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

Supreme Court briefAug 31, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

IN THE

AUG 3 1 2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OFFICE 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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Bo Peng

Pro Per

2332 Crystal Pointe

Chino Hills, CA 9170

951-423-0594 r

RECEIVES

SEP<-*:2S$

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

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?

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 Ill. 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 of jurisdiction 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.

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.

“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. Turney 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

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

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))

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

JURISDICTION

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

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

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

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

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

void.

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

Hoffstadt violated Constitution by depriving appellant’s wage properties

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

Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the court. Fraud makes

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

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

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

The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt violated 14th

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

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

The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt acted without

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

The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Introduction

II.

The defendant faces losing the lawsuit

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

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

III. Formation of the corruption circle

Improper ex parte communication between defendant and Judge

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

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

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

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

IV.

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

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

ring is void.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Judge Linfield is biased constitutionally unacceptable decisionmaker

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

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

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

Risks and consequences faced by corrupt judges in multi-judge

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

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

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

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

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

of the law. And California Supreme Court is mute and denied appellant’s

petition for review. Their decisions conflicted with the decisions from U.S.

Supreme Court................................................................................................................. 33

Regarding due process of laws....................................................................... 34

Regarding the rendering void judgment valid by the Court of Appeal

Regarding the fraud upon the court.....................................................

Regarding defendant attorney felony tampering with Bo Peng’s

evidence (AA)............................................................................................................

II.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the paramount right conferred by the

Constitution, it should uphold the constitution, has responsibilities and

obligations to perform supervisory duty to make the Constitution and laws of

the United States uniform, and the same in every State.

III. This case is a big and national level case

IV.

The multi-judge corruption ring wars against Constitution, usurped the

administration of justice, disregarded for the laws, made multi-judge

corruption ring’s version of law and conducted judiciary violence outside of

limit of Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court should intervene.

The U.S Supreme Court cannot make the American people having no law to

follow,

VI. Justice Hoffstadt from California 2nd District Court of Appeal violated

principle of stare decisis with

CONCLUSION.............................................. ................................................................

INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Unpublished Opinion entered at May. 27, 2020, No. B307484, 2nd

Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal.

APPENDIX B

Order entered at July. 23, 2020, No. 19STCP00416, Los Angeles

County Superior court of California.

APPENDIX C

Order entered at Aug. 17, 2020, No. 19STCP00416, Los Angeles

County Superior court of California.

APPENDIX D

Amended judgment entered at Aug. 18, 2020, No. 19STCP00416,

Los Angeles County Superior court of California.

APPENDIX E

Order entered at Aug. 11, 2021, No. S269724, Supreme Court Of

The State Of California.

Table of Authorities Cite

Cases

(Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich.)

109 Cal. App. 3d 573...................................................................................

5, 12, 24

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506, 518 (1858)...............................................

Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1526, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d

369 (6th Dist. 2011)...............................................................................................................

Ball v. Tolman, 135 Cal. 375, 67 P. 339 (1902)........................................................................

Bank of Italy v. E.N. Cadenasso, 206 Cal. 436, 274 P. 534 (1929)..........................................

Bank of Italy v. E.N. Cadenasso, 206 Cal. 436, 274 P. 534 (1929); Ball v. Tolman, 135 Cal. 375,

67 P. 339 (1902).......................................................................................................

Boags v. Municipal Court, 197 Cal. App. 3d 65, 242 Cal. Rptr. 681 (2d Dist. 1987)..

10, 40

Boisclair v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 3d 1140, 276 Cal. Rptr. 62, 801 P.2d 305 (1990)

xiv

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

cf. Turney v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 273 U. S. 532 (1927)

iv, 11

cf. Turney v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 273 U. S. 532 (1927)

Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Tex. 104, 110..........................

Collier & Wallis, supra, 9 Cal.2d at 202, 205 ................

DeTomaso v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 517, 520 n.l, 235 Cal. Rptr.

292, 733 P.2d 614...................................................................................

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

Evans v. Corporate Services (1990), 207 Ill. App.3d 297, 302...................

Forbes v. Hyde, 31 Cal. 342, 347................................................................

