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

Supreme Court briefFeb 7, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

-1049

FILED

FEB - 7 2023

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Bo Peng

Petitioner

Vs.

F.M. Tarbell Co.

Respondent

On Corrected Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

TO The 2nd Appellate District Of Ca lifornia Court of Appeal

CORRECTED PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Bo Peng

Pro Per

2332 Crystal Pointe

Chino Hills, CA 91709

951-423-0594

QUESTION PRESENTED

Justice Hoffstadt united trial judges, declined due

process of this case of the Jury trial on the 5 claims, under

labor code §98.2”, circumvented judgment of due process,

unlawfully used government power to reverse the legal

status of Plaintiff and Defendant, tried this case according

to the defendant’s unlawful objectives, and knowingly

treated the void independent contractor agreement as valid

to defraud the court and to deny the equal protection of the

laws. Judge Moreton conspired with Defendant to use CCP

§631.8 judicial process that violated due process and had no

jurisdiction, to render a void judgment to achieve the

defendant's unlawful objectives and deprived appellant of

$28,268.01 in wages. Judge Linfield conspired with

Defendant to defraud the court through fabricating judicial

process of Civil Code §1717 contract action, made the void

amended judgments granting Defendant attorneys' fees and

costs, twice depriving the appellant of total $100,128.33 in

wage property and adding Lien to appellant's real property.

In order to control the outcome of this case, Justice

Hoffstadt unlawfully diverted this case to himself to try;

personally fabricated different judicial processes in his

opinions; practiced unmitigated fraud upon the court itself;

unlawfully affirmed that Judge Moreton's void judgment

was valid; unlawfully affirmed that Judge Linfield's void

amended judgment and void orders were valid; and finally

secured defendant to evade tens of millions dollars in

government fines. Judges involved in this case are highly

partial to Defendant, this case lacked impartial judges.

Whether the lack of an impartial judges, and that

the state judges, under color of law, without due

process of law, deprived appellant of his wage

property and placed a lien on his real property, or

denied the equal protection of the laws, violate the

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the

case on the cover

page.

RELATED CASES

Bo Peng, Petitioner v. F.M. Tarbell Co. Case 21-22 and

Case 21-503. U.S. Supreme Court.

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. 19STCP00416 Los

Angeles County Superior court of California. Judgment

entered at Feb. 3, 2020

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. B304763, 2nd Appellate

District Of California Court of Appeal. Opinion entered at

Dec. 24, 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. B317907, 2nd Appellate

District Of California Court of Appeal. Opinion entered at

Jul. 25, 2022

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. S266512, Supreme Court

Oi The State Of California. Order entered at Mar 24 2021

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. S269724, Supreme Court

Of The State Of California. Order entered at Aug 11 2021

Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbell Co. No. S276283, Supreme Court

Of The State Of California. Order entered at Nov. 9 2022

Ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED.....................................

RELATED CASES.............................................

INDEX OF APPENDIX...........................................

TABLE OF AUTHORITY.........................................

OPINION BELOW..............................................

JURISDICTION.............................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVED..................................................

STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

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

INDEX OF APPENDIX

APPENDIX A Bo Peng vs. F.M. Tarbeli Co. No. B317907

2nd Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal.

Opinion entered at Jul. 25, 2022

APPENDIX B Bo Peng vs. /F.M. Tarbeli Co. No. S276283

Supreme Court Of The State Of California. Order entered

at Nov. 9, 2022

TABLE OF AUTHORITY

Cases

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986)

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

Cal. Rptr. 3d 796 (2d Dist

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

Cal. Rptr. 3d 796 (2d Dist. 2018...................................... 12

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

(1929);..................................... .......................................... 22

Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.

B251588............................................................................. 11

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

U.S. 200.......................................................................... 19

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

149 U.S. 200................................................................... 19

CONE v. HARRIS (1924) OK 1004 230 P. 721................ 32

Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S.......................................... 17

Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 111 S. Ct. 2105, 115 L. Ed.

2d 1 (1991)

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401, 3 L. Ed. 2d 5, 3

L. Ed. 2d 19, 79 Ohio L. Abs. 452, 79 Ohio L. Abs. 462.28

Corruption of judicial process Lockwood v. Bowles, 46 F.R.D.

625, 632 (D. D.C. 1969).................................................. 31

Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019), as

amended on other grounds (Jan. 9, 2019).................... 28

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S.244, 382, (1901).................... 30

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

Greater Boston Television Corp. v. F.C.C., 463 F.2d 268

278 (D.C. Cir. 1971)...................................................... 31

Green v. Mt. Diablo Hospital Dist., 207 Cal. App. 3d 63, 254

Cal. Rptr. 689 (1st Dist. 1989)......................................

Grogan v. Blooming Grove Volunteer Ambulance Corps

768 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2014).......................................... 30

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U S 238

251 (1944)....

Hernandez v. Mendoza, 199 Cal. App. 3d 721, 245 Cal. Rptr.

36 (2d Dist. 1988)....................................................

In re Madera Irrigation District, 92 Cal. 296 28 P 272

(1891............................................................ ................. 19

In re Madera Irrigation District, 92 Cal. 296, 28 P. 272

(1891); Mannix v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

133 Cal. App. 740, 24 P.2d 507 (3d Dist, 1933).............. 19

Interinsurance Exchange of Auto Club of Southern Cal. v.

Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 58 Cal. 2d 142, 23............................. 7

Jarvis v. Village Gun Shop, Inc., 805 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015)

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

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

339 .Constitutional Law 640

15, 16, 20

Life Savers Concepts Association of California v. Wynar

387 F. Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal. 2d 453, 202 P.2d 38

7 A.L.R.2d 990 (1949)

Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck, 139

S. Ct. 1921, 204 L. Ed. 2d 405 (2019)

Mannix v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 133 Cal.

App. 740, 24 P.2d 507 (3d Dist. 1933).......................... 19

Monroe v. Pape(1961) 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 484, 5

L.Ed.2d 492, 505............................................................ 29

National Union Indemnity Co. v. Bruce Bros., Inc., 44 Ariz.

454, 38 P.2d 648, 652

Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290 .. 26, 27

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609

(2015)

27, 28, 30

Peery v. Chicago Housing Authority, 791 F.3d 788 (7th Cir

2015)...............................................................

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

..22

Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of City of Los Angeles 28

Cal. 2d 460, 171 P.2d 8 (1946)

Vll

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

573.

