Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Shieh v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Supreme Court brief1996

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING, IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED. eummp a

_ or,

LFF af

{ 47 ;

Z. 54

' No.

‘

935-7588

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1996

L. Shieh, [Supreme Court, U.S.

‘'LED

Petitioner, JAN 2 3 1996

vs.

; vilct OF THE CLERK

United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit,

. , Vv. , Ree

Peter L. Shaw, Susan Gelmis, et @ RECEIVED

Respondents. JAN 2- 1996

95-80348 OFFICE OF THE CLERK

supreme COURT, US. |

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The petitioner, L. Shieh, asks leave to file the attached

petition for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of costs and to

proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has previously been granted

leave to so proceed in L. Shieh v. David Ebershoff, et al, S 038440 by

the Supreme Court of the State of California. Petitioner's

affidavit/declaration in support of this motion is attached hereto.

AU ev -

ae,

Dated: January 22, 1996

Respectfully submitted,

BEAL bang WerA

Shieh Liang-Houh

__éFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION _) cat

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

I, &- Shieh | , am the petitioner in the above-entitled case. In

support of my motion to proceed without being required to prepay fees, costs or give security

therefor, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of this case or to give

security therefor; and I believe I am entitled to redress.

I further swear that the responses I have made to the questions and instructions below

relating to my ability to pay the cost of proceeding in this Court are true.

» oi?

1. Are you presently employed? Yes No _** . OAS 2 ee

a. If the answer is yes, state the amount of your salary or wages per month and give the

name and address of your employer.

b. If the answer is no, state the date of your last employment and the amount of salary

or wages per month which you received. 4/89; approximately $7,500.00

per month (gross income)

2. Have you received within the past twelve months any income from a business, profession

or other form of self-employment, or in the form of rent payments, interest, dividends, or other

sources? Yes___- ~ No _“" aa

a. If the answer is yes, describe each source of income and state the amount received

from each during the past twelve months. ‘

3. Do you own any cash or have a checking or savings account? Yes____ No _**

a. If the answer is yes, state the total value of the items owned.

4, Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property

(excluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing) Yes__. No _,,,

a. If the answer is yes, describe the property and state its approximate value.

5. List the persons who are dependent upon you for support and state your

relationship to those persons.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: yanuary 22, 19.96. an

She

(Signature)

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1996

L. Shieh,

Petitioner,

vs.

United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit,

Peter L. Shaw, Susan V. Gelmis, et al.,

Respondents.

PETITIONER FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, THE

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS AND CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Law Offices of Shieh Liang-Houh

Attorneys for Petitioners

P. O. Box 84-453

95-80348 Taipei, Taiwan

_ (011-886-2) 394-0530

1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth

Circuit violates petitioner's constitutional rights and rights

guaranteed by the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce And Navigation Between

the Republic of China and the United States of America by imposing 4

pre-filing order upon petitioner without serving a notice of the order

to show cause upon petitioner in Taiwan and without an opportunity to be

heard, which has given rise to the disagreement among the lower courts?

2. Whether the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth

Circuit has an original jurisdiction to issue an order to show cause for

a pre-filing order preventing all new appeals after summary dismissal of

all appeals and summary affirmation of all lower courts’ decisions

without notice and without an opportunity to be heard, which has given

rise to the disagreement among the lower courts?

3. Whether the alleged service of the order to show cause

shall comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention and/or the

provisions of the Extension For Assistance To the Foreign Courts to make

sure that petitioner in Taiwan has actually received the notice and has

an adequate opportunity to respond, which has given rise to the

disagreement among the lower courts?

4. Whether the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth

Circuit violates petitioner's right to neutral and detached judges by

issuing an order to show cause and by summarily disposing all of

petitioner's and his clients’ appeals and writs when several motions for

disqualification of all judges and clerks for their criminal indictment

and criminal prosecution for bribery, corruption, collusion, forgery,

etc. were pending before them, which has given rise to the disagreement

among the lower courts?

5. Whether a pre-filing order preventing petitioner from

filing any appeal can be constitutionally applied to an experienced

attorney who was forced to be in pro per because all of his lawyers

(1) were extorted for $1 million bribery and ransom to be paid to the

Caucasian judges and lawyers and (2) were prosecuted by the state bar

disciplinary proceedings simply because they represented petitioner,

which has given rise to the disagreement among the lower courts?

6. Whether the pre-filing order which was wilfully and

maliciously, with criminal intents, issued to a non-Caucasian lawyer is

constitutional in all aspects, which has given rise to the disagreement

among the lower courts?

7. Whether the 14 days mandate that petitioner in Taiwan must

respond to the order of the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth

Circuit within 14 days from the date of the order is constitutional and

is a violation of the FCN Treaty when the 14 days mandate is an

impossibility under the circumstances where the mail would take

approximately 14 days to two months to reach Taiwan or would never reach

Taiwan, which has given rise to the disagreement among the lower courts?

8. Whether the Ninth Cir. and all California state courts

which absolutely, completely, permanently, unlimitedly and in fact

umconditionally prohibited Petitioner and all of petitioners’ past,

current and future lawyers from filing any and all papers with the above

courts is constitutional and is a violation of the provisions of the

ce nm temas sy, ay, lll

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce And Navigation between the Republic of

China and the United States of American and thus is also

unconstitutional, which has given rise to the disagreements among the

lower courts, among other issues: (1) ist Cir., Sire v. Gabriel, 748

F.24 49 (lst Circuit 1984) (holding that "We stress that where access to

the courts is concerned, an injunction should be drawn as narrowly as

possible"); (2) 3rd Circuit: Castro v. The United States of America 775

F.2d 399, (2md Circuit 1985) (holding that “The court of appeals

marrowly tailored the injunction to closely fit the specific vice

encountered.") see also Brow v. Farrelly 994 F.2d. 1027, (3rd Circuit

1993)), Brow v. Parrelly 994 F.2d. 1027, (3rd Circuit 1993) (holding

that “The broad scope of the District court's power is limited by two

fundamental tenets of our legal system -- the litigant's right to due

process and access to the courts"), In re Oliver 682 F.2d 443, (3rd

Circuit 1982) (holding that imposing an injunction “is an extreme

remedy, and should be used in exigent circumstances"), In re Oliver 682

F.24 443, (3rd Circuit 1982) (holding that “Litigiousness alone will not

Support an injunction restricting litigant's filing activities"); (3).

2nd & 10th Circuits, Castro v. United States of America 775 F.2d 399,

(2nd Circuit 1985) (holding that "If an injunction against future

litigation issued under 28 U.S.C.A. 1651(a) were couched in overly broad

terms, this impermissible infringes upon a litigator's right of access

to the courts") see also Tripati v. Beaman 878 F.2d 351, (10th Circuit

1989)); (4). 4th & llth Circuits, Robinson v. Marion 879 F.2d 863, (4th

Circuit 1989) (holding that “A court imposing such an injunction must be

careful not to order conditions that effectively deny access to the

courts", see also Procup v.Strickland 792 F.2d 1069 (llth Circuit

1986)); (5). D.C. Circuit, Urban v. United Nations 768 F.2d 1497, 1500

(D.C. Circuit 1985) (holding that "A court must take great care not to

unduly impair a litigant's constitutional right of access to the

courts"); (6) Sth Cir., Harrelson v. the United States, 613 F.2d 114

(Sth Circuit 1980) (holding that “Orders enjoining future lawsuits are

generally unnecessary because the doctrine of res judicata or collateral

estoppel usually suffice to protect defendants from repetitious

lawsuits"); and (6) 2d Cir., N.¥. Chinese TV Programs v. U.E.

Enterprises, 954 F.2d 847, 852 (holding that “the FCN treaty remains a

valid and enforceable treaty" between the Republic of China and the

United States of America)?

3. Whether petitioner's and all of his lawyers’ right to

meutral and detached judges under the U.S. Comstitution and the Treaty

Between the ROC and USA is violated, where both federal and state judges

have used courts as instrumentalities for bribery, corruption,

collusion, forgery, burglary and perjury and for the extortion against

petitioner and his lawyers for $1 million, where the federal judges

David Kenyon, Beezer, Thompson and T.G. Nelson, et al used their courts

to cover up their bribery, corruption and collusion, where they were

indicted and prosecuted and where they were disqualified, which has

given rise to the disagreements of the lower courts and this court: (1)

PCH Treaty: “The nationals, corporations and associations of either High

Contracting Party ... shall be permitted to exercise all these rights

and privileges, ... on terms no less favorable than the terms which are

or may hereafter be accorded to the mationals, corporations and

associations of such other High Contracting Party and no less favorable

than are or may hereafter be accorded to the nationals, corporations and

associations of any third country"; (2) USSC, Concrete Pipe & Const.

Laborers Pen. Tr., 113 S. Ct 2264, 2277 (1993) ("due process requires a

‘neutral and detached judge in the first instance’ ... one is entitled

as a matter of due process of law to an adjudicator who is not in a

situation ‘which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as

a judge ... which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and

true"; and (3) other cases.

L. Shieh is a non-Caucasian and is an experienced lawyer since

1972.

RESPONDENTS :

The United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit is a

federal court used by the crime family as an instrumentality for

bribery, corruption, collusion and other criminal and judicial

misconduct.

Peter L. Shaw is a Caucasian Commissioner, working as an

instrumentality for the crime family.

Susan V. Gelmis is a Caucasian motion attorney/deputy clerk,

working as an instrumentality for the crime family.

All are alleged by HXST.

In THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1996

L. Shieh,

Petitioner,

vs.

United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit,

Peter L. Shaw, Susan V. Gelmis, et al.,

Respondents.

95-80348

PETITIONER FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL AND CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT

To the Honorable William Rehnquist the Chief Justice and

Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Petitioners Highberger, Kakita, Spencer & Turner MAF Ct., and L. Shieh,

respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari issue to review the

judgments and opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Central District

of California, the California Court of Appeals and the California

Superior Court

) )

TABLE OF CONTENTS VI. THE 14 DAYS MANDATE FOR RESPONSE IS .

Ss ccc ce hhc cscs eeeesbeseeeeseseseneeses 20

00 2 ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee 1

VII. THE COMPLETE, PERMANENT AND UNLIMITED PROHIBITION

/- ., , x= eee eee ee ee eee? Pe oe Se eS ee 2 2 1 OF PETITIONERS AND THEIR LAWYERS FROM FILING ANY THING

CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF ALL CIRCUITS, VIOLATES

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED............. 1 THE CONSTITUTION AND TREATY... ........ 2c cece cece neeeees 21

CURIE GR GAG cc cccccc cece cece eee cee eeseeeeeesesesecsence 4 | A. CONFLICT WITH ALL DECISIONS OF ALL CIRCUITS....21

I. BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES, PETITIONERS AND THEIR B. VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION............. 23

LAWYERS ARE LIKE "A JEW IN NAZI GERMANY"... ........05005. 4

i, BE. Gs cc Gdbeeeceecedeseededseceesecesecer 5

BD. BAS CO COMMER 6 ccc ccccccccccsccvtesccese 24

D, GD Ss cece cece cceeeeceeceeeeerensese 7

3. Right to Access to the Court ............. 25

II. AT LEAST THREE CALIFORNIA JUDGES ADMITTED THAT THEY

ARE MERELY PUPPETS OF THEIR BOSSES........2. ccc eeeeceees 8 4. Right to Neutral and Detached Judges...... 26

III. THE HISTORY OF BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, COLLUSION, SC. Veena Ge eee Dae Bee e s cece sb ceeebeee beese 31

PERJURY, FORGERY OF THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES AND FEDERAL

See Se Sac oo bd co ce oah he aeeebe heres aeeestacee 10 D. THE CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

OF THE STATE JUDGES AND FEDERAL JUDGES JUSTIFY

Bs GE GE otc cbc eekeshSeesetceseenetWar 10 eee eS Se ee Pee 33

hn Cs Ens bac ncactecded4ensedesentactdcd 13 VIII. CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ARE

SELF-EVIDENT THAT STATE AND FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOT

BRB KR Qe ee Se ree re Tee 13 es Gee Cn d's o'& 6 oes 0a eh ciddb enh be Sbbk as enka 35

I. THE 9TH CIR. VIOLATES DUE PROCESS BY REFUSING TO

SERVE THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UPON PETITIONER IN IX. SUMMARY AFFIRMATION OF ALL USDC'S DECISIONS, AFTER

ES ee eee ee re ee re a ee. 14 COMMISSION OF BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, COLLUSION, ET AL.,

VIOLATES U.S. CONSTITUTION AND FCN TREATY ............. 37

Il. THE 9TH CIR. FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS

OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION AND THE LAW IN TAIWAN TO SERVE SES 4 a) 44 CK KBE 6 6b eh oO OOR Le 8h 6 bbws bs 68656 bes OR 38

Gee ee SU a vu Fu £5 0 obsess Shier aweeetcocehiesouce 15

S .- fo Bree ree re ear ee Fee 15

De Bae Ceeeeeeee BU DOD Gen ccc h cee ccccicvcess 17

C. THE GUIDELINES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT ........ 18

IV. PRE-FILING ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A LICENSED

REE coCbee MESS 6t oboe cereckutecetnnéd 60% he Ged 66h entue 18

V. THE 9TH CIR.'S ORDER US UNCONDITIONAL IN ALL

G4 0 66 600005404 Ch EShA Sse EOek bow ee baa ok 6 Sued ab eKe 20

A. IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT.............. 20

B. VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION............0-005: 20

C. RIGHT TO ACCESS TO THE COURT..................-. 20 | ii

INDEX TO APPENDICES

. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, dated December 13, 1995.

. Letter to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir., dated

January 17, 1996 an confirmation page.

. The decision of the 9th Cir., dated December 9, 1994.

. Criminal Indictment and Criminal Prosecution.

