THE CORRUPTION OF THE EEOC AND MY APPEAL TO HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI

         This is an excerpted letter of appeal I recently sent to House speaker Pelosi.  I�fve also excerpted the important parts of the exhibits I sent

to her.

.

It is obvious after reading my letter to House Speaker Pelosi that I want Speaker Pelosi to read this referred to addendum below.  In this article, I have meticulously documented with evidence gross abuses of power at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission[1].  Included in this account are events where I caught red-handed an EEOC investigator in acts of fraud and conspiracy with my former employer while under investigation at the EEOC.  And when I presented prima facie[2] evidence of these acts of fraud and conspiracy to the EEOC, though fully informed of these acts, the EEOC still refused to reopen this case.  When I filed under the Freedom of Information Act to document these acts of corruption as evidence in a federal suit against my former employer, the EEOC balked by not acknowledging what I was asking for and basically gave me the case files I already had.  After many appeals to the EEOC, I was finally forced to file suit against them to get these documents.  And this is when the federal courts also failed me.  The federal courts stonewalled my legitimate requests through the FOIA by literally reinventing my FOIA requests and appeals in order to deny these requests and dismissed this case on that false basis.  The evidence of these actions is startlingly clear in this article.  Moreover, what I am describing here is only part of the government negligence and malfeasance that I have documented.

I am alleging that the EEOC and the federal courts have abused their authority in acts of corruption.  And I have to assume that this happens routinely, especially to people like me who represent ourselves in the federal courts and agencies.  From what I have experienced, this accepted notion of a balance of power of two of the three branches of government as represented here are toppled with their collusion together (and with the US Attorneys office) and have not a leg to stand on.  Why would I think the third leg, as represented by our Congress, would fare any better? 

Actually, I had been attempting to make a claim with the EEOC Office of Inspector General since July of 2003.  I had to go to the Labor Department to solicit their help, but even this tactic failed to get a response from the EEOC OIG.  Six months later, I appealed to my representative in the US Congress, Nancy Pelosi, requesting that the EEOC OIG respond to my claims.  After informing her of the corruption issues, Congresswoman Pelosi intervened and forced the EEOC OIG to respond.  I do not want to sound ungrateful for the speaker�fs help, which was considerable, and I hope I am mistaken, but this Speaker Pelosi�fs letter strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.  The speaker stated that she �gdoes not get involved in legal matters and cannot assist [me] with [my] case�h and then gives me the EEOC hotline phone number.  Keep in mind that this was after I showed her offices the fraud evidence with my allegations of a conspiracy at the EEOC.  I can understand why members of Congress cannot personally represent a person in court or give direct assistance.  That is not their job.  However, as a lawmaker how can the speaker make such a blanket statement of her non-involvement in any legal matter?  If the speaker will not make any exceptions no matter how glaring the circumstances, how can this be justified and how can she assess and know the state of our federal agencies and courts without this involvement?  This is part of her job as a function of congressional oversight to know what is going on in these other branches of government.  My fear here is that the Congress is much too willing to let �gsleeping dogs lie�h by directing the citizen to the applicable venue and at the same time accepting the status quo whether there is a basis for congressional investigation or not. 

Again, from my experience, I do not think that people who believe in democracy and its institutions have time to wait it out under the scenario of some self-correcting mechanism within our system.  I allege that the system itself is broken as is illustrated many times over in my article.  And the question is not if we can trust these institutions but how can we exert our influence over those who may mean well but need a swift kick to start them in the right direction.  Consequently, because we must insure the integrity of our institutions, I do not take for granted the Speaker of the House�fs good will.

Therefore, in the interests of public service, here are some steps in the right direction that I hope you will endorse.

After reading my June 2, 2007 letter addressed to House Speaker Pelosi:

1)      If you find my appeal compelling, exert your influence, contact the speaker�fs offices and ask if House Speaker Pelosi will follow through on these requests I�fve asked for in this letter.

2)      Consider if you are a news journal or other public entity: ask under the FOIA for the documents I requested of Speaker Pelosi in this EEOC Office of Inspector General report that are available as public records.

3)      Do whatever else you deem effective to make the public aware of this kind of government abuse.

