

12

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

12

I.

Introduction

12

II.

The defendant faces losing the lawsuit

15

A.

The defendant faces to pay more than one million dollars in

compensatory damages and per Labor Code §226.8, defendant also has to pay

a government fine over tens of millions of dollars due to defendant’s willful

misclassification of an licensed real estate salesman as an independent

contractor. Therefore, the defendant used his huge illegal gains to take risk

to influence, induce and corrupt the judges in the upper and lower level of

judiciary system because the trial court’s orders or judgment need to be

affirmed by the Court of Appeal. If defendant and his attorney were to meet

an honest judge who has integrity, defendant’s attorney will lose his

professional license. Defendant can only influence, induce and corrupt

judges who pursue personal gains and was weak................................................ 15

B.

Judge Moreton permitted the defendant to have improper ex parte

communication with him, signaled that he could accept law prohibited ex

parte communication and that he can be influenced, induced and corrupted

16

III. Formation of the corruption circle

A.

16

Improper ex parte communication between defendant and Judge

Moreton.....................................................................................................................

B.

The defendant made two unlawful orders to Judge Moreton......

C.

Multi-judge corruption ring assessed the risk of engagement of

corruption................................................................................................................

The defendant presented unlawful objectives (AA 318, 322). Multiple

judges in the trial court and the court of appeal have undergone risk

assessment; they knew the actual value of this case was worth tens of

x

16

17

18

millions of dollars calculated based on Labor Code §226.8 because the

defendant will face a fine of over tens of millions dollars from government

due to willful misclassification; Multiple judges also knew defendant’s

unlawful objectives; they considered that it was a rare opportunity for

benefiting financially with high returns and low risk, or even zero risk

because of plaintiffs status of self representing. So Judges who pursed

private gain, disregarded of the judiciary dignity, accepted defendant’s

orders, took advantage of their judicial positions to join the defendant, were

highly partial to defendant, were unable to remain impartial and served the

interests of the defendant, to benefit financially from this case

D.

Multi-judge corruption ring is organized association.....

18

18

IV. The judgment made by the corrupt judge Moreton in multi-judge corruption

20

ring is void.

A.

In order to accomplish the defendant’s unlawful objectives and

benefit financially from this case, corrupt Judge Moreton violated the

constitution, violated due process of law, committed fraud upon the court.. 20

B.

Corrupt Judge Moreton denied constitutionally entitled jury trial... 22

C.

The judgment made by the corrupt judge Moreton in multi-judge

corruption ring is void.......................................................... .................................

V.

23

The order granting defendant’s motion for attorney fees, order denying

appellant's motion to tax costs, amended judgment made by the corrupt

Judge Linfield in multi-judge corruption ring are void.

A.

25

The order granting defendant’s motion for attorney fees, order

denying appellant's motion to tax costs, and amended judgment are all void

because Judge Linfield violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

by depriving appellant’s wage property in different mode which is extorting

attorney fees from appellant; he approved placing a lien to appellant’s

property.

25

xi

B.

The order granting defendant’s motion for attorney fees, order

denying appellant's motion to tax costs, amended judgment are all void

because Judge Linfield violated the due process of the legal principle of

Labor Code § 98.2 and 5 claims in this case............................................................. 25

C.

Order granting defendant’s motion for attorney fees, order denying

appellant's motion to tax costs, amended judgment are all void because

Judge Linfield from the has no jurisdiction over the contract action............. 26

D.

Order granting defendant’s motion for attorney fees, order denying

appellant's motion to tax costs, and amended judgment are all void because

Judge Linfield committed fraud upon the court.

E.

27

Judge Linfield is biased constitutionally unacceptable decisionmaker

27

VI. The pattern, harm and consequence of the multi-judge corruption ring

30

Practice pattern of multi-judge corruption ring................................................... .

30

F.

The harm of the multi-judge corruption ring...................................

G.

Risks and consequences faced by corrupt judges in multi-judge

31

corruption ring.......................................................................................................

32

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION...................................................

32

I.

California 2nd District Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court have

entered decisions in conflict with the decision of other states court of appeal,

other state Supreme Court, United States court of appeals or U.S. Supreme

Court

32

A.

Regarding the jurisdiction............................................................................. 32

B.

Regarding denying the equal protection of 14th Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution

In its opinion of B307484 and B304763, by targeting Bo

Peng who is a licensed real salesman to re-find him as independent

contractor while the law declared that a licensed real estate salesman is

employee, California 2nd District Court of appeal denied the equal protection

Xll