Law Governing Extension of Assistance to Foreign

Courts.

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Agricultural Labor v. Tex-Cal (1987) 43 C. 3d 696,

¥ * £ SB FF Ky sate I See ree ere 15

Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106, 110-111 (34 S.Ct. 27, 28-29,

a ee ee re et 12... cuh Sethdilaede eethade ¢¥nesveadst 34

Anderson v. Sheppard, 856 F. 2d 746 (1988).............2000ee 26

796 F. Supp. 1188

a Se Sn ual Widt weak Awe doo Gh ab 6% 0e 60h cc athadécessce nee 15

lio F j Municipal C fs

_Judicial District (1977) 137 Cal. 533, 68 Cal. App. 3d 673..25

Berger v. United States (1921) 255 US 22 .........c cece ceeces 28

ie 2. ne. ee Cee 6 leon beak ocebeecceesecceves 26

Bonner v. Circuit Court (8th Cir., 1975) 526 F2d 1331,

I oir Ag ae oe MN ee eek cust a ss ae

eee, eee, BO Gina. OR Fh cc ciadods comectésccessivers 36

Bounds, Correction Commissioner, et al. v. Smith et al. 817

ti teen bank vacdl Gu el.oc ke ckbdccueks Uxtaed sae eke cakbicke 25

Brow v. Farrelly 994 F.2d. 1027, (3rd Circuit 1993).......... 22

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited,

Dera SPE? ED EE, nna uu a Salas Baal o adidas wan acale oe 24,25,26

Castro v. The United States of America 775 F.2d 399,

SY Ca ce, phe Cees eee. ae aie e ee ees ge cles sd ae be 22

113 S.Ct. 2264, 12 L.Ed.2d 539,

DRE) cLUbh Ss 6c achsake k cx bwh ees és 6 Sh eee oe we hbk ce Oh ce 35

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners (5th Cir. 1975)

Pe, Se MS ahi bn ode 6G GME dns 6 oe eh ocd ebces dese ccwcce 29

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 183,

See ans 6 4.4 bce k On KP ele 66 alla one eo dv ule WON S «ho 60 che ebdacéenn 34

Dr. Ing. H.C,.F. Porsche v. Superior Court, 177 C.R. 155, 156

Pile Gy SE Se MED cs Diss ebGhoks ove ouks 06 bsh00b6 062 ues ce 16

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.

a re te a eU dee pecitinee eee’ 30

, 100 U.S. 339, 348-349, 25 L.Ed. 676

RT di ae a aa DMS ea ie ie a ee le He cee 33

Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) 407 U.S. 67, 80, 92 S. Ct. 1983,

a a ee ek obig ches 24

Gladys Boddie et al. v. State of Connecticut et al. (1971)

ee rr rr Oe a eT ee Ne ib keced ae tad 24

Gravel _v. United States 408 U.S. 606, 627, 92 S. Ct. 2614, 33

a a a eb bh eees 34

Harrelson v. the United States, 613 F.2d 114

a 9 a a ewickes 23

, 597 F 2a

ne ee ee Weg gens Ub ck See 15

In Re Beard (4th Cir. 1987) 811 F2d 818, 827................. 27

In_Re Continental Airlines Corp. (Sth Cir. 1990) 901 F2d

RR RISE ES Sear FR Re aE 2 ies ee rae Sees ee 28

In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 446, (3rd Circuit 1982)............ 22

Liljieberg v,. Health Services Acquisition Corp. (1988) 486 US

Ne NRA 3 LRRD ORR RRS aR artnet he ee 27

of California, et al., (9th Cir. 1992) 979 F.2d 697, 705..... 25

Madison Anderson v. Walter Sheppard, et al., (1988) 856 F.2d

YPN, GR ATs, Dy RNS Gaeta ee Oe. os Shs. 55, Lae 24,26

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. (1980) 446 U.S. 238; 100 S.Ct.

I I I et oe oe

Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams (1983) 462 US 791....... 15

eee SMe SED O.Ge. DOB, 29OBsc kn c dicctcrccceccevsees 33,36

, 407 U.S. 225, 239, 92 S. Ct. 2151-2160

ini’ Dic ea whee so ate idan Godby gio ke a mnbias o& abs ccatee 14,31

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 US

PE Ss 6 4a ire oe Pains ci-ann 6 bee da kbed ake b clans vbbicicée 15

New York Chinese TV Programs, Inc, v. U.E. Enterprises, Inc.

ei Sn |, ate i ee ee 17

Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 908, 132 Cal. Rptr.

pbs CME aE Ses WA dake be io< ab « bir’ s we S hh bide wcddackae 25

Preatony._United States (9th Cir. 1991) 923 F2d 731,

27,29

Powell v. Alabama, (1932) 287 U.S. 45, 53; 53 S.Ct. 55;

a Re en ns 60 600s neds bee ahee 24

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 539, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 1979

eR a i ad i a ee de ane nse b iabekee 14,31,33

Procup v.Strickland 792 F.2d 1069 (llth Circuit 1986)........ 23

Roberts v. Bailar (6th Cir. 1980) 625 f2d 125, 127........... 30

Robinson v. Marion 879 F. 2d 863, (4th Cir. 1989)............ 22

Sire v. Gabriel, 748 F.2d 49 (1st Circuit 1984).............. 21

Slyvester Harris v. Richard G. Harvey, 605 F.2d 336 (7th Cir.

aN hy a RES gait Li raga REL cag pag OLA pe Oe ey 37

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099,

re eT aD CL ek ee he ew eh coub weebd e's 36

Sunray v. Federal Power (1957) 353 U.S. 944, 77 S.Ct.792..... 15

Southern Pacific Communications v. AT&T, 740 F2d at 911...... 29

TIMMERMAN v. BROWN Foard, 528 F.2d *815 (4th Cir. 1975)...... 25

Tripati v. Beaman 878 F.2d 351, (10th Circuit 1989).......... 22

UNITED STATES v. ALLEN, 542 F,2d 633 (1976)............ 24,25,33

United States v. Ambrey DeWitt Allen (1976, United States

Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit) 542 F.2d 630...........6... 24

United States v. Conforte (9th Cir. 1980) 624 f2d

RR ae RR aR Say aE I (OS a ry eae We 29,30

(6th Cir. 1985) 768 F2d 1518

Oe MEE es 6's do RAM dada ote chide 6 6.656 0 ceed eeeb ences 28

Urban v. United Nations 768 F.2d 1497,

Ce oa eo cashesebeadice 23

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (1988) 486 US

See ee is a ee Gs Be Mae Bene nc cccecenees cevenn 16

eee, Gan Cis OS BID, G6 B.C s GE BOOB. ckccctcocdcencesece 25

STATUTES } P

the © ” te SB Perry Terre ririrriiririi fT eee a4

California Code of civil Procedure §1013 (A) ..........0ceeeeee 4

SOE GOONS BGs cco vcsdcccbscascsncdbcacdeessencbasesteeseet 21

ee RG Ge Ns 0 cn oVib ote chibi c w0cts the 6egaibeedeeni 22

Pee GR Be ces tccdicdoccdebecvacdocesccews bes tastes ars 22

Geer D Bee GOMES BGs cccecctaccssdecisdecuwes ses sepuabesi 22

ft IMPS T TT UTICTT TT TTR. Crete Tr re eee. 23

ee SG Te BOG. fo onc os bb ciba ten beeubeds6atneeueerreue 4

cts GC Bain ue 60.0 0 adie os 6 dec bbe tna ob dees bases 23

SP Se Es 6 on o's ove edn sc otne de hee nck dae kh ebaiee tices 34

28 USC §455, 455 (a), 455 (b) (1), (2),(3),(4) & (5)........ 27,30

aa. Sy RE Da bes 6 dp eee denkne Cok eneu eben baeanues 18

Pe ees Meee Gy, ORs c's bss cdwbeeecebcteentaees tue 35

va seen, GRGRGES ©, Bhs oc cworccccetactsaneknle ther ck tel eane 17

Pa CNUs DEORE F ic wicchics ts dbus Cbd tod dbos tet rkabew sue 17

Fae wees. meee OD aie s-0.ce0 bbb Genet Kes ehwones Whe deohe oie 18

sauce 28, U.8.€. BBSSB46 (2) & 32603 tO). . vivncciwecrcddapeccsede 1

ees: Se ag RD SG. ORs v6 c'n.4 ote sb chides Sodks doch és hehe 2,3,16

Som. GRE.» SRORGMNNES 4, 6, & Broa ccevcdcorcdcvaphccceescacs 2

USSC Rules 10, 10.1 (a) (b) and (c) & 29.4(b)..........000000., 1

OTHERS ;

ee GHORR RR. des doce oivb ns undecdpebecesthednscieihkikes 16,18

Law Governing Extension of Assistance to Foreign Courts...... 18

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce And Navigation Between

The Republic of China And The United States of

peeeen, Senaeee 6.0 SO. » 605006 te 2 dai eeeusns 2,3,14,32

OPINION BELOW

1. The decision of the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit,

dated December 13, 1995 is attached in Petitioners’ Appendix A’.

2. The decision of the 9th Cir., dated December 9, 1994, is

attached in Petitioners’ Appendix C.

3. The published opinion of the California Court of Appeals,

dated August 12, 1993 is published at 17 C.A. 4th 1154, 21 C.R. 2d 886

(1993).

4. The published opinion of the California Court of Appeals,

dated December 16, 1993 is published at 20 C.A. 4th 1759, 25 C.R. 24 703

(1993).

5. The published opinion of the California Court of Appeals,

Gated January 31, 1994 is published at 22 C.A. 4th 88, 27 CR 270 (1994).

JURISDICTION

The U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in this matter was filed on

December 13, 1995. Appendix A. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked

under Title 28, U.S.C. §§1254 (1) and 2403 (a), and under the Rules of

the Supreme Court oi the United States ("USSC"), Rules 10.1 (a) (b) and

(c), amd 29.4 (b), et al.

: The 9th Cir. has so far refused to serve its order to

show cause, dated October 27, 1995 upon petitioner. Thus, it cannot

be attached as Appendix here.

Amendments I, VI, and XIV to, and Article VI, Section II of,

the United States Constitution, as well as the Article VI, Section 4 of

the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce And Navigation Between the Republic

of China and the United States of America are set forth below:

1. First Amendment: “Congress shall make pw law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the

people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a

redress of grievance."

2. Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused

shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury

of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

which district shall have been committed, which district shall have been

previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against

him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

3. Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in

the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens

of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege 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;

U )

mor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.*

4. Article VI, Section 2: “all Treaties made, or which shall

be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme

Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary

notwithstanding. *

5. Article VI, Section 4 of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce

And Navigation Between the Republic of China and the United States of

America: “The nationals, corporations and associations of either High

Contracting Party shall enjoy freedom of access to the courts of justice

and to administrative tribunals and agencies in the territories of the

other High Contracting Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction established

by law, both in pursuit and in defense of their rights; shall be at

liberty to choose and employ lawyers, interpreters and representatives

in the prosecution and defense of their rights before such courts,

tribumals and agencies; and shall be permitted to exercise all these

rights and privileges, in conformity with the applicable laws and

regulations, if any, which are or may hereafter be enforced by the duly

constituted authorities, on terms no less favorable than the terms which

are or may hereafter be accorded to the nationals, corporations and

associations of such other High Contracting Party and no less favorable

than are or may hereafter be accorded to the nationals, corporations and

associations of any third country. Moreover, corporations and

associations of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted to

exercise the rights and privileges accorded by the preceding sentence

upon the filing, at any time prior to appearance before such courts,

tribunals or agencies, of reasonable particulars required by the laws

and regulations of such other High Contracting party without any

requirement of registration or domestication.*

6. 9th Cir. R. 3-6: "At any time prior to the completica of

briefing in a civil appeal if the court determines:

(b) that it is manifest that the questions on which the decision in

the appeal depends are so insubstantial as not to justify further

proceedings the court may, after affording the parties an opportunity to

show cause, issue an appropriate dispositive order."

7. California Code of Civil Procedure §1013 (a): “...the

service is complete at the time of the deposit, but any prescribed

period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any

response within any prescribed period or om a date certain after the

service of the document served by mail shall ve extended five days if

the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the

place of address is outside the State of California but within the

United States.*

A. FEDERAL JUDGES

1. Om or about January 16, 1996, Taipei time, petitioner

received a copy of the pre-filing order preventing petitioner from

filing any and all appeals, dated December 13, 1995, after 34 days of

the alleged mailing. Appendix A.

2. This surprise has made petitioner to call the 9th Cir. on

January 17, 1996, at approximately 2:00a.m., early morning, which was

approximately 10:00a.m. om January 16, 1995 San Francisco time. The

clerk, Mr. Wayne Price had agreed to fax a copy of the October 27, 1995

order to show cause ("OSC") to petitioner, which petitioner has never

received. Because petitioner had not received the OSC, he faxed the

enclosed letter to Mr. Price. Appendix B. The fax confirmation evidenced

that Mr. Price had received such letter. As of the date of filing this

petition for certiorari, on January 22 1996, petitioner has not

received a copy of the order to show cause.

3. Since in or about 1994, the clerks and judges of the 9th

Circuit had conspired with the defendants in various cases where the

petitioner or his clients are plaintiffs. As evidenced by the facts

stated in various motions for disqualification, and as alleged by the

Highberger, Kakita, Spencer & Turner MAF Corp. ("HKST"), the clerks and

judges of the 9th Cir. committed bribery, corruption collusion, forgery,

etc. by dismissing petitioner's and his clients’ appeals without notice

and hearing and by summarily affirming all lower courts decisions

without notice and hearing. Appendix D. Furthermore, the same corrupted

judges prohibited, permanently, unconditionally, unlimitedly, petitioner

end his clients from filing any “([mjotions for reconsideration,

rehearing or clarification." Appendix C. The same languages appear in

each and all orders on each and every appeals, including but not limited

to the following appeals (the petitions for certiorari were now pending

before this court): 94-55649, 95-55563, 95-55566, 95-55683, 95-55723,

95-55788, and 95-55790, etc.