4, 7, 21

Resnik v. Anderson & Miles (1980) 109 Cal. App. 3d 570

573, (Court of Appeal, Second District,......................... 4,7

Rogers v. State of Alabama, 192 U.S. 226, 24 S. Ct. 257, 48

L. Ed. 417 (1904)............................................................... 31

Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d

514, 525-535 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948)................................. 31

S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial

Relations (1989.) 48 Cal.3d 341.)................................... 8

S.D.—Wipfv. Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 2013

SD 49, 834 N.W.2d 324 (S.D. 2013)................................. 13

San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water

Dist. of Southern California, 12 Cal. App

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

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,249................................. 30

Sniadach v Family Finance Corp of Bay View (1969) 395

U.S.337

16, 27

State ex rel. Lofthus v. Langer, 46 N.D. 462, 177 N.W. 408

(1920)

20, 21

Texas Co. v. Bank of America etc. Assn., 5 Cal. 2d 35, 41

[53 P.2d 127]..................................................................... 3

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

(1960)................................................................................. 28

v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935

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

Weimer v. Amen, 870 F.2d 1400 (8th Cir. 1989)

Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 466 F.2d 714, 717 (10th Cir. 1972)

Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 195 L. Ed. 2d

132 (2016)......................................................................... 12

Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Trial § 233 (2020........................... 12

Statutes

28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4). Other provisions of section 455 set out

additional grounds for disqualification

Vlll

Bus. & Prof. Code, §10132.......................................

Bus. & Prof. Code, s 10132......................................

CCP §631.8................................................................

Civ. Code, § 3523.......................................................

labor code § 226.8......................................................

Labor Code §98.2......................................................

Labor Code §98.2(a)(b)...... .......................................

4,7

15, 20

8, 25

Other Authorities

16A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 412............

28, 34

17 Am J2d Contr § 7.................................................

7, 18

Black's law dictionary, revised fourth edition, Void

judgment...............................................................

California Civil Appellate Practice §1.28, (Cal Rules of Ct

10.1000) CEB OnLAW..................................................... 21

Fraud on the Court, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2870 (3d

ed.)...................................................................

See STRATOS PAHIS, supra, P 1931................................ 19

STRATOS PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It

Looks Like and Where It Is Hidden (2009) 118............. 11

STRATOS PAHIS, supra, at 1908..................................... 11

TI GLOBAL CORRUPTION REPORT 2007, Comparative

analysis of judicial corruption xxiv................................ 12

TI, Global Corruption Report 2007 supra P62.................. 12

Williston, Contracts 3d ed §15; 17 Am J2d Contr § 7 .... 7, 18

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

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Bo Peng

Petitioner

F.M. Tarbell Co.

Respondent

On Corrected Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

TO The 2nd Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal

CORRECTED PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINION BELOW

This case is from state courts: The opinion (No. B317907)

of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix Al-13 to the petition and is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S.

C. § 1257(a).

The Supreme Court's power to review state court

decisions is governed by the Judicial Code.1 The appellate

power so conferred is supported by both the letter and the

spirit of the Constitution.2

For cases from state courts: The date on which the

highest state court decided my case was Nov. 9th, 2022. A

copy of that decision appears at Appendix B.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is 2/7/23. California

Supreme court denied discretionary review on 11/9/22.

Pursuant to Rule 13: Review on Certiorari: Time for

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

This corrected petition for a writ of certiorari is on

4/25/23. U.S. Supreme Court issued the letter for correction

on 2/24/23. Pursuant to Rule 14.5, this corrected petition for

writ of certiorari is on time.

Congress has authorized the United States Supreme

Court to review final judgments or decrees rendered by the

highest court of a state.3

A finding of fact that is so grossly wrong as to amount to

an infraction of the United States Constitution may be

reviewed. A court has the inherent power to inquire into

the integrity of its own judgments and to set them aside

when fraud or corruption of its officers has been shown.5

“The court can consider this claim [of fraud] without the

’28 U.S.C.A. § 1257

2 U.S.—Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 4 L. Ed. 97, 1816 WL

1721 (1816).

J 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(a). Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian, 140

S. Ct. 1335 (2020).

4 U.S.—Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago, Local 753 v.

Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U.S. 287, 61 S. Ct. 552. 85 L. Ed. 836, 132 .

A.L.R. 1200 (1941);

5 Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Fox Theatres Corp., 182 F. Supp. 18,

38 (S.D. N.Y. 1960).

intervention of the movants as parties”6 The fact that there

are no adversary parties on the claim of fraud on the court

does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. Since the original

judgment, by hypothesis, must have been given in a “case

or controversy,” the court continues to have ancillary

jurisdiction to determine whether it has been the victim of

a fraud.7

Therefore, The Supreme Court of the United States had

ancillary jurisdiction over Supreme Court Cases: Bo Peng,

Petitioner v. F.M. Tarbell Co. Case No. 21-22 and Case No.

21-503.

"A judgment absolutely void upon its face may be

attacked anywhere, directly or collaterally, whenever it

presents itself, either by parties or strangers. It is simply a

nullity, and can be neither the basis nor evidence of any

right whatever. ..."8 "The only question for the court is

whether the judgment is void; if it is, relief from it should

be granted."9

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

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.

6 410 U.S. 919, 93 S. Ct. 1363, 35 L. Ed. 2d 582 (1973)

7 Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514, 521—

522 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948).

8 (Forbes v. Hyde, 31 Cal. 342, 347; )Texas Co. v. Bank of America

etc Assn., 5 Cal. 2d 35, 41 [53 P.2d 127].)

9 Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F. Supp. 799, 802 (D.S.C.1964)

Business and Professions Code provides, in part:

A real estate salesman cannot contract in his own name;

he can only be employed by a licensed real estate broker

(Bus. & Prof. Code, §10132); 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”.

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”10

Labor Code §98.2 provides, in part:

(a) Within 10 days after service of notice of an order,

decision, or award the parties may seek review by fifing an

appeal to the superior court, where the appeal shall be

heard de novo.11

(b) The employer shall provide written notification to the

other parties and the Labor Commissioner of the posting of

the undertaking.

Labor code §216 provides, in part:

In addition to any other penalty imposed by this article,

any person, or an agent, -manager, superintendent, or

officer thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor, who:

(a) Having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay

wages due and payable after demand has been made.

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

(Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1)

Hearing de novo: a new hearing of a matter, conducted as if the

original hearing had not taken place. (Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed

2019))

(b) Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that

the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his

employer or other person, any discount upon such

indebtedness, or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress,

hinder, delay, or defraud, the person to whom such

indebtedness is due.

Labor Code §226.8 provides, in part:.

(a) It is unlawful for any person or employer to engage in

any of the following activities:

(1) Willful misclassification of an individual as an

independent contractor.

(3) If the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or

a court issues a determination that a person or employer

has engaged in any of the enumerated violations of

subdivision

(a) and the person or employer has engaged in or is

engaging in a pattern or practice of these violations, the

person or employer shall be subject to a civil penalty of not

less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than

twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation, in

addition to any other penalties or fines permitted by law.

Penal Code 182 provides, in part:

(a) If two or more persons conspire:

(5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to

public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due

administration of the laws.

Penal Code 132 provides, in part:

Every person who upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or

investigation whatever, authorized or permitted by law,

offers in evidence, as genuine or true, any book, paper,

document, record, or other instrument in writing, knowing

the same to have been forged or fraudulently altered or

ante-dated, is guilty of felony.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Constitution and the Law has established that this

case is “the jury trial on the 5 claims, under Labor Code

§98.2 as the legal principle.”

,!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."12

Bo Peng is the employee of F.M. Tarbell Co.

and the independent contractor agreement

is illegal and void.

