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

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

JUL 2 1 2023

Bo Peng,

Petitioner

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

v.

F.M. Tarbell Co.

Respondent

On Petition For A Rehearing Of The Order Denying The

Petition For The Writ Of Certiorari TO The 2nd Appellate

District Of California Court Of Appeal

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Bo Peng

Pro Per

2332 Crystal Pointe

Chino Hills, CA, 91709

951-423-0594

RECEIVED

JUL 2 5 2023

SiPREECIOURfiR.1`.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ii

REASONS FOR REHEARING

1

Justice Hoffstadt committed obstruction of justice,

violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution

1

Justice Hoffstadt was highly partial to defendant

and enabled impunity for defendant

8

Justice Hoffstadt conspired with defendant to

execute the evil scheme and violated the Penal

Code §132

9

Driven by corruption, Justice Hoffstadt

overturned due process and executed judicial

tyranny

10

CONCLUSION

12

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

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

15

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

126, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 127

10

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

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

8

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

5

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

149 U.S. 200

6

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

14

Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 328 (1828)

7

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

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

12

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

11

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

5

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

(2d Dist. 1940)

5

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

Ariz. 454,

13

People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 161, 30 P. 620 (1883)10

People v. Powell, 5 Cal. 5th 921, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316,

11

422 P.3d 973 (Cal. 2018)

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

4

573, Second District Division 1)

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

SD 49,

9

STRATOS PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It

Looks Like

7

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

935 (1974)

13

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

132 (2016).

5

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L.

13

Ed. 2d 935 (1974)

iii

Statutes

Business and Professional Code §10132 et seq.

CCP §631.8

Labor Code §98.2

Penal code §132

12

5

5, 7

11

Other Authorities

Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), obstruction of

justice

5

Elizabeth M. Iglesias, U.C. Davis Journal of

International Law

12

STRATOS PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It

Looks Like and Where It Is Hidden (2009) 118 THE

YALE LAW JOURNAL 1900, 1923-1924

7

STRATOS PAHIS, supra, at P1924

8

TI, Global Corruption Report 2007 supra P62

7

Williston, Contracts 3d ed §15; 17 Am J2d Contr § 7... 13

Rules

Rule 44.2 of this Court

1

Treatises

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

5

1

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Pursuant to Rule 44.2 of this Court, Petitioner Bo

Peng, respectfully petitions for a rehearing of the order

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

Appellate District Of California Court of Appeal."

REASONS FOR REHEARING

A. Justice Hoffstadt committed obstruction

of justice, violated the 14th Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution

The first appeal of this case was randomly assigned

to Division 1, and has been tried for nearly half a year

by division 1 that had the jurisdiction. The case law

established by Division 1 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" indicated that real estate salesman Bo Peng is

an employee of broker employer, F.M. Tarbell and

Independent contractor agreement is void.

Discovering that the outcome of this case was not the

result he desired, Justice Hoffstadt of division 2,

overturning the fairness mechanism of random case

assignment, usurped the jurisdiction of Division 1 and

unlawfully diverted this case that had been tried in the

Division 1 for nearly half a year to himself to try,

controlling the outcome of this case, indicating that he

had an economic interest in the outcome of this case.

"Under the Due Process Clause, no one can be a judge in

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

Second District Division 1)

2

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

where he or she has an interest in the outcome."2

However, Justice Hoffstadt unlawfully used

government power to overturn due process, not only did

he not withdraw from this case, but also further

controlled the three appeals firmly in his hands, making

opinions that "a licensed real estate salesman is an

independent contractor and independent contractor

agreement is valid", which is completely contrary to the

case law of Division 1, which constitutes obstruction of

justice, that is, "Interference with the orderly

administration of law and justice."3

After usurping the jurisdiction of Division 1, Justice

Hoffstadt unlawfully used his governmental power,

refused and did not follow the due process of the

Constitution and the Law's established "the jury trial

for the 5 claims, under Labor Code §98.2 as the legal

principle", to try. Since "Judgment reached without due

process of law is without jurisdiction and void,"4 there is

no prevailing party in the case and there is no legal

basis of granting attorneys fees and costs. In particular,

the jurisdiction of a subject matter over which a court

has otherwise no jurisdiction cannot be conferred by

motion 5 , contract. 6 Justice Hoffstadt declined the

jurisdiction conferred on him by Labor Code §98.2 and

through motion of CCP §631.8 and the contract of the

fabricated Civil Code 1717 contract action, usurped the

jurisdiction not given, the one or the other would be

treason to the Constitution. "Judges have no more right

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

(2016).