4. Most of the 9th Cir. and the lower courts orders were never

received. Many of them were sent to the People's Republic of China,

because the courts did not write the addresses in Chinese. Some of the

orders, such as the December 13, 1995 order was received on or about

January 16, 1996, 34 days after the alleged mailing (perhaps caused by

Christmas and New Year holidays). The Oct. 27, 1995 order issued by

Peter Shaw was never received. Appendix B. The clerks and judges

intentionally and wilfully refused to mail the orders to petitioners and

refused to file the papers presented by petitioner and his clients. See

Motions for disqualification on the above case nos.

5. 1). Petitioner passed the bar examination in Taiwan in 1972

as a first year college student. The bar examination had only

approximately 1% annual passing rate, which is reputed as one of the

most difficult bar examinations in the world. Petitioner has a very high

winning rate in all cases which he represented.

2). Im the U.S., petitioner broke the American legal

history and received Juris Doctor (J.D.), Master of Law (LL.M.) and

Doctor of the Science of Law (J.S.D.) degrees from Yale Law School in

less than four years. He graduated first in the LL.M. program, completed

his J.S.D. dissertation in less than one year (the record at Yale), and

was elected as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. He passed the New York

bar in 1982 while he was a student at Yale. He was subsequently admitted

to practice laws in many federal courts and in Washington, D. C., States

of Oregon and California. He was admitted to practice law before this

court in 1987. He is not a new attorney. His winning rate for most of

his clients are near 100%. See Percy Chien's affidavit.

3). None of petitioner's cases has any problem. Rather,

the judges in California (both federal and state judges) are

discriminatory, corruptive and retaliatory. In addition, the quality of

the judges of the 9th cir. and USDC for the Central district of

California is worse than that of the average clerks in Taiwan. The real

problems are the moral and legal quality of the judges in the U.S.

B. CALIFORNIA JUDGES

1. Petitioners and their lawyers in both federal and state

courts in California are "like a Jew in the Nazi Germany,’" said Richard

R. Hopkins, a Caucasian lawyer. See Transcript of Proceeding in

Highberger, Kakita, Spencer & Turner MAF Corp., et al v. Highberger, et

al, BC 059833 ("Chris" case), and Highberger, Kakita, Spencer & Turner

MAF Corp., et al v. Castellano, et al, BC 054981 ("Cast” case), in 1994.

2. MR. HOPKINS: “I've been in practice for 19 years and I

have never, never been treated the way I'm being treated in this case...

every motion or every opposition made by Gibson & Dunn is the gospel

truth and everything that I say is not." ID.

3. "As I stated the judges in the Los Angeles and Orange

County areas are biased and discriminatory against Dr. Shieh. Their

* A copy of all statements and quotations herein are attached

in the trial courts’ exhibits.

wilful deprivation of Dr. Shieh's constitutional and federal rights

were/are on the grounds of Dr. Shieh's race, color, national origin and

religion." Petitioners' Caucasian lawyer's declaration, dated May 13,

1995, 410.

4. Almost all, if mot all, Los Angeles and Orange state

judges, and policemen, as well as certain federal judges in California

are “controlled solely by" Gibson, Dunn & Cructure ("GDC") and O'Melvey

& Myers ("OMM").

II. AT LEAST THREE CALIFORNIA JUDGES ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE MERELY

PUPPETS OF THEIR BOSSES

1. Honorable Phillip E. Cox admitted: "This is an unusual case

where they've extended it [vexatious litigant statute] to them when he

has an attorney representing him. As I tell you, they're my bosses,

and I can't overrule the[m)." See TP in Hi -qer. Yar

Turner MAF Corp, et al v. David, et al in Orange County Superior Court

("SC"), case no. 70 64 39.

2. Kaufman conspired with Highberger, et al to kidnap

Petitioner in the Chinese New Year for seven days and to extort over

$300,000.00 in February, 1994. Kaufman admitted that he was acting as 4

collection agency and is a real party in interest in his purported

proceeding. See TP February 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17, 1994. However, in his

last day of his court, Kaufman finally admitted that the California

Vexatious Litigant statute, CCP §§391 et seq., “was for pro pers, and

since the man [Petitioner] wasn't in pro per it did seem odd to me that

motion was ever granted", "obviously my mind does question things, but

things that happen, things that happen, I can't change them, so I'll let

it go." Vol. 4 Request For Judicial Notice ("RIN") at 672-673 filed in

Say & Say, et al v. Kakita, et al.

3. KAUFMAN ADMITTED THAT:

1). "I'm not about to open a gate that has been defiantly

-- or not defiantly, but absolutely closed to him by trial courts and

the Court of Appeal. So he's been foreclosed out.” Transcript of

proceeding in Highberger, Kakita, Specner & Turner MAF Ct., et al v.

Castellano, et al, BC 054981 ("Cast" case) and Highberger, Kakita,

Specner & Turner MAF Ct., et al v. Highberger, et al, BC 059833 ("Chris"

case) ("TP"), 2/10/94.

2). "... mo, you're [plaintiffs' attorneys are] not in

the position to give notice because you can't file anything." TP

2/10/94, at 23, lines 1-3.

3). “The present order with respect to the plaintiff or

his attorneys being unable to file any documents." TP, 2/14/94, at 2,

line 18-20. See RIN, no. 36, 1).

4). “he was not to file any new documents." (TP,

3/31/94, at 16, line 25-26).

5). “he is not authorized to file anything." (TP,

3/31/94, at 35, line 18-21).

4. Im more than ten decisions, the corrupted and colluded

judges of 9th Cir. always used the following languages in each and every

decisions of petitioner's and petitioner's clients' cases (even if

petitioner's clients are represented by lawyers): "No motion for

reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any

other submissions shall be filed or entertained” without payment to the

judges of the 9th Cir. and the California courts. Appendix C.

III. THE HISTORY OF BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, COLLUSION, PERJURY, FORGERY OF

THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES AND FEDERAL JUDGES IN CALIFORNIA

A. CALIFORNIA JUDGES

1. Before, on and after August 12, 1993, judges Spencer, et al

and their conspirators extorted petitioner to pay them bribes for at

least $260,000.00. Appendix D.

2. Before, on and after January 31, 1994, judges Spencer and

their conspirators extorted petitioner to pay them additional bribes for

$154,000.00. Appendix D.

3. Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy between judges

Armstrong, Turner, and et al in December, 1994°, they conspired with

Kaufman and Highberger to kidnapped Petitioner for seven days from

February 10, 1994 (Chinese New Year) through February 16, 1994. All of

them extorted over $300,000.00 and robbed petitioner in the same period

of time. Appendix D.

4. In April, 1994, the Crime Family attempted to kidnapped

> On or about December 8, 1993, judge Armstrong or another

judge in the same division publicly spoke that he would kidnap

petitioner for ransoms and bribes. Kaufman and Highberger then

carried out his conspiracy scheme. HKST.

petitioner and all of his family members. The Crime Family admitted in

their declaration that they had forcibly broken the house of petitioner

and entered into the house for at least twice. Many files, documents and

valuable items were stolen. Appendix D.

5. Im or about early May 1994, the Crime Family extorted

$500,000.00 from petitioner. Appendix D.

6. In or about May, 1994, Patricia L. Grisinger of the State

Bar of California extorted petitioner to pay $1 million to the Crime

Family, saying that she was acting on behalf of the Crime Family,

otherwise she would put petitioner in an “inactive enrollment.” She also

delivered the “inactive enrollment form" to petitioner's house for

petitioner's signature. Appendix D.

7. Im or about October, 1994, Cydmey Tabor Batchelor and

Donald Robert Steedman of the State Bar of California further extorted

$1 million from petitioner. They specifically admitted that they were

acting on behalf of David Eisen, William F. Highberger and other members

of the Crime Family. Appendix D.

8. In November, 1994, William F. Highberger, Andrew Castellano

and Barry Russell admitted that they had conspired with Cydney Tabor

Batchelor and Donald Robert Steedman of the State Bar of California to

secretly put petitioner in an involuntary inactive enrollment and to

secretly enter default against petitioner without legally serving any

application or complaint upon petitioner. See Say & Say, et al. v. Barry

Russell, et al., before US Bankcruptcy Court for the Central District of

California.

9. Im or about November 1994, the Offices of Prosecutors

commenced the criminal investigation against all members of the Crime

Family. On or about August 2, 1995, William F. Highberger, C. Bernard

Kaufman, V. Spencer, Andrew Castellano and others were indicted for

kidnaping for ransoms, extortion, forgery, et al. Appendix D. They are

facing sentencing now. Other members of the Crime Family are prosecuted.

10. Petitioner is a member of bars in many states, in federal

courts and in Taiwan for over 20 years in good standing. He has never

committed any crime. Nor is there any criminal charge pending against

him. In his over 20 years law practice, no client has ever complained

against him for any kind of professional misconduct.

11. Since in or about 1993, the judges, who are also

prosecuted for their crimes, summarily affirmed all decisions of the

USDC and summarily dismissed all other pending appeals without reviewing

the OB and ER pursuant to their criminal corruption and collusion

scheme.‘

° The appeals include 95-55790 (Ebershoff case) and 95-55723.

Accordingly, three petitions for certiorari are filed with this

court on January 8, 1996 at the same time.

12. The warrants for their arrest will be issued if they

failed to appear for the sentencing and the prosecution. Criminal

supplemental civil complaints and independent civil complaints for

declaratory and inductive relief as well as for damages were also filed

against respondent and members of the Crime Family.

The federal judges are to cover up all of the crimes and

judicial misconduct, professional misconduct of the Caucasian judges and

lawyers family.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Certiorari should be granted.

This Petition presents the issues of the first impression (1)

whether the 9th Cir. can issue an order to show cause without notice and

opportunity to be heard, and without original jurisdiction, and (2)

whether all California courts and the federal courts in California can

completely, permanently and completely depriving petitioner and his

lawyers all of their constitutional rights, which clearly violate the US

Constitution and the FCN Treaty, and which is in the conflict with all

decisions of all circuits.

This Petition also presents issues for this court to clarify

whether Commissioner Shaw, Clerk Gelmis, Judges Robert R. Beezer, David

R. Thompson and Thomas G. Nelson of the Ninth Circuit, who and their

conspirators are indicted and prosecuted for felonies for the conspiracy

to commit corruption, collusion, forgery, illegal competition and

violation of anti-trust law, among other crimes, (1) have "so far

departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or

sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, so as call for an exercise

of this Court's supervisory power," and (2) have “decided an important

federal question in a way that conflict with relevant decisions of this

Court" where they refused to disqualify themselves, covered up their and

their conspirators' crimes, continued to be "in league with those who

were bent upon abrogation of federally protected right,” and summarily

affirmed all lower court's decisions, which dismissed Petitioner's $300

million case, without reviewing the opening brief and reply brief on the

merits (in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy), and such criminal

and judicial misconduct are specifically prohibited by the holdings of

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 539, 104 S. Ct 1970, 1979 (1984), and

Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 240, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 2161 (1972)

(holdings that judges are not allowed to be "in league with those who

were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.")

I. THE 9TH CIR. VIOLATES DUE PROCESS BY REFUSING TO SERVE THE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UPON PETITIONER IN TAIWAN

Both the U.S. constitution and the Treaty of Friendship,

Commerce And Navigation Between the Republic of China and the United

States of America ("FCN Treaty") mandate the service of the order to

show cause upon petitioner in Taiwan. Such service assures adequate

ek i Shae i

notice and opportunity to be heard for due process purpose. Mullane v.

Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 US 306, 314; Mennonite Board

of Missions v. Adams (1983) 462 US 791.

The refusal of service om October 27, 1995 and the

subsequent refusal of service since January 16, 1996 San Francisco time

are evidence that there was no intent of service. The December 13, 1995

order is void for lack of service.

II. THE 9TH CIR. HAS NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE TO PREVENT PETITIONER FROM FILING ANY AND ALL

APPEALS

The 9th Cir. is a reviewing court. It has no original

jurisdiction to issue the OSC. Agricultural Labor v. Tex-Cal (1987) 43

C. 34 696, 739 P. 24 140, 238 C.R. 780. Sumray v. Federal Power (1957).

253 U.S. 944, 77 S. Ct. 792)). “"{I])m the ‘clear absence of all

jurisdiction." Mark HEIMBACH, v. VILLAGE OF LYONS (WAYNE COUNTY, NEW

YORK), 597 F.2d 346 (2nd Cir. 1979).

III. THE 9TH CIR. FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE

HAGUE CONVENTION AND THE LAW IN TAIWAN TO SERVE OSC UPON

PETITIONER

A. ATLANTIC CASE

In Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, et al v. Northwest

Airlines, Inc, 796 F. Supp. 1188 (E.D. Wis. 1992), the court held that

"Taiwan was part of the People's Republic of China [PRC) and thus was a

party to" the Hague Convention. :

"A convention enjoys the status of a treaty. (See American

Trust Company v. Smyth (1957) 247 F. 2d. 149; Garcia v. Pan American

Airways (1946) 295 N. Y. 852, 67 N. E.2d 257; cert. den. 329 U.S. 741,

67 S. Ct 79, 91 L. ED. 640." Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche v. Superior Court,

177 C. R. 155, 156, fm. 1 (3d. Dist., 1981). “Noncompliance with the

service of process requirements of the Hague Convention" voids the

service and the order dismissing the cases. Id. That is another ground

for a motion for relief or motion for reconsideration.