When Appellant Bo Peng joined F.M.Tarbell as a

licensed real estate salesman in 2015, knowing that

independent contractor agreement is contrary to the

express statute, Defendant F.M. Tarbell deliberately made

the signing of the independent contractor agreement as the

primary condition for joining the company. Defendant did

not give employees the opportunity to bargin, employees

had no choices but to sign it. However, when the

independent contractor agreement was entered into, it

violated express statutes and the policy of express statutes,

thus it is illegal contract. Such illegality voids the entire

independent contractor agreement and voids it forever, see

the following express statutes and case laws where

Independent Contractor Agreement is void and void forever.

“A real estate salesman cannot contract in his own name;

he can only be employed by a licensed real estate broker

(Bus. & Prof. Code, §10132); he cannot “be employed by . . .

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

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”

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”13

Contracts that are contrary to express statutes or to the

policy of express statutes are illegal contracts, and any such

illegality voids the entire contract.14

A contract illegal when entered into does not become

valid because of a change in the law making that type of

contract legal.15

Void contract is an absolute nullity from the contractual

aspect, the equivalent of no contract at all;16 is a contract

which cannot be validated by ratification or other act or

omission;17and is one which never had any legal existence

or effect, and such contract cannot in any manner have life

breathed into it.18

At the peak of Bo Peng’s career, that is, when Plaintiff

received rewards for two consecutive years and the increase

in the distribution of commission wages from 70% to 90%,

which occupied the interest of the company's management.

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

(Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1)

14 Green v. Mt. Diablo Hospital Dist., 207 Cal. App. 3d 63, 254 Cal.

Rptr. 689 (1st Dist. 1989).

15 Interinsurance Exchange of Auto Club of Southern Cal. v. Ohio

Cas. Ins. Co., 58 Cal. 2d 142, 23 Cal. Rptr.592, 373 P.2d 640 (1962);

16 Williston, Contracts 3d ed §15; 17 Am J2d Contr § 7

1717 Am J2d Contr § 7.

18 National Union Indemnity Co. v. Bruce Bros., Inc., 44 Ariz. 454, 38

P.2d 648, 652.

When Plaintiffs big deal went into the escrow, where deal

was signed by all parties and was the time to get plaintiffs

wage paid, Plaintiff suddenly received a text message of

discharge without cause from F.M. Tarbell Co.:“You have

been terminated from Tarbell Realtors” (See Trial Evidence

7). ”[s]trong evidence in support of an employment

relationship is the right to discharge at will, without

cause.'49 As matter of law and fact, Bo Peng, as a licensed

real estate salesman, is an employee of F.M. Tarbell Co.

This is untouchable and protected under the clause of equal

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

Wages are the property that employees depend on for

survival. According to the inalienable rights of property

guaranteed by the Constitution, in order to recover the

employer's intentional non-payment of wages of $28,268.01

for two property sales, Plaintiff reported F.M. Tarbell Co. to

the Labor commissioner. Tarbell hired a dishonest and

unethical attorney who violated the code of professional

conduct, deliberately lied to Labor Commissioner, and

wrote a letter full of lies to Labor commissioner. (B304763

1AA 181). The labor commissioner established this case,

conducted a hearing, Defendant's attorney and its

representatives participated in the hearing. In front of the

factual evidences, the defendant agreed to pay 50% of the

wages owed. The parties did not reach an agreement, and

finally the Labor commissioner gave the plaintiff a right to

action for a trial de novo in accordance with the Labor Code

§98.2 to the trial Court (Los Angeles County Superior court).

II.

The Constitution and Law have established

that the due process of law of this case is

“the jury trial on the 5 claims, under Labor

Code §98.2 as the legal principle”, which

governs the entire proceeding of this case.

19 S. G. Boreilo & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations

(1989.) 48 Cal.3d 341.)

On 2/13/19, Plaintiff filed the Lawsuit of “trial on the 5

claims, under labor code §98.2 as the legal principle”

(B304763 AA 008-020.) Labor Code §98.2 proceeding is a

trial de novo of the wage dispute between employer and

employee.20

Plaintiffs 5 claims against F.M. Tarbell Co. in the trial

court were:

1. Intentionally not paying wages, which is defined by

the Labor commissioner as wage theft and as a

crime.21

2. For the purpose of stealing employees’ wages,

discharge without cause in violation of public policy

is wrongful termination of employee, caused plaintiff

harm.

3. Willfully misclassify employee as independent

contractor, evading State and Federal taxes and

profiting from employee benefits.

4. Compensatory damages of economic and emotional

distress to plaintiff caused by defendant’s wage theft

and wrongful termination of employee.

5. Punitive damages for Defendant’s large amount of

illegal proceeds obtained through unlawful practice

pattern of wage theft, the wrongful termination of

employee, and misclassification.

The above is abbreviated as the 5 claims.

Based on the trial admitted defendant’s Evidence 500,

defendant:

1) fully admitted the relationship of employment

between two parties.

2) fully admitted Bo Peng was an employee of defendant

F.M. Tarbell Co.

3) fully admitted the facts that defendant F.M. Tarbell

Co. intentionally failed to pay Bo Peng wages in the amount

of $28,268.01.

20 See Labor Code §98.2(a)(b)

21 Labor code §216

The facts of this case are clear and the evidences are

conclusive. Defendant should be fully liable to the damages

to Plaintiff. Defendant felt it is impossible to win this case.

Defendant's President expressed his willingness to pay

$23,000 unpaid wages without paying the penalties at the

meeting with Plaintiff. (B304763 AA 537). No agreement

was reached. Plaintiff applied for a jury trial and jury trial

was granted, thus, the Constitution and the Law have

established that “the jury trial on the 5 claims, under Labor

Code §98.2 as the legal principle” is the due process of law

of this case, which governs the entire proceeding of this

case.

It is fundamental principle of American jurisprudence

that for every wrong there is a remedy, and that, unless

countered by public policy, an injured party should be

compensated for all damage proximately caused by the

wrongdoer,22 which is reflected in the statutory maxim that

for every wrong there is a remedy.23 Jury trial is an

impartial mechanism. Both of labor Code and jury trial

doomed the defendant’s defeat.

In particular, due to defendant’s willful misclassifying

the employee as independent contractor in order to evade

State and Federal taxes and profit from employee benefits,

it is inevitable that defendant will not only pay

compensatory damage, but also pay tens of millions of

government fines under labor code § 226.8 based on its

number of Tarbell's employees and years of operation.

III.

Defendant presented 4 unlawful objectives

against due process of law of this case.

In order to resist to pay damage compensation and huge

government fines and to reverse the defeat, defendant

22 Hernandez v. Mendoza, 199 Cal. App. 3d 721, 245 Cal. Rptr. 36

(2d Dist. 1988).

23 Civ. Code, § 3523.

presented the 4 unlawful objectives against due process of

this case:

1. Ordering the judge that the court must preclude

“emotional distress, lost wages, punitive damages”.