Forbes v. Hyde, 31 Cal. 342, 347;...............................................................

Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich...

Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (2007) 151 CA4th 994, 1002-1003 .......

16, 17

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

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co. [322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944)]

Hughes v. Blue Cross of Northern California (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 832, 849, 263 Cal. Rptr.

850

In re Murchison, supra at 349 U. S. 136

iv, 11

Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 29 Cal.4th 300, 58

P.3d 339 .Constitutional Law 640..........................

..6, 7, 11,24

KC v. State, 2015 WY 73, 351 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2015)

3, 15,26, 34

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

........ i, 9,35

Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512,

60.23

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

Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S. Ct. 1690, 56 L. Ed. 2d 132 ..26

Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S. Ct. 1690, 56 L. Ed. 2d 132;

Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 250, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283

Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 CA4th 503, 511 33 CR2d 572...........................

Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960)..........

16, 17

Michel v. Williams (1936) 13 Cal. App. 2d 198, 199 [56 P.2d 546]

Murchison, supra at 349 U. S. 136..................................................

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

Nuddv. Burrows. (1875) 91 U.S. 426,440

11,24

Nudd v. Burrows. Supra............................

11,24

Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co., supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 835, 187 Cal.Rptr. 449, 654

P.2d 219................................................................................................................................. 4

Resnik v. Anderson & Miles (1980) [109 Cal. App. 3d 570, 573............................................... 25

Resnik v. Anderson & Miles (1980) [109 Cal. App. 3d 570, 573]............................................. 8

S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989.) 48 Cal.3d 341.... 13, 30

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

Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group, 58 P. 3d 367.........................................

Texas Co. v. Bank of America etc. Assn., 5 Cal. 2d 35, 41 [53 P.2d 127]

U.S. v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S. Ct. 519, 4 L. Ed. 2d 524 (1960).........

5, 34

Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975).....................................................

iv, 11,29

Statutes

(§ 10137)...............

6, 13

(§ 10160................

6, 13

(§ 10177, subd. (h).

6, 13

(§ 10177, subd. (h))

6, 13

§ 10137...............

6, 13

§ 10160...............

6, 13

§ 10177, subd. (h)..

§ 98.2.................

vii, 2

xvi

28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).............

Bus. & Prof. Code, § 10132....

6, 13

CCP §1717.............................

Lab.Code, § 98.2, subd. (a)

Labor Code §226.8................

labor code §98.2.....................

Pen. Code, § 98......................

Treatises

7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, Tf 60.23

XVII

Petitioner i-espectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINION BELOW

The case from state courts: The opinion (No. B307484) of the highest state court to

review the merits appears at Appendix A to the petition and is unpublished.

The case from state courts: The opinion of (No. B304763) the highest state court to

review the merits appears at Appendix I to the petition and is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

For cases from state courts: The date on which the highest state court decided my case

was Aug. 11th, 2021. A copy of that decision appears at Appendix E.

This petition for a writ of certiorari is on 8/31/21. California Supreme court denied

discretionary review on 8/11/21. Pursuant to Rule 13: Review on Certiorari: Time for

Petitioning, this petition for writ of certiorari is on time.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides, in part: No State shall

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.

Here special thanks the honest judges with integrity for providing good cases authority,

to help identify justice and injustice, legal and illegal, morals and immorality.

Regarding the jurisdiction of the two opinions of Justice Hoffstadt from

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

ring1, 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. In comparison with the legal principle of § 98.2 and the 5 claims in this case, Justice

Hoffstadt violated the due process

1. Legal principle and 5 claims of this case

This case is a jury trial with legal principle of de novo hearing required by Labor

Code §98.2 and with subjects of action of five claims:

Five claims against defendant are:

1) Intentionally not paying wages, is defined by the Labor commissioner as wage theft

and as a crime

2) For the purpose of stealing employees’ wages, discharge without cause in violation

of public policy is wrongful termination, and caused the plaintiff harm.

3) Willful misclassification taking advantage of state and federal taxes and employee’s

benefits.

4) Compensatory damages of economic and emotional distress to plaintiff caused by

defendant’s wage theft and wrongful termination.