"By virtual of the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, the

Convention preempts inconsistent methods of service prescribed by state

law in all cases to which it applies." Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschafr

v. Schlunk (1988) 486 US 694, 108 S. Ct. 2104. "The Hague Convention

provisions are mandatory, so that failure to comply voids the attempt

service." Id, 486 U.S. at 698, 108 S.Ct. 2108.

Failure to comply with the Hague Convention ("HC") procedures

void the service, even though it was made in compliance with California

law, and even though the Petitioner has actual notice of the lawsuit.

Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche, A.G. v. Sup, Ct (1981) 123 CA3d 755, 177 CR

155.

In this case, there is absolutely no doubt that 9th Cir.

failed to translate the OSC into Chinese languages and transmit through

* In this case, petitioner has no actual notice.

the diplomatic channel as required by the HC. Under both California and

federal cases, the alleged service, if any, is void.

The Bureau of the International Judicial Assistance ("BIJA")

of the Ministry of Justice of the PRC determined that the services must

be done through the BIJA as the Central Authority, and that it would

comply with the Hague Convention to effect such services upon peoples

and entities in Taiwan.

B. N.¥. CHINESE TV PROGRAM CASE

In New York Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E—. Enterprises,

Inc., 954 F. 2d 847 (2d Cir., 1992), the court recognized that the

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce And Navigation Between the Republic of

China and the United States of America ("FCN Treaty”), is still valid

and binding upon the United States of America ("USA").

The FCN Treaty, as a Supremacy Law of Land, mandates the USA

to let the nationals® of the ROC not to "receive treatment with respect

to such rights and privileges less favorable than the treatment which is

or may hereafter be accorded to the nationals of any third party."

Article II, Section 3.

Article VI, Section 4, and Article VII of the FCN Treaty

* The term "nationals" include the corporations. FCN Treaty,

Article VI. Section 1.

a y

clearly state that SAD “shall enjoy freedom of access to the court of

justice" and shall be treated by the USA as the best without

“discriminatory treatment." Id., Article XV. The FCN Treaty expressly

state that SAD shall enjoy the provisions and protection of the KC,

because all members of the HC receive such protection, SAD shall not

receive “rights and privileges less favorable than the treatment which

is or may hereafter be accorded to the nationals of any third party."

The same languages repeated all over the Treaty. Seee.g., Article II,

Section 3. Applying the FCN Treaty is the same as applying the HC

because the FCN Treaty mandates the same result. SAD must be treated no

less favorable than any third party, which is a member of the HC. Thus,

FCN Treaty mandates the result of application of the HC.

C. THE GUIDELINES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

The State Department announced the Guidelines of the State

Department, which requires that all services must comply with the "Law

Governing the Extension of Assistance to the Foreicn Court”

("Extension"), which is in the essence the same as those in the HC.

There is a Central Authority ("CA") in Taiwan, as well, to accept and

effect the service of summons and complaint and the service of

discovery.

No doubt, again, 9TH Cir. failed to comply with the Extension.

IV. PRE-FILING ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A LICENSED LAWYER

The purpose of the pre-filing order is to prevent an appellant

who is a layman and who is not a lawyer. Petitioner is a very successful

lawyer in both Taiwan and U.S. He has been licensed to practice law in

the U.S. for 13 years, and in Taiwan for 23 years.

Despite of the above facts, petitioner has been always

represented by lawyers. However, all petitioner's lawyers were/are

extorted to pay judges and lawyers $1 million bribes and ransoms and not

to represent petitioner. See e.g., In Re Shieh (1993) 17 C.A. 4th 1154,

Say & Say v. Ebershoff, et al (1993) 22 C.A. 4th 1759; Say & Say, et al

v. Castellano, et al, BC 59833 and Shieh, et al _v. Christopher, et al BC

054981 concerning the robbery, and extortion by judges and lawyers. See

also the admission of Kaufman above and in all transcripts in both

cases. See also State Bar Court of California's file nos. 93-0-12380;

93-0-16428,et al concerning the disciplinary proceedings against

petitioner's lawyers, which were provided to this court in other

petitions. In short, all petitioner's lawyers were jailed, sanctioned

and disciplined for several months suspension and others.

As a result, no lawyer dares to publicly represent petitioner.

Those lawyers prepared the pleadings for petitioner to file without

revealing their names in the pleadings.

Under the circumstances that the federal and state judges are

now indicted and prosecuted, that they were also sued for civil

liability, and that no lawyers dare to publicly represent petitioner in

the U.S., and that petitioner himself is a licensed lawyer, the pre-

filing order is unconstitutional.

V. THE STH CIR.'S ORDER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ALL ASPECTS

A. IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF GUILTY

Whether or not an appeal is frivolous cannot be

determined until after the 9th Cir. reviews the opening brief. The

notice of appeal is a very simply document, which contains no issue, no

argument and no authority. A determination of the notice of appeal to be

valid or not is irrebuttable presumption of guilty, as did by all

California corruptive judges since all of them have automatically

dismissed all the appeals and writs for many years. See the above three

published decisions issued by the California Court of Appeals.

B. VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION

In the 9th cir.'s history and in the California history,

no lawyer has ever been prevented from filing notice of appeal. These

corruptive judges made this because of petitioners' race, color,

national origin and religion.

C. RIGHT TO ACCESS TO THE COURT

The pre-filing order violates petitioner's right to access to

the court. See cases infra.

VI. THE 14 DAYS MANDATE FOR RESPONSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

As stated above, most mail reach Taiwan after two weeks.

Many mail was sent to a different country. The OSC and many orders

Lj ‘)

allegedly sent by the 9th Cir. were never received. The order of

December 13, 1995 was received 34 days thereafter. The most effective

method of the next day delivery from the U.S. to Taiwan often takes

three to five working days. Because of the time difference, the next day

delivery, actually, takes at least 48 hours, from Taiwan to the U.S. If

the 9th Cir. serves petitioner by next day delivery and the petitioner

also respond by the next day delivery, the round trip will take at least

7 days. It leaves only 7 days to respond.

No time for service was ever added by the 9th Cir. The

9th Cir. has never sent anything to petitioner by next day delivery.

The California Code of “ivil Procedure §1013 (a) requires

20 days additional time be added to the service outside the country.

However, the corruptive judges of 9th Cir. ordered that no additional

time will be added to the service upon residents in Taiwan. Appendix C._

The 14 days mandate is absolutely impossible and is

unconstitutional. There was no time for service. The total time is less

than California's 20 days additional time.

VII. THE COMPLETE, PERMANENT AND UNLIMITED PROHIBITION OF

PETITIONERS AND THEIR LAWYERS FROM FILING ANY THINGS

CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF ALL CIRCUITS, VIOLATES

THE CONSTITUTION AND TREATY

A. CONFLICT WITH ALL DECISIONS OF ALL CIRCUITS

(1) 1st Cir., Sire v. Gabriel, 748 F.2d 49 (1st

Circuit 1984) (holding that "We stress that where access to the courts

is concerned, an injunction should be drawn as narrowly as possible").

(2) 3rd Circuit: Castro v. The United States of

America 775 F.2d 399, (2nd Circuit 1985) (holding that "The court of

appeals narrowly tailored the injunction to closely fit the specific

vice encountered.") see also Brow v. Farrelly 994 F.2d. 1027, (3rd

Circuit 1993)), Brow v. Farrelly 994 F.2d. 1027, (3rd Circuit 1993)

(holding that "The broad scope of the District court's power is limited

by two fundamental tenets of our legal system -- the litigant's right to

due process and access to the courts"), In re Oliver 682 F.2d 443, (3rd

Circuit 1982) (holding that imposing an injunction "is an extreme

remedy, and should be used in exigent circumstances"), In re Oliver 682

F.2d 443, (3rd Circuit 1982) (holding that "Litigiousness alone will not

support an injunction restricting litigant's filing activities").

(3). 2nd & 10th Circuit, Castro v. United States of

America 775 F.2d 399, (2md Circuit 1985) (holding that "If an injunction

against future litigation issued under 28 U.S.C.A. 1651(a) were couched

in overly broad terms, this impermissible infringes upon a litigator's

right of access to the courts") see also Tripati v. Beaman 878 F.2d

351, (10th Circuit 1989)).

(4). 4th & llth Circuit, Robinson v. Marion 879 F.2d

863, (4th Circuit 1989) (holding that "A court imposing such an

injunction must be careful not to order conditions that effectively deny

oS, J

access to the courts", see also Procup v.Strickland 792 F.2d 1069 (llth

Circuit 1986)).

(5). D.C. Circuit, Urban v. United Nations 768 F.2d

1497, 1500 (D.C. Circuit 1985) (holding that "A court must take great

care not to unduly impair a litigant's constitutional right of access to

the courts").

(6) Sth Cir., Harrelson v. the United States, 613

F.2d 114 (Sth Circuit 1980) (holding that "Orders enjoining future

lawsuits are generally unnecessary because the doctrine of res judicata

or collateral estoppel usually suffice to protect defendants from

repetitious lawsuits").

However, the 9th Cir., and the California courts, in practice,

have absolutely, permanently, completely and unconditionally prohibit

petitioner and all of his past, current and future lawyers from filing

anything. The 9th Cir., and the California Courts have never given

petitioners and their lawyers any fair trial. All papers were prohibited

from filing, and were returned.

THIS COURT SHOULD UNIFY the above conflicting decisions.

B. VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The judges of all California courts and all federal courts in

California violated petitioner's and his lawyers' following rights:

1. First Amendment Right

"The right of petition is one of the freedoms protected

by the Bill of Rights, and we cannot, of course,, lightly impute to

Congress an intent to invade these freedoms." Id., at 138." CALIFORNIA

MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. v. TRUCKING UNLIMITED, 510 (1972)’.

2. Right To Counsel’

"We agree and hold that a restriction on a defendant's

right to consult with his attorney during a brief routine recess is

constitutionally impermissible." UNITED STATES v. ALLEN, 542 F,2d 634

"We conclude that it would be destructive of rights of

association and of petition to hold that groups with common

interests may not, without violating the anti-trust laws, use the

channels and procedures of state and federal agencies and courts to

advocate their causes and points of view respecting resolution of

their business and economic interests vis- a- vis their competitors."

P 510-511

(1972) .

“Petitioners, of course, have the right of access to the

agencies and courts to be heard on applications sought by

competitive highway carriers. That right, as indicated, is part of

the right of — protected _ the First Amendment."

513 (1972).

* With regard to right to counsel, see Fuentes v. Shevin (1972)

407 U.S. 67, 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1984, 32 L.Ed.2d 556, 569-570;

United States v. Ambrey DeWitt Allen (1976, United States Court of

Appeals, Fourth Circuit) 542 F.2d 630; Madison Anderson v. Walter

Sheppard, et al., (1988) 856 F.2d 741;

State of Connecticut et-al., (1971) 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780;

Powell _v. Alabama, (1932) 287 U.S. 45, 53; 53 S.Ct. 55; 77 L.Ed.

158.

(1976)°.

3. Right To Access To The Court”

"The fundamental constitutional right of access to the

courts held to require prison authorities to assist inmates in the

preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners

with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained

in the law." BOUNDS, CORRECTION COMMISSIONER, ET AL. v. SMITH ET AL,

817 (1977").

. "It is so fundamental that there should never occur any

interference with it for any length of time, however brief, absent

some compelling reason." UNITED STATES v. ALLEN, 542 F,2d 633

(1976).

With respect to the deprivation of the right to access the

Court, See

, (9th Cir. 1992) 979 F. 2D 697, 705;

Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1494, 52 L. Ed.2d.

72 (1977); California Motor Transp. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S.

508, 510, 92 S.Ct. 609, 611, 30 L.Ed.2d 642, (1972); Wolff, 418

U.S. at 579, 94 S.Ct. at 2986; Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17

Cal.3d 908, 132 Cal. Rptr. 405;

Aurelio Fregoso Jara v. Municipal

Court of San Antonio Judicial District (1977) 137 Cal. 533, 68 Cal.

App.3d 673.

" "A combination of entrepreneurs to harass and deter their

competitors from having "free and unlimited access" to the agencies

and courts, to defeat that right by massive, concerted, and

purposeful activities of the group are ways of building up one

empire and destroying another."

» 515 (1972).

"We have no doubt that plaintiffs, even though they are

inmates, have some first and fourteenth amendment rights to air

their grievances and to have access to judicial procedures to

redress them." TIMMERMAN Vv. BROWN Foard, 528 F.2d *815 (4th Cir.

1975).

"(1) that any carrier has the right of access to agencies and

courts, within the limits, of course, of their prescribed

procedures, in order to defeat applications of its competitors for

certificates as highway carriers; and (2) that its purpose to

eliminate an applicant as a competitor by denying him free and

meaningful access to the agencies and courts may be implicit in

U J

4. Right To Neutral and Detached Judges”

"Because of the e fundamental need for judicial neutrality, we

hold that the harmless error doctrine is inapplicable in cases where

judicial bias and/or hostility is found to have been exhibited at any

stage of a judicial proceeding." ANDERSON v. SHEPPARD, 856 F.2d 746

(1988)

"When a trial judge exhibits the open hostility and bias

at the beginning of a judicial proceeding as was exhibited here, it

follows that the judgment entered therein must be reversed." ANDERSON v.

SHEPPARD, 856 F.2d 747 (1988)

The motions for disqualification were filed against

judges many times on the different grounds. They were disregarded

without any reason. Further these judges retaliate against Petitioner,

despite the fact that they were indicted and prosecuted.

Section 455 provides broader grounds but does not specify

the procedure for disqualification and is self-enforcing on the part of

that opposition." CALIFORNIA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. v. TRUCKING

UNLIMITED, 515 (1972).

"Due process of law prohibits a State from denying,

solely because of inability to pay court fees and costs, access to

its courts to indigents who, in good faith, seek judicial

dissolution of their marriage." BODDIE v. CONNECTICUT, 371 (1971)

- In connection with due process rights to have cases

determined by neutral and detached judges, see Madison Anderson v.