(B304763 AA 322,).

2. “This case must be taken from the jury and a

decision rendered on the written and admitted

evidence at trial.” (B304763 AA 318)

3. Turning a lawsuit impossible to win, into a win

4. Demanding $40,000 attorney fees (1AA 401).

In order accomplish its unlawful objectives, defendant

sought shortcuts by the means of a crime to corrupt the

Judges who posse judiciary power. Defendant used large

amount of illegal gains to influence and corrupt judges by

its attorney. However, “the briber may not be able to keep

the spoils of his corrupt decision.”24 The corrupt decision

may be reversed on appeal. So, defendant has to corrupt

two levels of the judges in the trial court and Justices of

court of appeal. Successfully corrupting a decision,

therefore, requires bribing two or more judges, which raises

the price of the bribe and the risk of being caught for both

the bribing party and the judges involved. For defendant,

the cost of corrupting the multiple judges with its illegal

gains, relative to the tens of millions dollars in government

fines is a small fraction or even compared with the

$4,500,000 settlement in a similar case,25 the expected

benefits of purchasing a corrupt decision are far greater

than the cost of corrupting multiple judges.

Defendant attorney engaged in the improper ex parte

communication with the judge. And the judge permitted

24 STRATOS PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like

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

1900, 1908

25 Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. B251588

and accepted improper ex parte communication which

showed that he can be induced and corrupted.

When defendants or litigants already have a low opinion

of the honesty of judges and the judicial process, they are

far more likely to resort to bribing court officials, lawyers

and judges to achieve their ends.26

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.27 Persons

with whom contact prohibited; applies to a judge or judicial

officer.28 Under the Due Process Clause, no one can be a

judge in his or her own case, and no one is permitted to try

cases where he or she has an interest in the outcome.29

Even a minuscule financial interest in a case is ground for

disqualification.30

The bribery of judges has a direct impact on the very

essence of the judicial function, which is to deliver an

independent, fair and impartial decision. The consequence

is unfairness and unpredictability in the legal process from

start to finish, and a systematic undermining of the rule of

law.31

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.32

TI GLOBAL CORRUPTION REPORT 2007. Comparative analysis

of judicial corruption xxiv

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

Rptr. 3d 796 (2d Dist.

2018).

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

29 Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899; 195 L. Ed. 2d 132

(2016).

28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4). Other provisions of section 455 set out

additional grounds for disqualification.

^ TI, Global Corruption Report 2007 supra P62

STRATOS PAHIS, supra, at P1924

IV.

Under Shelter of Justice Hoffstadt, Judge

Moreton, declined to try this case with due

process of law of this case, but tried this

case with 4 unlawful objectives, made the

judgment using CCP §631.8 that violates due

process of Labor Code §98.2 and had no

jurisdiction, accomplished defendant’s first

3 unlawful objectives.

A. Judge Moreton unlawfully used his judicial position

to grant defendant immunity for unlawful acts to

accomplish defendant’s 1st unlawful objective

The due process of this case is “the jury trial on the 5

claims, under Labor Code §98.2 as the legal principle”

First of all, without entering the jury trial and even

without the motion, Judge Moreton unlawfully used

government power to let the defendant to unilaterally draft

an order to exempt the defendant itself from all penalties,

that is, precludes any claims by Plaintiff of punitive

damages, emotional distress, lost wages or ancillary claims

against Tarbell”. Judge Moreton is highly partial to

defendant because Judges have no authority to grant

immunity for unlawful acts.33

To remain consistent with his void order, Judge Moreton

also ordered the plaintiff not to make claims or face

sanctions of $500. Unjust Judge Moreton used the court as

an unjust instrument, abused his position, unlawfully

granted the defendant immunity for unlawful and criminal

acts, violated the plaintiffs fundamental Constitutional

rights to the action and to claims.

Judge Moreton did accomplish the defendant's 1st

unlawful objective; he precluded all the penalties against

Defendant; and he gained the defendant's trust. The very

33 S.D.—Wipf v. Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 2013 SD 49

834 N.W.2d 324 (S.D. 2013)

SMOTOaWI»SfeV1r,8

objectives.311^

°fposing unpaid wages

Pre88nted

m0re

Judge Moreton’s void order was clearly made

in violation

oi due process, without jurisdiction, with unlawful use of

government power to grant defendant immunity for

unlawful and criminal acts, being highly partial to

constitutfonaf f 'T*™ T^’ “ violation of Pontiffs

onstitutionai fundamental rights to action and rights to

claims, with usurpation of jurisdiction of jury, with judicial

oppression to plaintiff and m violation of L process'cW

and equal protection clause of 14th Amend

ment to the U.S.

n^“°n and llmitations on state government power

ue to above reasons, plaintiff immediately filed a petition

for writ of mandate to the appellate court, but shockingly

the petition was unjustly denied by Justice Hoffstadt

which showed Justice Hoffstadt fully affirmed m full and

Hoffstadf

This was evidenced m Jus£

and s”pport for Judge M°retm

B. Under the shelter of Justice Hoffstadt , Judge

Moreton arbitrarily denied the jury trial which is the due

JudffiSMf l?1S CaS6’ Chan§6d the12 jur°rS Jury trial t0 1

unlawfiJ1' W °y

tna1, accomPllshed defendant’s 2nd

unlawful objective and paved the way for corruption

emboldened*

***

more disregarding for the laws,

unjustified imposed $500

uu sanctions on plaintiff without due

process, fabricated

tlda^ re"aPPhcation, committed

fraud lpon the court, denied the constitutionals entitled

obipofiv^1, a^C0™phshed the defendant's second" unlawful

ve, and changed 12 jurors jury trial to a court trial

presided over by him alone.

Jury trial is the due process of this case “Everv

constitutional provision is self-executing to the extenf that

everything done in violation of it is void.”34 Accordingly,

Judge Moreton’s order denying the jury trial is void.

C. Judge Moreton conducted the unfair court trial using

CCP §631.8 judicial process that violates due process of

Labor Code §98.2 and has no jurisdiction, made the void

judgment, accomplished defendant’s 3rd unlawful objectives,

deprived Plaintiff of his wage property $28,268.01.

In the court order publishing the evidences, it was found

that the plaintiffs evidences were extensively tampered

with by the defendant's attorney, resulted that the value of

the evidences has been diminished, The defendant violated

the Penal code 132, which required to go to prison for one to

three years. The Ninth Circuit has declared that reversal is

u ( «

once it is established that false

virtually automatic

evidence was introduced.

Judge Moreton disregarded the law, after denial of the

constitutionally entitled jury trial, continued the unfair

court trial with CCP §631.8 judicial process. Because the

limit of Labor Code §98.2, the court has no jurisdiction over

CCP §631.8. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction means an

entire absence of power to hear or determine the case.36

Without jurisdiction, Judge Moreton could not hear or

determine.