3 Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), obstruction of justice

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

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

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

Dist. 1940)

3

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".7 The above

case Law from U.S. Supreme Court has declared that

Justice Hoffstadt committed treason to the Constitution.

Meantime, Justice Hoffstadt violated the restrictions on

government power imposed by the 14th Amendment to

the Constitution that may not deprive citizens of life,

liberty, and property without due process, and that may

not deny the equal protection of the law.

The judgment made by unlawfully using government

power to use CCP §631.8 judicial process to try this case,

and the order and the amended judgment granting

defendant attorney's fees and costs through fabricating

Civil Code §1717 contract action judicial process to

commit fraud upon the court, are all void judgments

which were rendered in violation of the Constitution, in

violation of due process, without jurisdiction and in

fraud upon the court.

Justice Hoffstadt unlawfully used government power,

found void judgments rendered in violation of the

Constitution, in violation of due process, without

jurisdiction and in fraud upon the court, to be valid; he

executed the void judgments under color of state law in

violation of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

deprived citizen of life, liberty, and property without due

process, deprived without due process appellant of wage

property $28,268.01 in the first appeal; he, in the second

appeal, deprived without due process appellant of wage

property $73,639.03 by granting defendant undeserved

attorney's fees and costs through Judge Linfield's

fabricating Civil Code §1717 contract action; he, in the

third appeal, deprived without due process appellant of

wage property $26,489.30, deprived total wage property

' Cohen v Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat.

4

$128,396.34 in 3 appeals, and added Lien to the

plaintiffs real property. Void judgments have no legal

effects. "All persons concerned in executing such

judgments or sentences are considered in law as

trespassers."8

Appellate cases are less likely to be reviewed again by

state high courts or the Supreme Court, which makes

bribery more attractive at this level.9

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.'°

Labor Code §98.declares that defendant violated the

law, which is accurate. Labor Code §98.2 is to resolve

wage disputes between employers and employees and

declares again that Bo Peng is employee of broker

employer Tarbell. Tarbell's willfully failing to pay

employee wages through its wrongful termination is

defined by the Labor commissioner as wage theft and is

defined by labor code as a crime.H Tarbell's deliberately

misclassifying employee as an independent contractor is

illegally evading federal and state taxes and profiting

from employee's benefits, conducting unfair business

competition, and obtaining a large amount of illegal

Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 328 (1828)

9 STRATOS PAHIS, Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks

Like

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

JOURNAL

1900, 1923-1924

to TI, Global Corruption Report 2007 supra P62

11 Labor Code §216

5

gains. According to Labor code 226.8, it will be subject

to tens of millions of government fines.

In order to reverse the defeat and escape huge

government fines, defendant risked a crime to corrupt

the Judges who posse judiciary power. Defendant used

large amount of illegal gains to influence and corrupt

judges in upper and lower both levels by conducting

improper ex parte communication with Judges through

its attorney. 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.12

Persons with whom contact prohibited: applies to a

judge or judicial officer.13

Corruption has a potentially infective quality and

flourishes when those higher up in the hierarchical

structure engage in it."

Thus, a multi-judge corruption ring1-5 with Justice

Hofstadt as the core, organizing and executing, and with

trial court Judge Morton and Judge Linfield as members,

and with the funding of defendant's large amount illegal

gains, was formed.

First of all, without entering the jury trial and even

without the motion, Judge Moreton unlawfully used

government power to let defendant to unilaterally draft

an order to exempt defendant itself from all penalties,

that is, "precludes any claims by Plaintiff of punitive

damages, emotional distress, lost wages or ancillary

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

Rptr. 3d 796 (2d Dist. 2018

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

14 STRATOS PAHIS, supra, at P1924

15 Id

6

claims against Tarbell". Judges have no authority to

grant immunity for unlawful acts. 16 However, Judge

Moreton approved the void order without changing a

single word, which shows that Judge Moreton usurped

the jurisdiction of jury, was highly partial to defendant,

and served the economic interest of defendant, and

which is also the evidence that defendant bribed the

judge to trade money for power.