Walter Sheppard, et al., (1988) 856 F.2d 741; Marshall v. Jerrico,

Inc., (1980) 446 U.S. 238; 100 S.Ct. 1610; 64 L.Ed.2d 182.

Sex = -

eae a ie

the judge. It requires a judge or magistrate to "disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned"

(28 USC §455(a) (emphasis added)); and it also requires disqualification

where the judge or magistrate: -

Has a personal bias or prejudice against a party (28

USC §455(b) (1));

Has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts

(28 USC §455(b) (1));

.Either before or after becoming a judge, was related to

or connected with the case, the parties or their attorneys (28 USC

§455(b) (2) & (3)); or

. The judge (or magistrate) or a relative has a financial

interest in the subject matter in controversy or a party to the

proceeding or any interest that would be substantially affected by the

outcome of the proceedings (28 USC § 455(b) (4)).

Disqualification is required if a reasonable factual basis

exists for doubting the judge's impartiality: "The inquiry is whether a

reasonable person would have a reasonable basis for questioning the

judge's impartiality, not whether the judge is in fact impartial." [In

re Beard (4th Cir. 1987) 811 F2d 818, 827; Perston v. United States (9th

Cir. 1991) 923 F2d 731, 734; see also Liljeberg v. Health Services

J .3

Acquisition Corp. (1988) 486 US 847, 860-861)

The judge before whom the matter is pending "has a personal

bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party."

[28 USC §144]

The judge must assume that the facts alleged are true, even if

he or she knows them to be false. [See Berger v. United States (1921)

255 US 22)

The following cases deal with whether the judge's impartiality

"might reasonably be questioned";

1). Shortly after granting summary judgment and awarding

fees to Firm, Judge resigned from bench and joined Firm in practice of

law. Held: Reversible error; Judge should have rejected employment offer

or vacated rulings in question. [In re Continental Airlines Corp. (5th

Cir. 1990) 901 F2d 1259, 1262]

2). In a criminal case, trial judge and U.S. Attorney

were close friends who intended to vacation together with their families

after the trial. Held: The close personal relationship could result in

“reasonable question" about the judge's impartiality. (United States v.

Murphy (6th Cir. 1985) 768 F2d 1518, 1538-1539)

3). Before his appointment to the bench, the judge had

been “of counsel" to the law firm now representing Huges Aircraft.

Although Huges was not a party to the wrongful death action pending

U )

before the judge, it could be sued for indemnification if the defendants,

lost the action. This presented a sufficient risk that the judge's

impartiality “might reasonably be questioned by the public."

Disqualification was required. [Preston v. United States (9th Cir. 1991)

923 F2d 731, 734)

4). In extraordinary cases, bias for or against an

attorney may be so continuing and “virulent” as to amount to bias for or

against the party represented. (see Davis v. Board of School

Commissioners (Sth Cir. 1975) 571 F2d 1044, 1051)

5). The preconceived views may rise to the level of

personal bias if it is established that the judge's mind is “irrevocably

closed" on the issue as it arises in the context of a particular

case...so that the judge is incapable of judging a particular

controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances. [Southern

Pacific Communications v. AT&T, 740 F2d at 911)

6). A negative bias against a party will disqualify "only

if...of a kind or degree that a fair-minded person could not entirely

set aside when judging certain persons or causes.." (United States v.

Conforte (9th Cir. 1980) 624 f£2d 869, 884-judge has said Conforte, a

brothel owner, was "not good for Reno")

7) Disqualification is much more likely to be required

where the judge's negative attitude toward a party is somehow related to

U J

a suspect or invidious motive such as racial bias, or a dangerous link

such as a financial interest. (See United States v. Conforte, supra, 624

f2d at 811)

8). The comment that the judge "would not intentionally

discriminate” went to the ultimate merits of the action and would cause

a reasonable person to question the judge's impartiality. (Roberts v.

Bailar (6th Cir. 1980) 625 f£2d 125, 127]

9). Judges or magistrates must recuse themselves if they

have “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts in the

proceeding." [28 USC §455(b)(1)] The judge or such other lawyer was a

material witness concerning the matter in controversy. [28 USC

§455(b)(2)] Or, to the judge's knowledge, likely to be a material

witness in the proceeding. [28 USC §455(b)(5)} [16:201.1-201.4]

Reserved. When judges sitting on a case become aware of grounds for

disqualification, they have a duty to recuse themselves under 28 USC

$455. (BE. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co, (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F2d

1327, 1343)

In light of facts stated herein, all cof case law are

applicable to judges of the federal courts. See various disqualification

papers filed in this case and in other cases.

Commissioner Peter Shaw, Deputy Clerk / Motion Attorney Susan

V. Gelmis, Judges Robert R. Beezer, David R. Thompson and Thomas G.

U J

Nelson of the Ninth Circuit, who and their conspirators are indicted and

prosecuted for felonies for the conspiracy to commit corruption,

collusion, forgery, illegal competition and violation of anti-trust law,

among other crimes. Appendix D.

They have "so far departed from the accepted and usual course

of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower

court, so as call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power."

They have also "decided an important federal question in a way that

conflict with relevant decisions of this Court."

They refused to disqualify themselves, covered up their and

their conspirators' crimes, continued to be “in league with those who

were bent upon abrogation of federally protected right." They summarily

affirmed a lower court's decision (through another corruption and

collusion) which dismissed Petitioner's $300 million case without

reviewing the opening brief and reply brief on the merits in furtherance

of their criminal conspiracy, and such criminal and judicial misconduct

are specifically prohibited by the holdings of Pulliam v. Allen, 466

U.S. 522, 539, 104 S. Ct 1970, 1979 (1984), and Mitchum v. Foster, 407

U.S. 225, 240, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 2161 (1972) (holdings that judges are not

allowed to be "in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of

federally protected rights.")

This Court should grant the petition.

C. VIOLATION OF THE FCN TREATY

J J

Article VI, Section 4 of the Treaty of Friendship,

Commerce And Navigation Between the Republic of China and the United

States of America ("FCN Treaty"): "The nationals, corporations and

associations of either High Contracting Party shall enjoy freedom of

access to the courts of justice and to administrative tribunals and

agencies in the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in all

degrees of jurisdiction established by law, both in pursuit and in

defense of their rights; shall be at liberty to choose and employ

lawyers, interpreters and representatives in the prosecution and defense

of their rights before such courts, tribunals and agencies; and shall be

permitted to exercise all these rights and privileges, in conformity

with the applicable laws and regulations, if any, which are or may

hereafter be enforced by the duly constituted authorities, on terms no

less favorable than the terms which are or may hereafter be accorded to

the nationals, corporations and associations of such other High

Contracting Party and no less favorable than are or may hereafter be

accorded to the nationals, corporations and associations of any third

country. Moreover, corporations and associations of either High

Contracting Party shall be permitted to exercise the rights and

privileges accorded by the preceding sentence upon the filing, at any

time prior to appearance before such courts, tribunals or agencies, of

reasonable particulars required by the laws and regulations of such

other High Contracting party without any requirement of registration or

domestication."

Both California courts and the federal courts violate each and

every sentence of the above Treaty.

VU J

D. THE CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF THE

STATE JUDGES AND FEDERAL JUDGES JUSTIFY DISQUALIFICATION

Appendix D is true and correct copies of the criminal

indictment and criminal prosecution of the state judges and federal

judges who conspired to commit bribery, kidnapping for bribes,

corruption, collusion, forgery, perjury and other crimes was submitted

to USDC and 9th Cir. Such indictment and prosecution occurred after the

cases were dismissed without serving a motion for summary judgment and

without serving an order from the USDC.

The criminal indictment and criminal prosecution of the

Federal Commissioner, Clerk and Judges Peter Shaw, Susan V. Gelmis,

David Kenyon, Beezer, Thompson, and T. G. Nelson, as well as state.

judges Vaino Hassan Spencer, Edward Y. Kakita, Paul A. Turner, Orville

A. Armastrong, et al for bribery, kidnapping for ransoms and bribes,

corruption, collusion, perjury, forgery, et al constitute a ground for

disqualification.

In Bonner v.Circuit Court (8th Cir., 1975) 526 F 2d 1331,

1334; and in United States v. Allen, 542 F 2d 633 (1976), “The Court,

however, has recognized that a judge is not absolutely immune from

criminal liability, Ex Parte Virginia, i100 U.S. 339, 348-349, 25 L.Ed.

676 (1880), or froma suit for prospective injunctive relief, Pulliam v.

Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 536-543, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 1977-1982, 80 L.Ed.2d 565

(1983), or fron a suit for attorney's fees authorized by statute, id.,

at 543-544, 104 S.Ct., at 1981-1982." MIRELES v. WACO 112 S.Ct. 286,

1991. ;

The Supreme Court observed:

“Judges who would willfully discriminate on the ground of race

or otherwise would willfully deprive the citizen of his constitutional

rights, as this complaint alleges, must take account of 18 U.S.C. s

242”

“Whatever may be the case with respect to ... civil

liability for willful corruption, see Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106,

110--111 (34 S.Ct. 27, 28--29, 58 L.Ed. 142) (1913); . we have never

held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or

executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of

otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. ... On the

contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does

not reach ‘so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act

' Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627, 92 S.Ct.

2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972)." Bonner v. Circuit Court (8th Cir., 1975)

526 F.2d 1331, 1334. [Emphasis added, citations omitted).

of Congress ....

"Immunity does not change the character of the judge's action

or that of his co-conspirators" because "[a] state judge can be found

criminally liable under #242." Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 29, 101

" That section provides:

‘Whoever, under color of any law , statute, ordinance,

regulation, or custom willfully subjects any inhabitant of any

State... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States, or to different ishments, pains or penalties, on

account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his

color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens,

shall be fined... or imprisoned....'

S.Ct. 183, 187 and FNS (1980)"™.

The petition should be granted to resolve the conflict

and to resolve the violation of the Constitution and the FCN Treaty.

VIII. CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ARE SELF-

EVIDENT THAT STATE AND FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOT NEUTRAL AND

These state and federal judges were indicted and prosecuted

and were disqualified through the filing the motions’ for

disqualification.

The FCN Treaty, Article VI, Section 2 provides that: "The

nationals, corporations and associations of either High Contracting

Party ... Shall be permitted to exercise all these rights and

privileges, . On terms no less favorable than the terms which are or

may hereafter be accorded to the nationals, corporations and

associations of such other High Contracting Party and no less favorable

than are or may hereafter be accorded to the nationals, corporations and

associations of any third country."

In Concrete Pipe & Const. Laborers Pen. Tr., 113 S. Ct 2264,

2277 (1993), this court held that "due process requires a ‘neutral and

“ "The Court, however, has recognized that a judge is not

absolutely immune from criminal liability, . or from a suit for

prospective injunctive relief, or from a suit for attorney's

fees authorized by statute." MIRELES v. WACO 112 S.Ct. 286 (1991)

{Citations ommitted].

U J

detached judge in the first instance' ... one is entitled as a matter of

due process of law to an adjudicator who is not in a situation ‘which

would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge

which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true."

Over 10 decisions of the federal judges, and over 100

decisions of the state judges as well as overwhelming evidence before

the criminal courts and the Offices of the Prosecutors, prove that these

judges are crooks, are dirty and are liars.

Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in

nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction." MIRELES v.

WACO 112 S.Ct. 286, 288: (1991).

"(A) judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in

mature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Id., at 356-

357, 98 S.Ct., at 1104-1105; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 351."

MIRELES v. WACO 112 S.Ct. 286, 288. (1991)".

“(T]he trial judge properly applied the rule of Stump v.

‘In determining whether an action is "judicial," We consider

the nature of the act and whether it is a "function normally

performed by a judge." Stump v. Sparkman." MIRELES v. WACO 112

S.Ct. 286, 289. (1991).

“Moreover, even if the act is "judicial," judicial

immunity does not attach if the judge is acting in the " ‘clear

absence of all jurisdiction.' " Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S., at

357, 98 S.Ct., at 1105 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,

351, 20 L.Ed. 646 (872))" MIRELES v. WACO 112 S.Ct. 286, 289.

(1991).

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331, in holding that

the acts perpetrated outside of Judge Harvey's courtroom and not then a

part of his judicial functions were undertaken in the “absence of all

jurisdiction." These acts involved the defendant's repeated

communications to the press" Slyvester HARRIS v. Richard G. HARVEY, 605

F.2d *336 (7th Cir 1979)".

IX. SUMMARY AFFIRMATION OF ALL USDC'S DECISIONS, AFTER

COMMISSION OF BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, COLLUSION, ET AL., VIOLATE U.S.

CONSTITUTION AND FCN TREATY

Without notice to Petitioners, and without an opportunity to

be heard, the corruptive and collusive judges of 9th Cir. summarily

affirmed all decisions of the USDC -- more than 10 appeals-- without

"We also agree that nonetheless Judge Harvey was acting under

color of law by using the power and prestige of his state office to

damage the plaintiff." "When the defendant Judge Harvey urged the

discharge of Lieutenant Harris with racial overtones in out-of-

court conversations ... he was acting as a functionary of the state

* * *." Slyvestery HARRIS v. Richard G. HARVEY, 605 F.2d *337 (7th

Cir 1979).

"We agree with the district court that such an

intentional tort inspired by racial animus and perpetrated under

color of state law constitutes a denial of equal protection.

Defendant has produced no said holding that such an action is not

cognizable under Section 1983. Here the defendant was action under

color of law, and the jury found that his racially motivated

actions had injured plaintiff. Such a claim is clearly within the

purview of Section 1983." "However, as the district court pointed

out, plaintiff's claim was not for defamation but for an

intentional deprivation of equal protection of the laws" "The

jury's findings that defendant's actions were not only racially

motivated but were of an action-intended-to-injure quality

establish that they were neither fair comment nor the type of

speech that is protected by the First Amendment." Slyvester HARRIS

v. Richard G. HARVEY, 605 F.2d *338 (7th Cir 1979).