5) Punitive damages for Defendant’s a large amount of illegal proceeds obtained

through unlawful practice pattern of wage theft, wrongful termination and

(See STRATOS PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like and Where It Is Hidden

(2009) 118 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL 1900, 1924)

misclassification.

The above abbreviated as 5 claims.

This case is a jury trial with legal principle of hearing de novo required by Labor Code §98.2

and with subjects of action of five claims, which govern the whole process of this case, and the

trial must be strictly complied with.

2. Justice Hoffstadt departed from due process of this case, that is, the legal

principle of labor code §98.2 and 5 claims;

Justice Hoffstadt deliberately got away the constraint of labor code §98.2 and 5 claims;

he exercised his arbitrary discretion to conduct the proceeding according to Defendant’s

unlawful objects, that is, 2 unlawful orders and 2 unlawful wills. Defendant’s unlawful

orders are 1) “this case must be taken from the jury and a decision rendered on

the written and admitted evidence at trial.” (AA 318) 2) the court must preclude

“emotional distress, lost wages, punitive damages”. (AA 322,) Defendant’s unlawful

wills are 1) Change from a losing lawsuit to a winning lawsuit, finally being the

prevailing party.2) Extorting the attorney’s fees. (1AA 401)

Since Justice Hoffstadt did not conduct the proceeding according to the legal principle of

labor code §98.2 and 5 claims, his opinion has no jurisdiction to the action of defendant’s

unlawful objectives which are 2 unlawful orders and 2 unlawful wills, and his opinions are

void.

“The process due at any given time must reflect the nature of the proceeding and the

interests involved.” KC v. State, 2015 WY 73, 351 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2015).

“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)")

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.

1. California Supreme Court’s interpretation regarding hearing de novo

required by Labor Code §98.2

Pursuant to California Supreme Court’s interpretation regarding de novo

hearing required by Labor Code §98.2.

1) A hearing de novo [under Labor Code section 98.2] is a new trial.

2) The same as if no labor commissioner’s hearing had ever been held.

3) Completely nullifies the labor commissioner’s determination of the matter.

"Although denoted an 'appeal,' unlike a conventional appeal in a civil action, hearing

under the Labor Code is de novo. (Lab.Code, § 98.2, subd. (a).) '"A hearing de novo [under

Labor Code section 98.2] literally means a new hearing," that is, a new trial' (Pressler v.

Donald L. Bren Co., supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 835, 187 Cal.Rptr. 449, 654 P.2d 219.) (Smith v.

Rae-Venter Law Group, 58 P. 3d 367)

“A hearing de novo literally means a new hearing, or a hearing the second time. (18

Cor. Jur. 486.) Such a hearing contemplates an entire trial of the controversial matter in

the same manner in which the same was originally heard. It is in no sense a review of the

hearing previously held, but is a complete trial of the controversy, the same as if no

previous hearing had ever been held. It differs, therefore, from an ordinary appeal from an

inferior to an appellate body where the proceedings of the hearing in the inferior court are

reviewed and their validity determined by the reviewing court. A hearing de novo

therefore is nothing more nor less than a trial of the controverted matter by the court in

which it is held. The decision therein is binding upon the parties thereto and takes the

place of and completely nullifies the former determination of the matter. (Collier & Wallis,

supra, 9 Cal.2d at 202, 205)

2. Justice Hoffstadt deliberately tampered with statues labor code §98.2

Justice Hoffstadt tampered with the statute and changed “A hearing de novo [under

Labor Code section 98.2]” to “an appeal de novo”; he attempted to acquire jurisdiction over

the labor commissioner determination, however, California Supreme Court Labor Code

§98.2’s Interpretation is that the trial court is the original court, Justice Hoffstadt has no

authority to change the original court to the labor commissioner and pushed the litigation

time to the labor commissioner. California Supreme Court Labor Code §98.2’s

Interpretation is that the determination of labor commissioner was completely nullified.

The determination of labor commissioner cannot be the basis for the opinion. So Justice

Hoffstadt’s opinion based on completely nullified labor commissioner’s determination is

void. His purpose is to cover up the existence of the multi-judge corruption ring, to blame

others, especially to blame the labor commissioner.