The Constitution and the Law have established that the

due process of law of this case, which governs the entire

proceeding of this case. Using CCP §631.8 judicial process,

in violation of due process, without jurisdiction and

committing the fraud upon the court, Judge Moreton

unlawfully used government power, based on the void

independent contractor agreement, to make the void

judgment that a licensed real estate salesman is an

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

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

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

36 People v. Superior Court (Marks), 1 Cal. 4th 56, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d

389, 820 P.2d 613 (1991)

independent contractor who was not entitled to the

$28,268.01 wage property owed, defendant was the

prevailing party in this case.

Obviously, Judge Moreton’s judgment is denying the

equal protection of laws and depriving Plaintiff of his

$28,268.01 wage property37 without due process, being

highly partial to defendant and 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.”38 Accordingly, Judge Moreton’s

judgment is void.

Judge

Linfield

was

influenced

and

controlled by Judge Moreton, not controlled

by the law and continued to accomplish the

defendant’s unlawful objectives of obtaining

the attorney’s fees

The proceeding after Judge Moreton’s void judgment is

worthless. “A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment:

no rights are acquired or divested by it, it neither binds nor

bars any one, and all proceedings founded upon it are

worthless.39

However, Judge Linfield is the successor of Judge

Moreton who accepted corruption; he has publicly and

repeatedly stressed that if Judge Moreton is wrong, he is

wrong; if Judge Moreton is right, he is right (B307484 AA

136, 225), and voluntarily tied up to Judge Moreton who

accepted corruption, which showed Judge Linfield is

influenced or controlled by Judge Moreton, not by LAW,

which manifested that Judge Linfield was also a member of

j7 Court have found a sufficient property interest to trigger application of the

due process clause: Wages. Sniadach v Familv Finance Corp of Bay View (1969)

395 U.S. 337

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

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

OC Interior Services, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 7 Cal.

App. 5th 1318, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 395 (4th Dist. 2017);

the multi-judge corruption ring. Judge Linfield conspired

with defendant to fabricate Civil Code §1717 contract

action and the prevailing party of the contract action, both

of which did not exist in the record of this case, to commit

fraud upon the court to accomplish defendant’s 4th unlawful

objectives, that is, obtaining attorney’s fees; he made void

orders and amended judgments, deprived the plaintiff of his

wage property in the amount of $73,639.03 in the form of

granting defendant attorney's fees and costs by his

arbitrary power, conspired with defendant to place a lien40

on plaintiffs real property, was highly partial to defendant,

served for defendant's interests, was unable to remain

impartial, and violated the due process clause and equal

protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Federal

Constitution.

Due to the shelter of Justice Hoffstadt, Judge Linfield is

emboldened, became more disregarding for the laws, used

the same method violative to the 14th Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution, to repeatedly commit fraud upon the

court, to arbitrarily increase defendant attorney’s fees

amount, to make void orders awarding defendant

undeserved attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of

$65,038.3, to serve the interests of defendant, and to

engage in the corruption.

VI.

The declaration of the defendant's attorney

exposed the inside story that Justice

Hoffstadt united trial judges, conspired with

defendant to engage unlawful operation.

Their scheme to defraud the court is: the defendant's

attorney unlawfully submitted the void independent

40 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)

contractor agreement to the court, the trial court judges

unlawfully treated it as valid to use and make the void

judgment, and Justice Hoffstadt unlawfully determined

the void independent contractor agreement as valid, and

affirmed the void judgment as valid to form the unjust

"law of the case", to complete defendant's unlawful

objectives and finally secure defendant to evade tens of

millions of dollars in government fines.

The independent contractor agreement entered on 2015

had been contrary to express statute, that is, Business and

Professions Code 10132 et seq, the independent contractor

agreement is illegal contract and thus it is void, and forever

void.

Justice Hoffstadt united trial Judges, conspired with

Defendant to use the void independent contractor

agreement as the basis for their judgments, opinions and

orders. The void contract is an absolute nullity from the

contractual aspect. The equivalent of no contract at all;41

Void contract is a contract which cannot be validated by

ratification or other act or omission. 42 Therefore the

judgments, opinions and orders founded on the void

independent contractor are all void. ;

The scheme to defraud the court, that Justice Hoffstadt

united, trial Judges and conspired with defendant was

exposed by defendant attorney Griffin’s following

declaration:

A true and correct copy of the original Independent

Contractor Agreement maintained in the course and scope

of business operations, and personally copied from the

original file in the custody of Tarbell which is signed by

Plaintiff in connection with the transaction at issue in the

Plaintiffs Complaint, and admitted into evidence at trial,

and upheld as valid and binding on appeal is hereby

41 Williston, Contracts 3d ed § 15; 17 Am J2d Contr § 7.

42 17 Am J2d Contr § 7

attached as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein by this

reference. It is now law of the case that the independent

contractor is valid and provides for the award of attorneys

Beniami^K C

“ thlS matter-” (see d**Wion of

0n Page 9'10 0f Motion for Attorney

J^ees hied by defendant on 09/21/2021)

N°t oniy did judges who accepted corruption, refuse to

disqualify themselves, but also formed the air tight multi

judge corruption nng« and united to disobey and resist to

follow the due process of Law of this case, that is, “the jury

tnal on the 5 claims, under labor code §98.2 as the legal

principle”, to circumvent the judgment of due process, to

unlawfully

use . government power to reverse the legal

. ^

status of Plaintiff and Defendant, to try this case according

to the defendant’s unlawful objectives, and knowingly

treated the void independent contractor agreement as valid

to defraud the court and to deny the equal protection of the

laws.

The law says: 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

44 No court or tribunal can acquire

. . Constitution".

. .

jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it.45In particular, the

jurisdiction of a subject matter over which a court has

otherwise no jurisdiction cannot be conferred by motion46,

contract.47

* See STRATOS PAHIS, supra, P 1931 [The incidence of multijudge

corruption schemes is also Noteworthy]

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

200

45 In re Madera Irrigation District, 92 Cal. 296, 28 P. 272 (1891):

Mannix v. Superior Court of Sacramento County. 133 Cal Apt) 740 24

P.2d 507 (3d Dist. 1933).

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

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

1940)

Judge Moreton used CCP §631.8 oral motion to usurp

the jurisdiction not given by labor code §98.2 to make the

void judgment; Judge Linfield used the contract to usurp

the jurisdiction not given by labor code §98.2 to make the

void amended judgment and the void orders; and Justice

Hofstadter usurped the jurisdiction by assertion to affirm

Judge Moreton’s void judgment and affirm Judge Linfield’s

void amended judgment and void orders. “Where

jurisdiction is absent, i. e., where officials exercise powers

which have not been conferred upon them, they cease to be

agents of the people, and become usurpers. It is peculiarly

true of the courts, whose function it is to interpret laws.”48

Their actions constitute the treason to the Constitution.

“Every constitutional provision is self-executing to the

extent that everything done in violation of it is void.”49

Accordingly, their judgments are void.