3272

iw, J

notice and without the opportunity to be heard.

Both U.S. Constitution and the FCN Treaty mandate the notice

to petitioners and an opportunity to be heard. The judges in the 9th

Cir. are now subject to criminal prosecution and civil actions for their

criminal commissions.

This Court shall not continue to close their eyes by allowing

the largest corruption to go on in California.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, a writ of certiorari should

issue to review the judgments and Opinions of the Court of Appeals and

the United States District Court in this matter’.

DATED: January 22, 1996

Respectfully submitted,

SA Fem Prt

Law Offices of Shieh Liang-Houh

Attorney For Petitioners

" If this court elects not to

address the issues presented i

— — at the present time, it is requested that the writ jesus

— that the matter be remanded to the Court of Appeals for

etermination of all issues presented in the Questions Presented.

: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 8%

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

In re: LIANG-HOUH SHIEH, aka SHIEH ) No. 95-80348

LIANG-HOUH, )

)

Respondent. ) ORDER

)

On October 27, 1995, this court issued an order directing

respondent Liang-Houh Shieh to respond and show cause why this

court should not issue the following pre-filing review order

preventing him from filing new appeals in this court without the

permission of the court. Respondent has failed to file a timely

response to the order to show cause.

- Pursuant to this court’s October 27, 1995 order, the

following pre-filing review order is hereby entered. Respondent’s

failure to comply with the order shall result in any new appeal (s)

he seeks to file being dismissed or not being filed and other

sanctions being levied against respondent, such as a monetary

judgment or a judgement of contempt, as the court may deem

appropriate.

Pre-Filing Review Order

(1) This pre-filing review order shall apply to all notices

of appeal filed by respondent, in whole or in part, if he proceeds

pro se. This order shall not apply to appeals in which respondent

has counsel or where the district court has expressly certified in

its order that the appeal is not frivolous. Should respondent

" FILED.

—s

‘

——m + *

No. 95-80348 -3-

[appellant] unless he has first obtained leave of the court of

file such papers").

(S) This pre-filing review order shall remain in effect

until further order of this court. Respondent may, no earlier

than January 1, 1998, petition the court to lift this pre-filing

review order, setting forth the reasons why the order should be

lifted.

For the Court:

Susan. Hobmia

Susan V. Gelmis

Motions Attorney/Deputy Clerk

Local Rule 27-7

PSM.Orders 12/95/sg

“. ae .

’

HIGHBERGER, KAKITA, SPENCER & TURNER MAF CORP

P.O. Box 84-242

Taipei, Taiwan

Fax: (011-886)2-3939-411 ‘

(01 1-886)2-394-0530 (answering/fax machine)

January 17, 1996

Via Fax (415)744-9098

Mr. Wayne Price

Clerk

United State Court of Appeal

of 9th Cir.

121 Spear Street, P.O. Box 193939

San Francisco, CA 94105

USA

Re: File No, 95-80348

Dear Mr. Price:

ie. This letter confirms the telephone conversation this morning at approximately 2:00a.m.

Taipei time, which was approximately 10:00a.m. on January 16, 1996 San Francisco time. In

that telephone conversation, you agreed to fax us the October 27, 199. order to show cause right

away. The fax numbers were given to you as (01 1-886)2-3939-411, and 413 as well as (011-

886)2-394-0530 (answering/fax machine). However, we have not recei ved any fax from you yet.

As indicated in the telephone conversation, a petition for certi:1rari will be filed and the

90 days will be expired soon (1/25/96 the USSC must receive it). No one has ever received that

order to show cause. Your prompt fax will be greatly appreciated.

By accepting the fax, we don’t waive any and all rights for the . ck of service and others.

You indicated that Peter Shaw, a Caucasian Commissioner, i sued that order to show

cause, and that the Dec. 13, 1995 order was made solely by Susan \ Gelmis. Please correct

the above immediately, if any of the foregoing is incorrect.

Wary ony Kakita, Spencer

Highberger, Kea+t3,

& Turner MAF

Highberger, Kakita, Spencer & Turner MAF Corp.

[It\ls\f\6\1\t)

MESSAGE CONFIRMATION

eee te ee

81/17/96 17:16

1 D=ABCDEFG

DATE

TIME S,R-TIME DISTANT STATION [D MODE PAGES RESUL

@1/17 17:18 82°38" 4157449996 ECM-S

7 | | G1 OK 2222

ee ee

net

FILED

r*.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC -9. “894,

.* } . ‘ 4

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Cava tt?

| SOYA STE ae .

No. 94-55649

SAY & SAY CORPORATION, et al.,

The following requests contained in

25, 1994 reply to the eppositioc

of time are denied: ‘2) "request to ©

the State Department. the laws in the

1 law,” and (2) request

ana «he internationa

time for service.

! No motions

clarification of this orcer shall be <:+

,~¢

for reconsideration, rehearing oF

appellants’

)

| plaintiffs-Appellants. ) pee Cv-93-6547-DVK

) Central California

vs. )

)

i EDWARD Y. KAKITA, Superior Court Judge, ) ORDER

et al., )

)

| pefendants-Appeliees- )

—_ , )

Before: HALL and TROTT, Circuit Judges a 2

ctober

n to their motion for extensic

omply with the guideline

Repudlic of China,

for additional

tiled or entertained.

[English Symptanton

Parties Names’

Criminal Defendant

Vaino Hassan Spencer

300 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

U.S.A.

Female, USA’ = ale

Born: July 22, 1920 é s%

Edward Y. Kakita

111 North Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

U.S.A.

eae eee —

Male, USA

Born: May 8, 1940

William Foster Highberger

333 South Grand Avenue

49th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

U.S.A.

Male, USA

Born: May 15, 1950

Ivy Tak Ling Yuen

1122 East Green Stree

Pasadena, CA $1106, U.S.A.

Female, Mainland China ‘

Born: July 8, 1960 : |

Gerald Vernon Hollingsworth, Jr.

1122 East Green Street

‘

' In case the English translation defers from the Chinese

version, the Chinese version shall control and govern.

? The Sex, Date of Birth and Place of Birth or Nationality of

each criminal defendant are listed under each criminal defendant's

portion infra.

> It means either the place of birth or the nationality.

Criminal

Defendant

Pasadena, CA 91106, U.S.A.

Male, USA

Born: November 10, 1960

6. Andrew Castellano

1004 Arroyo Drive, No. 2

Sovth Pasadena, CA 91030,

Male, USA

Born: April 7, 1934

7. Wesley Allen Rusch

837 Traction Avenve

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1840

U.S.A.

Male, USA

Born: October 2, 1956

8. Francisca Noemi Araiza

3852 E. Colorado Blvd.

Pasadena, CA $1107

U.S.A.

Female, USA

Born: January 29, 1960

9. Paul A. Turner

300 S. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

USA

Male, USA

Born: January 12, 1947

10. Jerold A. Krieger

111 N. Hill Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012-3117

USA

Male, USA

Born: December .12, 1943

11. David V. Kenyon,

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012, USA

Male, USA

Born: September 10, 1930

U.S.A.

Criminal Defendant 12. cC. Bernard Kaufman

24701 Guy Road

Hidden Hills, CA 911302

USA

Tel: 818-888-8896

Male, USA

Born: November 27, 1927

The Criminal Defendants* herein have jointly and

severally committed using false business records, using forged

documents, kidnapping for ransoms, forgery and alteration of the

stock certificates, extortion, blackmail and intimidation,

defamation, using forged and altered evidence, burglary, larceny

and theft, infringement of credit, revealing the secrets of

another, unfair competition, et al. The Criminal Defendants are

hereby indicted pursuant to the laws.

I. The Statement of the Background of Crimes Committed by the

Criminal Defendants.

(1) This case was originally investigated by the Offices of

the Public Prosecutors (1995, investigation no. 2669, originally

assigned to Division "Yang" and now, in Division "Lai"). The Public

Prosecutor recommended that this case be prosecuted by the

Prosecutor herein. This court is hereby requested to transfer the

investigation files from the Offices of Public Prosecutor to this

— to avoid the repetition on the investigation of the same

evidence.

(2) To become a lawyer and a judge in the United States is

very easy. The annual passing rate is approximately 90% nationwide.

Despite of the fact that there are many bad schools in the State of

California, the annual passing rate for the bar examination in the

State of California is approximately 77% (Evidence 1).

Approximately one-third ("1/3") of the judges in the Los Angeles

area are graduates of such bad schools. The law graduates of the

top ten law schools can be hardly found. The legal and moral

quality of the American lawyers and ,judcges differs one from

another. The American judges are elected and appointed through the

large law firms and the special interest groups behind the scene.

Most judges are used and controlled as the instrumentalities by the

oer etnatues individually cited as "CD" and collectively cited

as " .

large law firms. (American lawyer Haddix's testimony in the

investigation files). The judges herein-lost their independence

completely. The judges or their clerks simply stamp or sign,

without any change, of the decisions and orders prepared by the

Caucasian lawyers, and become the civil and criminal decisions and

orders pursuant to their purpose of “complete control” and

“interest transfer". (American lawyer Andion's testimony in the

investigation files). Caucasian judge Phillip Cox admitted: "This

is an unusual case where they've extended it [vexatious litigant

statute) to them when he (Shieh) has an attorney representing hin.

As I tell you, they are my bosses, and I can't overrule the(m}*."

(The transcript of the proceeding will be submitted later). The

American Caucasian lawyer Richard R. Hopkins admitted that when

Shieh and his lawyers are before the courts in the Los Angeles

area, they are “like a Jew in the Nazi Germany". (Evidence 2). In

the “Nazi court", “every motion or every opposition made” by

Criminal Defendants herein “is gospel truth and everything that I

say is not*." (The transcript of proceeding ("TP") will be

submitted later). In this most outrageous and most ridiculous Los

Angeles area, where there is no law at all, the Criminal Defendant

no. 12 C. Bernard Kaufman directly and indirectly admitted in his

last day of the proceedings before his retirement: "Everything

we're saying here is going on the record, but obviously my mind

does question things, but things that happen, things that happen,

I can't change them, so I'll let it go’." (TP will be submitted

later). One who is corruptive, is in violation of the law, is in

violation of the duty, is capable of committing crimes under the

sun, “his words are true, when he will soon retire."

(3). The gross income of the Prosecutor often reaches several

million United States Dollar per year because he is licensed to

practice law in Taiwan and in the US, and because he received the

J.D. and J.S.D. degrees from the Yale University. The Criminal

Defendants are those who became bad judges and bad lawyers through

the above process. They engaged in unfair competition and in

destroying Prosecutor's clients' basis. They conspired with judges

* The above languages are quoted “word by word" from the

transcript of the proceeding in x i

Gated December'7, 1993 in the

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange.

* The word by word quotation of the transcript of proceeding

Hichbercer, et 2) and

lines 15-17.

, Gated April 22, 1995, at &,

7 Word by word quotation from the TP in the above two cases,

Gated April 22, 1995, at 14, lines 11-14.

Y J

to “corrupt, violate the law, violate the duty" and to extort

Prosecutor to pay them the alleged US$1 million bribes or illegal

money. They conspired with each other to commit blackmail,

extorsion, kidnapping for ransoms, and put Prosecutor in the “false

lights" completely. The winning rate was 100% (the Affidavit of

Percy Chien will be submitted later) or near 100% when the

Prosecutor represented his clients in the United States.

Nevertheless, the Criminal Defendants committed forgery, forged and

altered the evidence, forged the courts' decisions and lied to the

world that (1) Prosecutor has no attorney representing him (in

fact, the Criminal Defendants have never seen Prosecutor in the

court representing himself, and the Prosecutor was represented by

lawyers) and (2) Prosecutor's cases are completely without merits

in law and in fact. Criminal Defendants corrupted with judges not

to review the civil and criminal cases of the Prosecutor and his

clients, to automatically dismiss their cases or to automatically

rule against Prosecutors and his clients (Affidavit of Percy Chien

will be submitted later). In order to take away all of Prosecutor's

clients, Criminal Defendants conspired with each other and

completely prohibited Prosecutor from filing the "complaints",

“cross-complaints", "motions" and "appeals", et al. (Evidence nos.

2 to 5). Those who did not abandon Prosecutor's cases were either

punished or sentenced to jail without any factual and legal basis.

(See the testimonies of Hopkin (sic)}* and Andion before the Offices

of the Public Prosecutors). Criminal Defendants “secretly” forged

documents and put Prosecutor in an involuntary inactive enrollment

("IIE”}] without serving Prosecutor properly and legally in order to

take away all of Prosecutor's clients. Criminal Defendants then

shared the profits from the taking of Prosecutor's clients' money

and benefits.

II. The Facts and Evidence of the Crimes

(1) Using False Business Records

; 1. Criminal Defendant Highberger recorded false

information that Prosecutor is not a member of the United States

court (alleged Counsel ...) in his business documents in Evidence

nos. 24, 25 and 23. Criminal Defendant Highberger also made such

false statement before the federal court (See Evidence 8, lines 22

to 24). In fact, Prosecutor was admitted to practice before the

United States District Court for the Central District of California

(This can be proved from Evidence 9, page 2, the Certificate of

Admission. The fact of the admission is a public record. Anyone can

obtain such information). Criminal Defendant Highberger further

recorded false information in Evidence 5, line 10 and Evidence 6

and 7, line 9 that the Prosecutor's papers submitted to the court

* Due to the clerical error, the word “Hopkin” should be

"Haddix". Both words are very similar when translated into Chinese.