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, unlawfully used his

government power to grant defendant immunity for

unlawful and criminal acts, and violated the plaintiffs

fundamental Constitutional rights to the action and to

claims.

Judge Moreton did accomplish defendant's 1st

unlawful objective; he precluded all the penalties

against Defendant; and he gained defendant's trust. The

very next day, defendant made a 180-degree U turn in

attitude, withdrawing previous commitment of willing to

pay unpaid wages $23,000 and willing to settle, further

presented unlawful objectives of turning the lawsuit

impossible to win, into a win and demanding $40,000

attorney fees. The change in defendant's attitude before

and after the bribe is the evidence that defendant bribed

the judge.

Defendant, who overtly presented the judges the four

unlawful objectives, has done its part towards

consummating guilt. "When the defendant's intent is

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

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

7

evidenced by overt acts, he or she has done his or her

part towards consummating guilt."17

In order to stop Judge Moreton's being highly partial

to defendant and unlawfully using government power,

plaintiff petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of

mandate, but Justice Hoffstadt unreasonably denied it,

which exposed that the Justice Hoffstadt is the core

member of the corruption ring.

Due to the shelter of Justice Hoffstadt, Judge Moreton

is emboldened, became more disregarding for the laws,

unjustified imposed $500 sanctions on plaintiff without

due process, fabricated a jury trial re-application,

committed fraud upon the court, denied the

constitutionally entitled jury trial, accomplished

defendant's second unlawful objective, and changed 12

jurors jury trial to a court trial presided over by him

alone, and paved the way for defendant to bribe the

judges to purchase judicial decisions in favor of

defendant.

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

entitled thereto constitutes a miscarriage of justice and

requires a reversal of the judgment.","18

In the first appeal, Justice Hoffstadt not only did not

overturn the judgment, but were highly partial to

defendant, and by personally fabricating CCP 581c jury

trial judicial process to defraud the court. Justice

Hoffstadt affirmed in full and supported Judge

Moreton's unconstitutional acts denying the

constitutionally entitled jury trial.

17 People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 161, 30 P. 620 (1883)

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

Cal. Rptr.2d 127

8

Judge Moreton's denying constitutionally entitled jury

trial and Justice Hoffstadt affirmed in full are strong

evidences that defendant bribed the judges.

B. Justice Hoffstadt was highly partial to

defendant and enabled impunity for

defendant

In the court order publishing the evidences, it was

found that the plaintiffs evidences were extensively

tampered with by defendant's attorney, resulted that

the value of the evidences has been diminished,

Defendant committed felony prescribed by the Penal

code §132 and is required to go to prison for one to three

years.

The Ninth Circuit has declared that reversal is " '

"virtually automatic " ' " once it is established that false

evidence was introduced.19

Justice Hoffstadt not only did not reverse the

judgment, but also affirmed the judgment in full, and

determined defendant's felony tampering with plaintiffs

evidences as "re-labeling" in his appeal opinion to enable

impunity for defendant, which is contrary to Penal Code

§132 and Ninth Circuit's judgment, which manifested

that Justice Hoffstadt is highly partial to defendant and

which is also the protection that defendant obtains

through bribery of a judge.

The courts may not expand the legislature's definition

of a crime nor may they narrow a clear and specific

definition.20

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

20 People v. Powell, 5 Cal. 5th 921, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316, 422

P.3d 973 (Cal. 2018)

9

Whenever impunity takes hold, it is never just a

matter of simple quid pro quo corruption. On the

contrary, impunity threatens the rule of law and the

stability of republican government precisely because it

both constitutes, and depends upon, a corruption of law

and legal institutions .21

C. Justice Hoffstadt conspired with

defendant to execute the evil scheme and

violated the Penal Code §132

I am a licensed real estate salesman. When I joined

Tarbell in 2015, the express statutes of Business and

Professional Code §10132 et seq. prescribed that a

licensed real estate salesman is an employee of his

broker employer. And the case law clearly stated the

same, See Resnik v. Anderson & Miles, Supra.