"The only question for the court is whether the judgment

is void: if it is, relief from it should be granted."50

VIL

Justice Hoffstadt, in violation of due process

and

without

jurisdiction,

unlawfully

diverted this case to himself to try,

unlawfully used government power to

affirm in full Judge Moreton’s void

judgment as valid, to affirm Judge Linfield’s

void amended judgment and void orders as

valid, and to blatantly violate the 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

State ex rel. Lofthus v. Langer, 46 N.D. 462,177 N.W. 408 (1920)

49 Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 127 Cal.

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

50 Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F. Supp. 799, 802 (D.S.C.1964)

A. Justice Hoffstadt from Division 2 unlawfully diverted

this case which had been tried in Division 1 for

almost half a year, to himself to try.

The first appeal of this case, being randomly assigned to

Division 1, had been tried by Division one for almost half a

year, especially Division 1 has made ruling on it. The due

process is that “Once a case is assigned to a particular

division, it cannot be reassigned except by order of the

supreme court or, in some instances, by the presiding judge

of the appellate division.”51

However, without the order of the California Supreme

Court or presiding justice of Division 1, Justice Hoffstadt

from division 2 unlawfully diverted this case from Division

1 to himself for try because case law from Division 1 is

contrary to his desired outcome.

The case law from Division 1 is 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 being contrary to the

law ”<Resnik v. Anderson & Miles (1980) 109 Cal. App. 3d

570, 573, (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1)

Justice Hoffstadt’s opinions made the real estate

salesman as independent contractor, made the void

independent contractor agreement as valid, both of which

are contrary to the case law of Division 1.

“Where jurisdiction is absent, i. e., where officials

exercise powers which have not been conferred upon them,

they cease to be agents of the people, and become usurpers.

It is peculiarly true of the courts, whose function it is to

interpret laws.”5^ Apparently, Justice Hoffstadt did usurp

the jurisdiction of Division 1 by unlawfully diverting this

case from Division 1 to himself to try and he is usurper.

51 California Civil Appellate Practice §1.28, (Cal Rules of Ct 10.1000) CEB

OnLAW

52 State ex rel. Lofthus v. Langer, 46 N.D. 462,177 N.W. 408 (1920)

Knowing that unlawful diverting this case from Division

1, who had tried this case for almost half a year, to himself

to try, is obstruction of justice, Justice Hoffstadt made the

statement in his third appeal opinion that this transfer

was performed by the Administrative Presiding Justice.

If Justice Hoffstadt £s statement is true, it is a serious

issue because. the administrative presiding justice is the

presiding Justice on the decision denying the appellant’s

petition for writ of mandate, Justice Hoffstadt also had his

signature on it, both of them are close related. According to

the law, it violated Penal Code 182 (a)(5), that is, if two or

more persons conspire to commit any act injurious to the

public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct

justice, or the due administration of the laws.

If Justice Hoffstadt ‘s statement is not true. Then it is his

fraud upon the court to blame the obstruction of justice on

the Administrative Presiding Justice.

B. After usurping jurisdiction of this case, Justice

Hoffstadt, under color of law, acted in a manner

violative to the U.S. Constitution, and disregarded

the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment,

unlawfully used government power to make unlawful

affirmance, was highly partial to defendant, was

unable to remain impartial and served for the

interests of Defendant by depriving appellant of his

wage property without due process.

According to Law, Justice Hoffstadt has no authority to

affirm void judgments. His full “affirmance of a void

judgment upon appeal imparts no validity to the judgment,

but is itself void by reason of the nullhy of the judgment

appealed from/’53 A void judgment is not rendered valid by

a mere affirmance on appeal.54

5j Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633

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

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

However, Justice Hoffstadt unlawfully used government

power to be above the law, acted in a manner violative to

the U.S. Constitution;

1) His first appeal opinion that he unlawfully affirmed in

full Moreton’s void judgment as valid, deprived appellant of

his wage in the amount of $28,268.01 without due process.

2) His second appeal opinion that he unlawfully affirmed

in full Judge Linfield’s void order and the void amended

judgment as valid, deprived appellant of his wage property

in the amount of $73,639.03 without due process through

awarding defendant’s undeserved attorney’s fees and costs,

and placed lien to appellant real property.

3)His third appeal opinion that he unlawfully partially

affirmed Judge Linfield’s void orders as valid, deprived

appellant of his wage property in amount of $26,489.30

without due process through awarding partial defendant’s

undeserved attorney’s fees and costs.

According to the law, “Void judgment is One which, from

its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null,

without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support

a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable

of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner

or to any degree.”55 Justice Hoffstadt's third opinion in

partial affirmance and ratification of the void judgment is

also void. Defendant should not be awarded to any

attorney’s fees and costs.^Therefore, Justice Hoffstadt’s

third opinion is void too.

Justice Hoffstadt used the change of the amount granting

attorney’s fees, that is, to defraud the court to cover up void

judgment made in violation of due process, without

jurisdiction and in fraud on the court.

Justice Hoffstadt ‘s 3 void opinions, made without due

process, without jurisdiction and through fraud upon the

court, deprived appellant of his wage property total in the

55 Black's law dictionary, revised fourth edition, Void judgment

amount of $128,396.34 which is financially devastating to

appellant.

C. Justice Hoffstadt personally fabricated different

judicial processes, which are nonexistent in this case

and suitable to accomplish the Defendant’s unlawful

objectives, committed fraud upon the court, and

made corrupt judicial decisions so that defendant can

buy the judicial decision favorable to defendant, and

finally secured defendant to evade tens of millions

dollars in government fines.

1. Justice Hoffstadt personally fabricated different

judicial processes to commit fraud upon the court,

and made opinions founded on them to finally

complete the defendant’s unlawful objectives.

In the first appeal, by fabricating CCP 581c jury trial

judicial process to defraud the court, Justice Hoffstadt

affirmed in full and supported that Judge Moreton denied

the constitutionally entitled jury trial, which showed that

he united with Judge Moreton to prevent the orderly

administration of law and justice, which constitutes

obstruction of justice.56

In the 2nd appeal, by fabricating contract action in labor

commissioner to defraud the court, Justice Hoffstadt

supported Judge Linfield and defendant’s conspiracy to

defraud the court through fabricating Civil Code §1717

contract action to make the void order and the void

amended judgment, which showed that he united Judge

Linfield to jointly complete the defendant's unlawful

objective obtaining attorney's fees and costs.

In the 3rd appeal, through his false statement, Justice

Hoffstadt fabricated “Tarbell established its prima facie

case,” which is non-existent in the record of this case, to

defraud the court, intentionally reversed the legal status of

'6 Black’s Law Dictionary (I 1th ed. 20I9X obstruction ofjustice

plaintiff and defendant, circumvented the judgment of due

process, continued to use the non-existent Civil Code §1717

contract action to defraud the court, and without due

process, once again deprived appellant of his wages in the

amount of $26,489.30 in the form of awarding defendant’s

attorney’s fees and costs, and violated the 14th Amendment

of the Federal Constitution; which resulted in the lack of

impartial judges in these 3 appeal.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that

the lack of an impartial judge is violative of the due process

clause of the fourteenth amendment.57

2. In his fabricated judiciary processes, he

arbitrarily tampered with Law and tampered

with judgment.