“ee

( } )

as “without merit and frivolous." The federal court did not use

such words in making that decision. Criminal Defendant Highberger

knows the allegations are not true, but nevertheless recorded such

falsity in his business records and distributed them to Taiwan

(this can be proven from Evidence nos. 5, 6 and 7, the last page,

the names and addresses on the service list) in order to injure

Prosecutor. Criminal Defendant Highberger is suspected to commit

Article 216 of the Criminal Code.

2. Pursuant to Evidence 10, page 2, lines 9-11, Criminal

Defendant Highberger deceived that Prosecutor represented Criminal

Defendant Highberger without his authorization, et al. In fact,

Prosecutor has never stated that he represented this criminal, how

could the issue of authority come into play? In Evidence 27,

Criminal Defendant Highberger falsely recorded in his business

records that his pleadings were mailed to the Prosecutor in Taiwan

by his secretary Geri D. Hollins on April 12, 1995 with postage

fully prepaid (See Evidence 10, page 3, lines 8 and 18 and page 4,

lines 6-7). Evidence 10 is a copy of the envelop which shows that

the mailing date was in fact April 18, 1995 and the postage is

insufficient (at least US$6.00 is required for the international

mail with such weight). This is another evidence of using false

business records.

3. Criminal Defendant Highberger and other Criminal

Defendants in their business records submitted to the American

courts recorded that Prosecutor was litigating his cases without

lawyers (i.e., In Pro Per, see Evidence 2, Criminal Defendant

Highberger recorded sucn words in many places in that pleading).

The Fact that Prosecutor was represented by lawyers in all his

cases was proved by the court's files (the counsel for the

Prosecutor is shown on the upper left corner of the pleadings in

Evidence 11, 21) and by the declarations of Richard R. Hopkins and

James L. Andion. On May 12, 1995, Lance Haddix, Esq. also testified

the same and confirmed the truth of the declarations of Richard

Hopkins and James L. Andion. (Evidence i2). Accordingly, the false

business records recording that Prosecutor was in pro per and was

satisfied with all requirements under the §391(b) of the California

Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") for a “vexatious litigant" are

contrary to the facts. Criminal Defendant knew that the above are

false, but nevertheless wilfully, maliciously and intentionally

recorded such falsities in their business records. Criminal

Defendant used such false business records and used the State Bar

of California [("SBC"} and courts as their instrumentalities

(Criminal Defendant Spencer delivered such false business records

to the State Bar of California, and in turn delivered the same to

Taiwan) in order to injure and harass Prosecutor (this can be

proved from the fax and envelop in Evidence 13). It is clear that

Criminal Defendants have committed the above crimes.

4. Moreover, Honorable Judges Dickran Tevrizian and

Mariana R. Pfaeizer of the United States District Court for the

Central District of California had never declared Prosecutor as a

vexatious litigant. At that time, there was no vexatious litigant

statute, rule or law under the federal system. This fact can be

proved from Evidence 4 and 21 which consist of the decision of the

federal court and from the testimonies of Lance Haddix and James L.

An@ion before the Offices of the Public Prosecutors. Under American

case law, a plaintiff can legally refile the same claims in the

state court when the federal court declines to exercise the

supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the state claims (Evidence

18). When the court dismisses a case for lack of prosecution,

plaintiff can legally refile the same claims (Evidence 19).

Prosecutor's clients' and relatives’ cases are not his cases in pro

per. This can be proved from the testimonies of President Wang of

the Ching Luen Enterprises Co., Ltd. and President Chien of the PSJ

Corp., as well as Evidence 4, 23. It is more than clear that

Criminal Defendants wilfully, maliciously and intentionally used

forged documents, used forged and altered evidence and used false

records.

5. Criminal Defendants conspired with each other to

circulate the above false documents in the United States and in

China (Taiwan) in order to injure Prosecutor's reputation. Criminal

Defendants further conspired to put Prosecutor in an involuntary

inactive enrollment [“IIE"] (Evidence 19). Criminal Defendants

conspired with the judge of SBC to throw away Prosecutor's

pleadings, to refuse to file such pleadings or enter them into

evidence, but to enter the "“Gefault judgment" against Prosecutor.

Judge (Robbins) admitted such crime. A copy of such false records

were delivered to the non-parties Steedman and Batchelor (cc:

Donald R. Steedman Cydaney Batchelor), who in turn delivered such

false records to Criminal Defencant Highberger, et al, and Criminal

Defendants in turn delivered the same to places in Taiwan. As a

consequence, Prosecutor is uneble to continue to represent his

clients on the ongoing cases and to represent his new clients in

Taiwan and all places in the world. The court should punish

cyieinal Defendants with such crimes in accordance with the laws.

(2). Criminal Defendants Jointly And Severally Used The Forged

Documents

1. Criminal Defendants nos. 3, 4. 5, 6, 7 & 8 were in pro

per (see the upper left corner of Evidence 3 and other evicences to

be submitted later) and did not spend any money for the attorneys

fees. They conspired with Criminal Defendants nos. 1, 2, 10 & 12

Kaufman, et al to forge the documents, to forge and alter evidence,

to record false information, to request Prosecutor to pay them

approximately US$1 million attorneys fees and to post US$47 million

attorneys fees as bond as a condition to process the case. Criminal

Defendants used such documents to put Prosecutor in an IIE

(Evidence 4, last page, Evidence nos. 19, 20). The above ridiculous

decisions are void and null in their face and thus, no effect upon

Prosecutor. However, Criminal Defendants conspired with SBC and

judges to form a group for the purpose of criminal extortion for

ransoms so as to collect all severally million USS of profits and

benefits per year and to discriminate against Prosecutor on the

basis of race, color and national origin. The Superior Court of the

State of California [("SC"} and the United States District Court for

the Central District of California ("USDC") (Criminal Defendants

nos. 2, 10, 11 & 12) expressly stated that they would not review

Prosecutor's cases and would rule against Prosecutor anyway. The

Court of Appeals of the State of California, (Second Appellate

District] ("CCA") (Criminal Defendants Nos. 1 & 9) expressly stated

that they would not review any of Prosecutor's appeals and writs of

mandate/prohibition. They ordered the lower courts to dismiss all

Prosecutor's cases (Evidence 4, the second to the last page) unless

over US$300,000 (which is, in fact, bribes since no attorneys fees

were spent) is collected from Prosecutor before the dismissal of

Prosecutor's cases. The Supreme Court of the State of California

("csc") has never accepted Prosecutor's cases for review. The above

facts were admitted by Criminal Defendants 1, 2, 9, 10 & 12, were

testified by Haddix and Andion, attorneys at law, were proved by

the declaration of Richard R. Hopkins and by the affidavit of

Haddix signed before the notary public of the Taipei District Court

(Evidence 4, 12, California judges ruled against Prosecutor even

before reviewing the pleadings). Criminal Defendants corrupted with

judges in order to deprive Prosecutor of all his constitutional and

federal rights and to take away Prosecutor's clients and money.

2. Criminal Defendants no. 3 Highberger and no. 5

Hollingsworth forged other parties’ pleadings for the signature of

the federal judges (Evidence 21 proves that Hichberger and

Hollingsworth did not have authority te represent others; in

evidence nos. 5, 6, 7, first page, line 18, the circled portions

prove that they forged such authorities, the sane &s Evidence 23).

Other Forced? Documents will Be Submitted Later.

;

(3) Defamation

1. All Criminal Defendants repeatedly defamed Prosecutor

as a “vexatious litigant" (Evidence 3, 4 and 10, page 2, Evidence

19, page 3)-

2. Criminal Defendant no. 3 Highberger defamed Prosecutor

as “the corporation's alter ego", and defamed Prosecutor using

“corporate shell to sue." (Evidence no. 19, pages 2 & 3 the circled

parts).

3. Once the documents stated in this case were delivered

to the California government (Evidence 19), and federal government

(Evidence 20), the federal courts or California courts (some

evidence in this case), the documents become “public records" that

anyone can copy and review the documents. Criminal Defendants

wilfully and intentionally published, circulated and used the

documents in Taiwan. As a matter of fact, Criminal Defendants have

published, circulated and used such false documents and forged

documents in Taiwan. (Evidence 13 & 19, page 3, the upper left

corner).

(4). Larceny And Theft

1. Criminal Defendant no. 3 Highberger and Criminal

Defendants nos. 4 and 5 admitted that they conspired with a lawyer

in Taiwan to steal Prosecutor's documents (including the file copy

of the bills issued to the First Commercial Bank end the Medium

Business Bank of Taiwan). This can be proved ‘rom Criminal

Defendant Highberger's declaration and the documents stolen

(Evidence 23 and 24).

2. ther stolen documents and goods are under

investigation.

(S). Extortion And Blackmail For Ransoms

1. Criminal Defendants conspired with each other to

extors and coerce Prosecutor to pay them over $450,000.00 bribes or

illegal ransoms. Mr. Hopkins can prove it.

instrumentality to extort, coerce, blackmail and intimidate

Prosecutor and his lawyers to pay them and judges approximately

US$1 million as bribes or illegal ransoms. Because Prosecutor has

not yet paid, they put Prosecutor in IIE. (Evidence 19). The

lawyers of Prosecutors are subject to disciplinary proceedings. Mr.

Haddix testified this before the Offices of Public Prosecutors.

(6) Offenses Against Credit And Offenses For Revealing

Business Secret

As well, Criminal Defendants' above crimes constitute the

offenses against Prosecutor's credit and reputation under Article

313 of the Criminal Code, and the Offenses for. revealing business

secret under Article 316 of the Criminal Code as well as the

violation of the Laws Governing the Unfair Competition And Anti-

trust.

(7) Kidnapping For Ransoms And Conspiracy For Kidnapping For

Ransoms

1. Except Criminal Defendant no. 11, all Criminal

Defendants conspired with each other and kidnapped Prosecutor for

seven days from February 10, 1994 (Chinese New Year) through

February 16, 1994.

2. Third party conspirator Batchelor (the instrumentality

of Criminal Defendants) admitted on March 9, 1995 that she

contacted with a lawyer in Taiwan to follow Prosecutor's

whereabouts in order to kidnap Prosecutor.

(8) Forged and Altered Stock Certificate

It appears thet Criminal Defendants forged, altered stock

certificates of the “Highberger, Keakita, Spencer & Turner MAF

Corp." or "Say & Say" and falsely stated that the corporation is

“owned and controlled solely" by Prosecutor.

(9). Used Forged, Altered Evidence.

It appears that Criminal Defendants have used the above

forged, altered evidence.

III. The Crimes Were Committed In Taiwan And Taiwan Has

Jurisdiction Over These Crimes

‘l). Criminal Defendants nos. 3, 4 & 5 admitted that they

conspired with a lawyer in Taiwan, stole Prosecutor's documents,

defamed Prosecutor and delivered the false business records and

forged documents to thet lawyer in Taiwan (Evidence nos. 4, 19 &

20) and others (Evidence 25). The place of stealing and the place

of using the false business records and forged documents are in

Taiwan.

(2) All evidences stated herein were used by Criminal

Defendants in Taiwan. The envelops and the declarations of

Highberger are supporting evidences. (Evidence nos. 13 and 24).

(3). Criminal Defendants wilfully and intentionally refused to

keep these documents as “confidential”, but revealing them as

“public documents", as well as circulated and used in the public

(including Taiwan). (Evidence nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 19)-

(4). Criminal Defendants extorted, blackmailed and intimidated

VU )

Prosecutor in Taiwan through international telephones,

international faxes and international mail, all reached Taiwan.

(5). The commission of the kidnapping for ransoms is punished

by death under the Law Governing the Punishment Against Robbery And

Related Crimes, and is punished by death, life imprisonment or at

least seven years imprisonment. Both are the cases which have the

least punishment of three years under Article 8 of the Criminal

Code. The courts of the Republic of China ("ROC") has jurisdiction.

Criminal Defendants conspired with a lawyer in Taiwan to attempt to

kidnap Prosecutor, in the second time, the place of crimes is also

in Taiwan. The court of the ROC has jurisdiction. (Article 4 of the

Criminal Code).

altered the stock

(6). Criminal Defendants forged,

(Subsection

certificates, the court of the ROC have jurisdiction.

4 of Article 5, and Article 201 of the Criminal Code).

(7). Criminal Defendants conspired each other and shared their

crimes performances. Their commissions of crimes are continuous and

repetitive. They shall be punished for all crimes conspired. (See

Evidence 25, our country's precedents and the resolutions of the

meetings).

Iv. The judges of our country are the best among thousands of

people. Their legal and moral quality is far better than American

judges. Handling the foreigners' and Caucasians’ criminal cases

Shall be the same as handling the domestic criminal cases, without

any exception. In order to protect the judicial indepencence and

our country and to protect our people's rights and privileges,

Prosecutor respectfully requests this court to punish Criminal

Defendants so as to punish the illegality and to support the public

trust to our judiciary. Respectfully submitted to the Offices of

Public Prosecutors [sic]* of the Taipei District Court.

Evidence: See the Evidence List

Dated: August z, 1995

* nue to clerical error, it should be the “Criminal Court."

at ty

~ -——---- +

ie Re Te Rake Raed

Parcneneuusaes:

.f ‘Weeuiesensee 3 Peadgatewsdse gent. .

zi zi. ° +85 ag°:. ' a

¢ \ . we. « a , ae “+m a =

: ‘ 7 ° ‘ : a

° - 5 ‘ ° & 4 “ =? ,

3 zr : lane x adh os _ ie > «<

: 7 Jumuen«|e#l]a a e2vesiauad

a zie elisaisea «. Avex seek es

x @ bE SARS > & j«cc rr * om” vial ~< ww» # a

| ,$622 Weino Hessan Xx Le #KEEE| 300 SOUTH SPRING

xia Spencer €h:|. OJ STREET.LOS ANGE

Vv 11] LES.C.A.