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 14th Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution, so Justice Hoffstadt’s opinion is void.

1. Bus. & Prof. Code and case law regarding real estate salesman and 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides, in part: No State shall

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.

Equal protection of the law means that persons who are similarly situated with respect

to a law must be treated alike under the law. (Arcadia Development Co. v. City of

Morgan Hill, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1526, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 369 (6th Dist. 2011)). [Emphasis

added]

Every state official, high and low, is bound by the Fourteenth Amendment.(U.S. v.

Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S. Ct. 519, 4 L. Ed. 2d 524 (I960)) [Emphasis added]

The Law has declared that “A real estate salesman cannot contract in his own name

(ibid.); he can only be employed by a licensed real estate [109 Cal. App. 3d

573] broker (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 10132; fn. 3 he cannot "be employed by...any person

other than the broker under whom he is at the time licensed" (§ 10137); and his license

must remain in the possession of his broker employer (§ 10160), who risks the

suspension or revocation of his own license if he fails "to exercise reasonable supervision

over the activities of his salesmen" (§ 10177, subd. (h)).

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]

2. Justice Hoffstadt violated publicly violated the equal protection of laws

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

Per above Bus. & Prof. Code and case law, Law expressly declared:

1) A licensed real estate salesman is employee

2) A licensed real estate salesman cannot be classified as an independent contractor

3) Any contract which purports to change that relationship is invalid as being contrary to the

law

Bo Peng is also a licensed real estate salesman and also is the employee the law

declares. However, in order to keep ignoring appellant’s Labor Code §98.2 action, to

prevent appellant from 5 claims, and to accomplish the defendant’s unlawful objectives

and to benefit financially from this case, Justice Hoffstadt from California 2nd District

Court of Appeal with higher position of multi-judge corruption ring, adversely targeted to

appellant; he is above the law and made a re-finding that a licensed real estate salesman

Bo Peng is an independent contractor and blatantly violated equal protection of the laws

clause to 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So Justice Hoffstadt’s re-finding is

void because he violated the constitution. Justice Hoffstadt has no authority to change the

statute that declares Bo Peng is an employee.

“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)

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

violated Constitution by depriving appellant’s wage properties without due process

of law.

1. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and due process of this case

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides, in part: No State shall

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the law.

2. Justice Hoffstadt violated due process clause of 14th Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution, by depriving appellant’s wage properties without due

process of law.

Justice Hoffstadt publicly violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;

without due process of law of conducting the trial of labor code §98.2 and 5 claims,

deprived appellant from wage properties in different mode repeatedly, namely, deprived

the appellant of wages2 in the amount of $28,268.01, unjustified sanction appellant $500

and extorted attorney’s fees $72,519.03 from appellant, totaling over 100,000 dollars and

approved to place a lien3 on appellant’s property. Justice Hoffstadt’s opinion is void.

“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)

E. Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the court. Fraud makes everything invalid.

1. Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the court in his second opinion.

With his second opinion (B307484), he committed fraud upon the court by fabricating

contract action in the labor commissioner; seriously departed from due process of this case,

namely, Labor Code §98.2 and 5 claims. It is a common sense that labor code and contract

2 Court have found a sufficient property interest to trigger application of the due process clause: Wages. Sniadach v Family

Finance Corp of Bay View (1969) 395 U.S. 337.

3 Temporary or partial impairments to property rights entailed by attachments, liens, and similar encumbrances are sufficient

to merit due-process protection even though they do not amount to any complete, physical, or permanent deprivation of real

property. Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 111 S. Ct. 2105, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1991)

law are different types of action.

2. Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the court in his first opinion

On his first opinion B304763, Justice Hofstadt from California 2nd District Court of

Appeal with higher position in the multi-judge corruption ring, violated due process of this

case, that is, labor code 98.2 and the 5 claims; Thus his opinion is void; he fabricated a

jury trial with a non-existent CCP 581c motion; he committed fraud upon the court to

deny the constitutionally entitled jury trial; and His opinion is void because fraud made

everything invalid.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or

legislation which would abrogate them" (Miranda v, Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.491)

Jurisdiction in any proceeding is conferred by the constitution or by statute. Labor code

§98.2 did not confer him the jurisdiction to the contract action. Justice Hoffstadt has no

jurisdiction over contract action. Therefore, his opinion is void, and he has no jurisdiction

to make affirmance granting defendant the attorney fees according the contract action

fabricated by him. Law has declared that the independent contractor agreement is invalid.