1) In order to accomplish defendant’s unlawful objectives,

Justice Hoffstadt violated the separation of powers to

rewrite Labor Code §98.2.

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, neither the

trial courts nor the appellate courts are authorized to

"review" legislative determinations.58

Justice Hoffstadt has no authority to rewrite Labor code

§98.2 from trial de novo 59to “appeal de novo” in his three

opinions, has no authority to change the wage dispute

between employee and employer,60 has no authority to

change parties’ employment relationship and has no

authority to overturn the labor code §98.2 legislation.

2) Justice Hoffstadt committed fraud upon the

court by tampering the judgment

In the third appeal, Justice Hoffstadt made false

57 See, e.g., Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986);

58 Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal. 2d 453. 202 P.2d 38. 7 A.L.R.2d

990(1949).

59 See labor code §98.2 (a)

60 See labor code §98.2 (b)

statement that “In the first appeal, we affirmed a judgment

concluding that a real estate agent who fell outside of the

statutory definition of an “employee” was not entitled to

unpaid wages under the Labor Code.

In fact, there is no statutory definition of “employee”

under the Labor Code. Justice Hoffstadt blatantly used his

opinion to replace the labor code, committed fraud upon the

court by his own falsifying record in his opinion, covered up

the void judgment made by CCP §631.8 which violated due

process of labor code §98.2 and has no jurisdiction. That he

continuously and repeatedly defrauded the court, made his

opinion void. “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into

which it enters.”61

D. Justice Hoffstadt knew that falsifying record is a crime

and conspiracy with defendant to obstruct justice is

unlawful and a crime62, and sought immunity."

Justice Hoffstadt, knowing that he had falsified records

and fabricated different judicial process, knowing that

FALSIFYING A RECORD is A high offense against public

justice, punishable in England63 and in the United States,

generally, by statute.64, generally, by statute, Knowing

that it is often asserted (usually as dictum) that a judicial

officer has complete immunity only when the officer acts

within his or her jurisdiction, and that liability may be

imposed for acts in excess of jurisdiction65, he brought the

“abuse of discretion” and sought immunity. He even

shifted the blame to others by falsely claiming that

standard of review of “abuse of discretion” was filed by the

appellant. Obviously, Justice Hoffstadt constantly and

61 Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426 440

62 See Penal Code 182 (a) (5)

63 24 & 25 Viet. c. 98, §§27,28,

64 See U. S. Rev.Stat. § 5394, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1506.

65 (See Franklin v. Municipal Court (1972) 26 C.A.3d 884, 898, 103 C R

354; 47 Cal. L. Rev. 3 14.)

repeatedly defrauded the court, which showed extreme

dishonesty.

No official records show that plaintiff filed the standard

of review of uabuse of discretion . However, Justice

Hoffstadt reviewed the third appeal with his own assertion

of “abuse of discretion” to cover up that neither Judge

Linfield, nor himself has jurisdiction over the contract

action in this case, and to cover up that judgments and

opinions made without jurisdiction are void. Lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction means an entire absence of

power to hear or determine the case.66 “Fraud destroys the

validity of everything into which it enters. 67

U.S. Supreme Court had inherent power to protect the

sanctity of the judicial process— to combat those who would

dare to practice unmitigated fraud upon the court itself.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

U.S. Supreme Court not only had the

responsibility, but also the duty to enforce

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The freedom secured by the United States Constitution

consists in one of its essential dimensions, of the

fundamental right of the individual not to be injured by the

unlawful exercise of governmental power.68 Fundamental

rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution

include freedom from the deprivation of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law69

Court has found a sufficient property interest to trigger

application of the due process clause: Wages,70 Lien.71

66 People v. Superior Court (Marks), 1 Cal. 4th 56, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d

389, 820 P.2d 613 (1991)

67 Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426 440

68 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015).

6916A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 412

70 Sniadach v Family Finance Corp of Bay View (1969) 395 U.S. 337

Certain fundamental constitutional rights, like the

guarantees that all citizens enjoy equal protection of the

laws and due process of law, are not structural limitations

on government power but they are rights given to

individual citizens which limit governmental power

generally, and, as such, these rights accrue to individual

citizens.72 An individual can invoke a right to constitutional

protection when harmed.73

The 14th Amendment does not apply to the federal

government74 but is directed at state action,75encompassing

the conduct of state government officials,76 whether high or

low,77 or legislative, executive, or judicial.78

The touchstone of due process is protection of the

individual against arbitrary actions of the government.79

The cornerstone of due process is the prevention of abusive

governmental power,80 The government is forbidden by the

fundamental law to take either life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, and its courts are included in

the prohibition.81

The Constitution and Law have established that “the

jury trial on the 5 claims, under labor code §98.2 as the

71 Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 111 S. Ct. 2105, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1

(1991)

72 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of

Southern California, 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 346 (1st

Dist. 2017), as modified on other grounds on denial of reh'g, (July 18,

2017).

73 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015).

74 Life Savers Concepts Association of California v. Wynar, 387 F.

Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2019);

75 Jarvis v. Village Gun Shop, Inc., 805 F.3d 1 (1st Cxr. 2015);

76 Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended on

other grounds (Jan. 9, 2019).

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

78 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401, 3 L. Ed. 2d 5, 3 L. Ed. 2d 19,

79 Ohio L. Abs. 452, 79 Ohio L. Abs. 462 (1958).

79 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974);

Weimer v. Amen, 870 F.2d 1400 (8th Cir. 1989).

Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1949)

legal principle” is the due process of law of this case, which

governs the entire proceeding of this case.

Justice Hoffstadt united trial judges, declined due

process of this case of “the Jury trial on the 5 claims, under

labor code §98.2”, circumvented judgment of due process,

unlawfully used government power to reverse the legal

status of Plaintiff and Defendant, tried this case according

to the defendant’s unlawful objectives, and knowingly

treated the void independent contractor agreement as valid

to defraud the court and to deny the equal protection of the

laws. Judge Moreton conspired with Defendant to use CCP

§631.8 judicial process that violated due process and had no

jurisdiction, to render a void judgment to achieve the

defendant's unlawful objectives and deprived appellant of

$28,268.01 in wages. Judge Linfield conspired with

Defendant to defraud the court through fabricating judicial

process of Civil Code §1717 contract action, made the void

amended judgment granting Defendant attorneys fees and

costs, twice depriving the appellant of total $100,128.33 in

wage property and adding Lien to appellant s real property.

In order to control the outcome of this case, Justice

Hoffstadt unlawfully diverted this case to himself for try;

personally fabricated different judicial processes in his

opinions; practiced unmitigated fraud upon the court itself;

unlawfully affirmed that Judge Moreton's void judgment

was valid; unlawfully affirmed that Judge Linfield's void

amended judgment and void orders were valid; and finally

secured defendant to evade tens of millions dollars in

government fines. Judges involved in this case are highly

partial to Defendant, this case lacked impartial judges.