+ | 90013 U.S.A |

3 1] san ARD Y. KA ER II #K0ma| 111 NORTH HILL S

me ITA (4eoKe'| OF ' TREET,LOS ANGELE

; < . S,.C.A.

ei” | [ - 190012 U.S.A

11] gen |WILLIAM FOST ER Hi 4#K3EE| 333 SOUTH GRAND

ER. HIGHBERG He 3 AVENUE,LOS ANGEL

ead ER { le | ES,C.A.

x @ | 90071 U.S.A

ae 4

Bl -Miem [Ivy Tak Lini- S/R 4+<5#}1122 Green Stree

s Yuen (><ke oH t Pasadena C.A.9

2) o= 1106

U.S.A. ;

= -e= iGeraic Varno |e | ES KEE} 1122 East Green

Holl ingswort 11 Street Pesadene,

h (2Ome ew 61 oO CA 91106 USA.

4¢ $80 | Andrew Caste |]! 111! #KI| 1004 Arroyo Driv.

lleno (<a of e. No. 2. Ss. Pas

ext us| *|ou atein ' ahh é

[sexe rs tt teagr030f BA

1) ae I ! 1 x 1

y pen IWes ley AllenigR! Eta! , 1@KEEI8S37 Traction Av |

| Rusch (#35 1101 \ lenue LA, CA |

igaz .im@e) 1 10111 1 1U.S.A. 1

< 3640 Francisca Nol+*i B+! \axqm 13852 E. Colorade |

lemi Araizad tOll | 1 Blvd, Pasadena’ |

\apmctiey 111-1 1 ICA G1107 USA ,

IDE Ve veo Baty ; 2

ize) ms Me A ee ! ! !

<= et !Peul A. TurnISRitlact 1SKEEIZOO S. Sprins St |

ler (28 me iOi! 1 * treet LA, CA90013 |

oR 1) ex ws

ee) A UNE ot USA |

+ 20 IJerold A. KriBRINiit \#KHEI111 N. Hill Stre |

lieger (Ztmiy i iill | tet LA. CA 9$0012- |

ipetaeer) of itis |. 13117

he |; wae

+} -#% IDevid ¥. KenteRi 1 +1 \@KSI1312 N. Spring St |

lyon (<me -+ tO! } - jpeet LA. ommanes !

| H+) 1 1101 | 1 U.S.A.

+1] .f$ IC. Bernard KISRI 1 4<1 «1 #KLISO7 Betheny.R¢. |

. leufman (Mei 11 tt | {Burbank.C A 9150 |

| terme) oo} otiiet dt. 14 USA

ie ; " am +4 fe esoeee

——————E

_—aaaew ns @ we

~—we *.«* as ~—--

7-#+

10°

David S. Eisen.

520 S. Grand Avenue.

8th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

U.S.A.

4&6 : RM4542H188 (1956)

5%: RG

ERM

Erik F. Stidham

¢ bt fa] £

H& 8 : RMHs3e128 258 (1964)

5%: kG

‘SRB

Alfred T. Goodwin

121 Spear Street

P.O.Box 193939

San Francisco, CA 94105

U.S.A»

5: RG

Charles =. Wiggins

50 W. Liberty Street, #950

Reno, NV 89501 U.S.A.

42 : RMh16%#12838 (1927)

cto we ee See )-

Joseph T. Sneed : = a oa

emp. ee

5 Re

Cecil F. ‘Poole

iA |

#8 : RM2%7A 258 (1923)

PRES ee

Melvin Brunetti

{= bt fo] £

‘ig

Rober= R. Beezer

f= at fa) £

=: ke

: BIB

David R. Thompson

ot f) F

26: 19% 125 268 (1930)

16-«e5t

i Thomas G. Nelson .

:2'4 6

5: aE

satay etnies P

RE : = SEI

, . : i. ae in Ae

oe eee

Sad

| - om arersas -ste!

Sows j-

=/\2 . .

+ = * « »

“ew - 8

=| * sa see

«| * || >¥Re asxee

—— seeesee( tl g@2est+ttuad 3

2zsii¢ =ie«s2ia “la “| VEX eeeKosast

ot «= | SBF. B=

2S ( WILLIAM

F. i

ER ’

) -

en 2 =e KR 2 :

(CC. BERNARD

KAUFMAN ) . .

om = |eams = a )

== ( MARGARET

' M. MORROW )

oz a |xes. xe -

(DAVID S.E-

a ISEN ) : . s ’

,- 2 || Ome am | mel. zeit “|: bots |

1 (PATRIC-i ) 7

1TA L. a ’ t

IGRISINGER) | |! ! ! 1 .

ca = imomex<-=' | 1. t Saw 1 .

}e@S CCHRIS-' |! ! i I -

{TOMER J. i | ’ j

{DOUKAKIS) | | ’ ! :

Cm «2 |+f20mS | ! ws = '

¢ | CCYDNEY Te-! | ! ! I

tbor BATCHEL-! | ' ' / !

~ tOR)- -F._ ! t : '

——_ _—

a ig me & . ™

\ io 2 > oe bat EWN C)

ew Leer gee «we wea Owes | - ,

+\3 t

_ ® x vf ted We u

‘- = * :

“| ||¥—*# wemcoss Sl) es ~~

= | || eae aevew | O° wate, Soa oan

. = '

~ . ad@avviguaa

uw se | cheek weeded Wie et

$si° - Sea S| laws 4 ee 2 ¢ 5

yesajo (|) | peitleme = == AN =e

Mi (=<) Este

1149 South Will

Wala CA) << tet Street, Fifth ri

rls Robbins) oor, Los |

Angeles,

t) x CAVOO LS

at- 2 °

. , 555 Franklin Str

@ swaia (+) Kee aS eet, San Francis F

xel) GO»

x] CaV4102

at !

1 MW

wel

x w .

APTS TR os

od rm

i. |

@iws au Pea BV. iwi | iar Mk |

joe CDONALD | | | | | !

~ =

4 IDMAN Ret \ \

@is au iMbwkaPHR CR-1 | \ { ,

LICHARD Upsont | | | | | ,

— — ' " a. i. oi.

1) ‘oy | | ,

! In

; ao -

" oe ar a

, ' ' _

Ta mt ht nl lil Bl

‘ ' ! : ' : ** Pty ” ; .@ * ‘

ei Pete, Sores es

a = ant ten a.. cgi teoeh.§ 2 todd en ay et Sk aS ; = Memes ae

U 4 3 go

". Vanes > re 3] 22-4

e * == ee

. = as = = 2 4 . > =< + e- + -2, Sef

r < | oes azae -

“| zasd=|er “ excewrdeset alesis et

a< rf a 7 : « - 2° ,

a¢ s -* san333 = \ece !

* 3050 K. STRESS: .

mo 0) |e Se NeW. Washington

Bobi i Gilet) b.S:A

3050 K.’strees.

- od) |= = ® Nw. Vash ington

—_— za : : - i :

=| \idael & Kersh) U.S.A- s ;

Le ° aoe oe SSE . :

2 « (nf) 5. em ax— =z & :

Carles Patarct) i

*|* : ())|x=e Is asia i ws |

. ' s. Hope S<.-- '

3 ij} - «hiss: = “gach Fl. Les |

| 3a | isi pd , ra

= CA. QOOT1 USA

‘ 2171 Avenue of

sia CR) [eee - SE :

(Hare Harare Scars. 19th F2

Les Anseles

° !

a CA. 90067 USA

£3) oer ge5 SOUTH FIGUER

- OA STREET T¥ENTY

era. H NINTH

FLOOR

LOS ANGELES. CAL

; TFORKIA 90017-25

2 o | 17 USA é

)

xe) # AO F xm! + AO F O&

Khem F# * RK om o aw

Fi a Ri R Hi % Z K, #]

& & &

h py = ~— - OF

,| wE

di ic F 22% o so or

< he 3

AAS ae

Ht) gee *

ole} ts Hi».

=z ed A 3} + rn

lee le

roe

*| ¢

= _ A aw - =- _ rea L. 4

fs is SP2z i Z>, te ‘ Py

= $25 = Sie | &

flO

on» t= as a x

f *= eg

> ef | .

"aan ry 4

A #£

# a

= %#% 2

*) +

SA | MK

a2) ~

rea

mw 2 Le)

of FRHSREKS | ERS - SRE KSI O> HH -

o MRESSHRRTHKTASSN | RRBAWBASEK SHE -

}

Law Governing Extension of Assistance

to Foreign Courts

Promulgated and effective on April 25, 1963

Article 1

Unless otherwise specifically stipulated by treaty or

other law, the courts of the Republic of China shall upon request

render assistance to the foreign courts in handling civil or

criminal cases in pursuance of this law.

Article 2

Such assistance shall not violate the statutes and

ordinances of the Republic of China.

Article 3

The substance of each case commissioned by a foreign

court shall be stated in writing and transmitted through diplomatic

channels.

Article 4

The foreicn country where the foreign court requests

for an assistance from the court of the Republic of China must

state that it would provide a reciprocal assistance if a court of

the R.O.C. requests for an assistance under the same or similar

circumstance.

Article 5

The court of the Republic of China which is requested by |

the foreign court to extend an assistance to the foreign court

concerning the service of process of a civil or criminal pleading

~—e

PROOF OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF CHINA

I am in the Republic of China.

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. On

January 19, 1996, I served the foregoing document described as petition

for certiorari on the following.

( ) by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes

addressed as stated on the attached mailing list:

(X) by placing ( ) the original (X) a copy thereof enclosed in

envelopes addressed as follows:

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

U.S.A.

Attorney General and

Christopher C. Foley

300 S. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 900i?

U.S.A.

(for Attorney General re: constitutionality

of state statutes, et al, and -

allegedly for court of appeal judges)

De Witt W. Clinton

County Counsel

Frederick R. Bennett

Assistant County Counsel

648 Hall of Administration

500 West Temple Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

USA

(allegedly for superior court judges) USA

(X) By Mail

( ) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Republic of China.

The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.

(X) As follows: I am “readily familiar" with the firm's practice

of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that

practice it would be deposited with Chinese postal service on that same

day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Republic of China in the

ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party

served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or

postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for

mailing in affidavit.

( ) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the above is true and correct.

(x) (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of

the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Signature

[c:\lt\ka\6a\cert])

PROOF OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF CHINA

I am in the Republic of China.

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. On

1996, I served the foregoing document described as petition

for certiorari on the following.

( ) by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes

addressed as stated on the attached mailing list:

(X) by placing ( ) the original (X) a copy thereof enclosed in

envelopes addressed as follows:

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

U.S.A.

Attorney General

300 S. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

U.S.A.

United States Court of Appeals

For the 9th Cir.

121 Spear Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105

USA

(X) By Mail

( ) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Republic of China.

The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.

(X) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice

of coliection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that

practice it would be deposited with, or given to, Chinese postal service

on that same day with postage or fees thereon fully prepaid at Republic

of China in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion

of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation

date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit

for mailing in affidavit.

( ) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the above is true and correct.

(x) (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of

the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Signature

ic VIALS\PV6\1 \cert}

PROOF OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF CHINA P

I am in the Republic of China.

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. on

January 22, 1996, I served the foregoing document described as Motion

For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis on the following.

{ ) by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes

addressed as stated on the attached mailing list:

(X) by placing ( ) the original (xX) a copy thereof enclosed in

envelopes addressed as follows:

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

U.S.A.

Attorney General

300 S. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

U.S.A.

United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Cir.

121 Spear Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105

USA

(X) By Mail

( ) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Republic of China.

The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.

(X) As follows: I am “readily familiar" with the firm's practice

of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that

practice it would be deposited with or given to the Chinese postal

service on that same day with postage or fee thereon fully prepaid at

Republic of China in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that

on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal

cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after

date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

( ) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the above is true and correct.

(x) (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member

of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Signature

fe:\1t\LS\P\6\1\m-ip)

J )

document shall conduct the service of process in accordance with

the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure. -

Each foreign court requests for the assistance from the

court of the Republic of China shall set forth in its commission

power of attorney the name, nationality, and domicile, residence,

or office address, business address of the person to be served.

Article 6

Each court shall effect discovery [investigation of

evidence] according to the theme of the foreign court's commission

ana in accordance with the provisions governing the discovery under

the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Each foreign court requests for the assistance from the

courts in the Republic of China for the discovery shall, in its

commission, set forth the names of the parties, the device of.

discovery (kinds of evidential methods), the names, nationality,

domicile, residence, or office address, business address of the

responding party or third party, and set forth the matters subject

to the discovery to be investigated. If it is a criminal case, a

summary of the criminal case shall be attached.

Article 7

If the commission power of attorney requesting for the

assistance from the courts of the Republic of China and other

relevant documents of a case are in a foreign language, true

‘

Chinese translations shall be attached with a certificate that the

translation is true and correct.

Article 8

R = )-

The fees for the service of process or discovery in a

civil case shall be those provided by the relevant laws of the

Republic of China concerning such fees. The fees for the service of

process or discovery in a criminal case are the actual fees spent

by the courts of the Republic of China and shall be reimbursed by

the country of the foreign court which requests for the assistance.

Article 9

This law shall come into force from the date of its

promulgation.

[c:\1lt\g\exte]

I am in the Republic of China.

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. On

January 22, 1996, I served the foregoing document described as Motion

For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis on the following.

( ) by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes

addressed as stated on the attached mailing list:

(X) by placing ( ) the original (xX) a copy thereof enclosed in

envelopes addressed as follows:

Solicitor Genera!

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

U.S.A.

Attorney General

300 S. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

U.S.A.

United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Cir.

121 Spear Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105

USA

(xX) By Mail

( ) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Republic of China.

The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.

(X) As follows: I am “readily familiar* with the firm's practice

of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that

practice it would be deposited with or given to the Chinese postal

service on that same day with postage or fee thereon fully prepaid at

Republic of China in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that

on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal

cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after

date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

( ) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the above is true and correct.

(x) (Pederal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member

of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Signature

les \1t\LS\P\6\1\m- ip)

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.