He also has no jurisdiction to affirm to grant defendant the attorney fees according to

independent contractor agreement.

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]

He has no jurisdiction to affirm in full the order granting defendant’s motion for

attorney fees, order denying appellant's motion to tax costs, and amended judgment. Thus

his opinion is void.

In other words, a court, in order to exercise jurisdiction over a given action or

proceeding, must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, that is, the constitutional and

statutory power to adjudicate the matter in controversy 4

The judgment of a court wholly lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter, parties, or

specific thing, is void.[see Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S.

Ct. 1690, 56 L. Ed. 2d 132; Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 250, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L.

Ed. 2d 1283;

When a court grants relief which it has no authority to grant, its judgment is to that

extent void. (Michel v. Williams (1936) 13 Cal. App. 2d 198, 199 [56 P.2d 546].)

3. Fraud upon the court destroys the validity of everything into which it

enters

"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)

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

(1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290)

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.

A void judgment is not rendered valid by a mere affirmance on appeal. Bank of Italy v.

E.N. Cadenasso, 206 Cal. 436, 274 P. 534 (1929); Ball v. Tolman, 135 Cal. 375, 67 P. 339

(1902).

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

(1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290)

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

4 [see Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 280, 288; Harrington v. Superior Court (1924)

194 Cal. 185, 188, 228 P. 15; Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. v. Small Claims Court (1973) 35 Cal. App. 3d

643, 645, 111 Cal. Rptr. 6]

to the U.S. Constitution, he lost his official status and should be held criminally

responsible for his personal actions

In his opinion, Justice Hoffstadt violated the passive role and was highly partial to the

defendant. This is not allowed by the Constitution. By violating the due process of law; he

deprived the appellant of the wages properties on which the appellant depends for

survival; he violated the equal protection of laws clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution; he lost his official status. In comparison with Penal Code 132, Justice

Hoffstadt from California 2nd District Court of Appeal with a higher position in the multi

judge corruption ring is as responsible as any other person for the violation of a criminal

statute; he is criminally liable for his fraud upon the court (in his first opinion, he

fabricated an entire jury trial by a non-existent CCP 581C motion in the record to deny

constitutionally entitled jury trial; in his second opinion, he used the same method to

fabricate a contract action before labor commissioner to extort attorney fees from

appellant, tampering with the labor code §98.2 from “A hearing de novo” under labor code

§98.2 to a “an appeal de novo”, tampering with evidence 7 and evidence 500 and his using

phrase of “undisputed facts” for his dishonest false statement to the court, in fact, he has

no facts. In comparison with Penal Code 132, Justice Hoffstadt is as any other person to

be held criminally liable for violation of a criminal statute.

"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." (Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687

(1974))

A judicial officer is as responsible as any other person for the violation of a criminal

statute. (Boags v. Municipal Court, 197 Cal. App. 3d 65, 242 Cal. Rptr. 681 (2d Dist. 1987);

Frazier v. Moffatt, 108 Cal. App. 2d 379, 239 P.2d 123 (2d Dist. 1951)).

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

“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)

B. 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.

“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)")

C. The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt acted without jurisdiction

“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)")

D. The opinions are void because Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the court.

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

(1875) 91 U.S. 426,440)

Justice Hoffstadt’s egregious errors against the Constitution are cumulative, so his

opinions are void. The root cause is corruption. (See Formation of multi-judge corruption

ring)

As mentioned in Pahis’s Yale law journal: Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks

Like and Where It Is Hidden (2009) 118 1900, 1907,1924), Decisions, absent corruption,

would not be prima facie wrong or in violation of another law; These cases do seem to

intimate that corruption has a potentially infective quality and flourishes when those

higher up in the hierarchical structure engage in it.”