The phrase “under color of law” was intended to cover

illegal activity of state officers.82

An individual can invoke a right to constitutional

82 See Monroe v. Pape(1961) 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 484, 5

L.Ed.2d 492, 505,

protection when harmed.83 Supreme court has the duty and

responsibility to protect American citizen from depriving

the property without due process of law.

There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount

authority of the Federal Constitution. When there is a

substantial showing that the exertion of state power has

overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the

subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an

appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals

charged with the transgression.”84

After an appeal to the highest state court, if the issue

involves the Federal Constitution, plaintiff may appeal

directly to the United States Supreme Court, since no

further review is available to him or her within the state.

The usual method of review of a lower court's

determination of a constitutional issue is by appeal, and

other forms of review are not ordinarily available where an

appeal may be taken.85

The enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by

the constitution is generally against state action and a

state actor,86 meaning that the government is responsible,87

not private parties.88 So U.S. Supreme Court has the

responsibility to enforce the 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full

authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the

Constitution.”89 The Supreme Court should not decline the

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015).

84 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,249

85 Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal. 2d

460, 171 P.2d 8 (1946).

Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921,204

L. Ed. 2d 405 (2019);

87 Peery v. Chicago Housing Authority, 791 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2015).

88 Grogan v. Blooming Grove Volunteer Ambulance Corps, 768 F.3d 259 (2d

Cir. 2014);

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

exercise of its jurisdiction if this will result in the denial of

important constitutional rights.90 The petition for a writ of

certiorari should be granted.

U.S. Supreme Court had inherent power to

protect the sanctity of the judicial process—

to combat those who would dare to practice

unmitigated fraud upon the court itself.

“The spirit of the ‘fraud on the court’ rule is applicable

whenever the integrity of the judicial process or functioning

has been undercut—certainly in any instance, of

misconduct by a party.”91 A clear example is the corruption

of judicial officers.”92 The cases in which it has been found

that there was, or might have been, a “fraud upon the

court,” for the most part, have been cases in which there

was “the most egregious conduct involving a corruption of

the judicial process itself.”93 The concept clearly includes

bribery of a judge94 or the employment of counsel in order

to bring an improper influence on the court.95 In these

circumstances, judges cannot perform in the usual manner

their impartial task of adjudging the cases before them.96

II.

In the first appeal, by fabricating CCP 581c jury trial

judicial process to defraud the court, Justice Hoffstadt

affirmed in full and supported that Judge Moreton denied

the constitutionally entitled jury trial

In the 2nd appeal, by fabricating contract action in labor

90 Rogers v. State of Alabama, 192 U.S. 226, 24 S. Ct. 257, 48 L. Ed.

417 (1904).

91 Greater Boston Television Corp. v. F.C.C., 463 F.2d 268, 278 (D.C.

Cir. 1971).

92 Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 466 F.2d 714, 717 (10th Cir. 1972).

93 Corruption of judicial process Lockwood v. Bowles, 46 F.R.D. 625,

632 (D. D.C. 1969).

94 Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514,525-535

(C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948).

95 Id

Fraud on the Court, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2870 (3d ed.)

commissioner to defraud the court, Justice Hoffstadt

supported Judge Linfield and defendant’s conspiracy to

defraud the court through fabricating Civil Code §1717

contract action to make the void orders and the void

amended judgment.

In the 3rd appeal, through his false statement, Justice

Hoffstadt fabricated “Tarbell established its prima facie

case,” which is non-existent in the record of this case, to

defraud the court, intentionally reversed the legal status of

plaintiff and defendant, circumvented the judgment of due

process, continued to use the non-existent Civil Code §1717

contract action to defraud the court.

If by fraud and misconduct one has gained an unfair

advantage in proceedings at law, whereby the court has

been made an instrument of injustice, equity will interfere

to prevent him from reaping the benefit of the advantage

thus unfairly gained.'"97

If the judge himself is a party to the fraud, the ground for

interference is especially strong and such a case it need not

be shown that he intentionally did wrong.98

“No fraud is more odious than an attempt to subvert the

administration of justice.”99

All in all, we find it surpassingly difficult to conceive of a

more appropriate use of a court’s inherent power than to

protect the sanctity of the judicial process— to combat

those who would dare to practice unmitigated fraud upon

the court itself. To deny the existence of such power would,

we think, foster the very impotency against which the

Hazel-Atlas Court specifically warned.100

III.

Justice Hoffstadt’s opinion are not uniform

with judgment of Supreme Court, other

57 CONE v. HARRIS (1924) OK 1004 230 P. 721

98 Cone v. Harris supra 723

99 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 251

(1944)

100

Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1119 (1st Cir. 1989)

federal circuit court and other states

Supreme Court.

A. Justice Hoffstadt made the void independent

contractor agreement as valid, which is contrary to

the judgment made in the Supreme Court and

Arizona Supreme court.

Justice Hoffstadt, acted under a state law in a manner

violative of the Federal Constitution to find the void

independent contractor agreement as valid, violated equal

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

Constitution because Justice Hoffstadt’s judgment is

conflict with Arizona Supreme court judgment and

authority of this court.

In Hannay v. Eve, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 242 [2 L.Ed. 427],

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, held

that a contract, violative of war regulations when made,

could not form the basis of an action brought after the

repeal of those regulations.

Void contract" is one which never had any legal

existence or effect, and such contract cannot in any manner

have life breathed into it.” National Union Indem. Co. v.

Bruce Bros, 44 Ariz. 454, 455 (Ariz. 1934) it National

Union Indem. Co. v. Bruce Bros 44 Ariz. 454 455 Ariz. 1934

B. Justice Hoffstadt affirmed in full the judgment

founded on false evidences, contrary to Ninth

Circuit's judgment that reversal is virtually

automatic once it is established that false evidence

was introduced.

In the court order publishing the evidences, it was found

that the plaintiff's evidences were extensively tampered

with by the defendant's attorney, resulted that the value of

the evidences has been diminished, The defendant attorney

committed felony prescribed by Penal code 132, which

required to go to prison for one to three years. Justice

Hoffstadt not only did not reverse the judgment, but also

affirmed the judgment in full, deprived appellant wage

property $28,268.01 on the basis of the judgment founded

on the false evidences, and determined tampering with

evidence as “re-labeling” in his appeal opinion to secure

impunity for defendant, which is contrary to Penal Code

132 and Ninth Circuit’s judgment, that is, Ninth Circuit

has declared that reversal is “ ‘ “ virtually automatic ” i v

once it is established that false evidence was introduced. 10i

“To make the Constitution and laws of the United States

uniform, and the same in every State, and to guard against

evils which would inevitably arise from conflicting opinions

between the courts of a State and of the United States, if

there was no common arbiter authorized to decide between

them. 102 Fundamental rights guaranteed by the United

States Constitution include freedom from the deprivation of

life, liberty, or property without due process of law. ’•>103 THIS

COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI “

CONCLUSION

This corrected petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted,.

77-^

Bo Peng

Petitioner/Appellant

Date:

4/25/23

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

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

103

16A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 412

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.