However, in order to evade federal and state taxes

and profit from employee benefits, to engage in unfair

business competition, and to obtain a large amount of

illegal gains, Defendant Tarbell ignored the law,

deliberately made the signing of an independent

contractor agreement when joining the company as the

primary condition, did not give employee the

opportunity to bargain, and the employees had no choice

but to sign. 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. 22 Thus, independent contractor agreement is

void.

21 Elizabeth M. Iglesias, U.C. Davis Journal of International

Law

and Policy, 2018

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

Cal.

Rptr. 689 (1st Dist. 1989).

10

Tarbell was originally an unscrupulous businessman,

deliberately misclassified employees as independent

contractors, and the signing of the independent

contractor agreement as the primary condition is the

unlawful acts of defendant's willful misclassification.

According to the labor Code §226.8, Tarbell is subject to

tens of millions dollars of huge government fines.

Defendant attorney Griffin's declaration on 9/21/21

exposed the evil scheme that Justice Hoffstadt united

trial Judges, conspired with Defendant to use the void

independent contractor agreement as valid to offer to

the court to make false evidence, which is clearly fraud

upon the court and committing the felony prescribed by

Penal Code §132.

Void contract is "the equivalent of no contract at all;23

never had any legal existence or effect, and such

contract cannot in any manner have life breathed into

it.24

D. Driven by corruption, Justice Hoffstadt

overturned due process and executed

judicial tyranny

The touchstone of due process is protection of the

individual against arbitrary actions of the government.25

A judge's application of uniform, pre-existing procedural

rules is unlike her creation of a substantive legal rule to

decide a particular case-the sort of arbitrary judicial

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

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

454, 38 P.2d 648, 652

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

935 (1974)

23

24

11

tyranny the Framers feared.26

The arbitrary judicial tyranny that the framers

feared happened on Justice Hoffstadt. He, driven by

corruption, obstructed justice, unlawfully diverted this

case under his control, fabricated various judicial

processes to overturn due process of this case, rendered

opinions in favor of defendant, completed defendant's

four unlawful objectives, and finally enabled defendant

to evade tens of millions of government fines, which is

the kind of judicial tyranny that combines legislation

and judiciary and that the framers feared.

In his confirmation hearing in 2005, Chief Justice

Roberts has proposed that some cases be submitted to

the U.S. Supreme Court. Here this case comes. This case

was submitted to the Supreme Court 5 times (3 petitions

for Certiorari, 2 petitions for rehearing). The U.S.

Supreme Court does not address the constitutional

issues that the framers feared. This is the 6th time that

this case has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has the duty and responsibility to

solve the Constitution issue that the Framers feared. 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.27 If it is not enforced, the supreme power

of the Supreme Court will not deter the violators of 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Hoffstadt

unlawfully used government power, blatantly committed

treason to the Constitution, and repeatedly,

continuously violated 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

26 1 Wilson's Works, supra, at 298;

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

12

CONCLUSION

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.'

Justice Hoffstadt, driven by corruption, firmly

controlled the three consecutive appeals of this case into

his hands, did not follow due process to try, acted under

a. state law in a manner violative the Federal

Constitution, violated 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, unlawfully used government power,

deprived without due process appellant of wage property

totaling $128,396.34 in the three consecutive appeals

and added Lien to appellant's real property. Appellant

was deprived of his fundamental constitutional rights,

which caused great harm to appellant, and Appellant

invoked the right to constitutional protection to the U.S.

Supreme Court for the remedy.

Petitioner is hoping that the Supreme Court Chief

Justice Roberts will fulfill his promise to the American

people: "Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not

the other way around." "I was right on the law, and the

Government was wrong, and all that power and might

would recede in deference to the rule of law." 29

This petition for rehearing should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Bo Peng

Date: 7/21/2023

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

29 https ://www .uscourts. gov/e d ucational-re so urce s/e ducational-

activitie s/chief-j ustice -rob e rts-statement-nominatio n-p roce ss

13

CERTIFICATION OF BO PENG

I hereby certify that this petition for rehearing is

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

restricted to the grounds specified in Supreme Court

Rule 44.2.

Respectfully submitted,

Executed on 7/21/

, 2023

By:

Bo Peng, Petitioner, Pro Per