4)      Contact me at admin@eeoc-corruption.com for feedback or any question concerning the content of this website.

 

 

 

The Corruption of the EEOC, the Lawyers Syndicate &

the Twilight of the American Bill of Rights[3]

            What is most revealing about a people or an institution – the public persona or their private actions?  This is the bone of contention in this article of my experiences with federal judges in our courts as an in propria persona litigant[4].  This is where judges seemed incapable of making the just ruling no matter how overwhelming the evidence that supported this litigant�fs cases.  In the public view, these judges seemed to ply their profession above board in the spirit of the democratic institution they appeared to uphold.  But in the twilight world I witnessed as a pro per litigant away from this public forum, these same judges empowered themselves by disregarding their sworn duties and assaulted fundamentally the democratic principles that they would appear to advocate in public.  With this dreadful experience with federal judges, I concluded the following: the federal judiciary unchecked by public scrutiny is fundamentally anti-democratic, has a Mafioso loyalty towards other lawyers and judges, is in cahoots with federal agencies in acts of corruption and most surprisingly, these federal judges use the Bill of Rights as a doormat in their exercise of abusive powers.  My mission here is to throw light on what has become extremely obvious to people in my position as pro per litigants who have confronted this federal judiciary head-on in our demands for justice.  

As I have well documented in my cases, the spirit of Apartheid and Jim Crow are alive and well in the visceral intolerance that federal judges have for civil litigants who dare represent themselves in our courts.  The following are occurrences in these federal courts in their dealings with pro per litigants that I have personally experienced.  Judges will give full-scale kowtowing to lawyers who defend their clients by unethical means including, as in my cases, the most obvious acts of fraud imaginable.  And judges will take this fraudulent evidence as fact and will not acknowledge that these are acts of fraud that the average layman would find remarkably clear was fraud.  Judges will completely abandon the rules of evidence and due process of law in their consequent decisions and rulings against pro per litigants based on this fraudulent and fallacious evidence.  When convenient, judges will misquote congressional law to defend their decisions.  Appellate judges will abandon their duty to discipline judges, in their alleged acts of judicial misconduct, by undermining the rules of judicial misconduct, subverting the US Constitution and congressional statutes in their rationale to reject misconduct allegations, and make a mockery of judicial review in order to defend these judges.  All these occurrences are especially true when a judge is asked to be recused[5] by a pro per litigant.  And federal judges despite the myth of a balance of power are in bed with federal agencies with the Congress apparently in the wings cheering them on. 

Chapter I: A Brief History of My Time in the Courts

On January 8, 2007, I was officially retired by the US Supreme Court in their denial of my petition for certiorari as an in propria persona litigant, Humbarger vs. EEOC et al., case 06-8123.  Nonetheless, I had fought a five-year battle that began with my basic civil right under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of protection against retaliation on the job for complaining of racial harassment.  It ended in what I alleged as the federal courts�f denial of my basic 1st amendment right to redress a government outrage and the denial of the very essence of due process. 

With all these fundamental issues, these judges�f doors slammed violently in my face.  Pinned on these doors as plain as if visibly there, these judges, whom I have dubbed �glawyers in black robes�h, had posted NO TRESPASSING signs that stated as if ten feet tall in the brightest neon: �gIf you do not have access to a lawyer or can not afford one, your basic rights to justice not only will we not recognize but we will expel you from these halls with a bum�fs rush by any means necessary�h.  And in my cases, these judges stooped to these means by reinventing my whole case sua sponte[6]; accepted lock, stock and barrel prima facie evidence of fraud by other lawyers as fact and unacknowledged as fraud; on the exclusive basis of my consent, a district court judge �ggranted�h dismissal of the defendants by falsely manufacturing my consent; reduced my FOIA request to a few documents I never asked for and then dismissed my case on that false basis; ruled against my motions and petitions without reading them; misquoted federal law to justify their rulings; and worst of all declared non-jurisdictional two of my petitions for writ of mandamus, petitions that are authorized  by Congress, and therefore unconstitutional rulings in gross violation of Article III of the US Constitution and my 1st amendment right to redress a grievance against the government.

These judges had violated every part of the oath in their code of conduct and toppled every principle of the Bill of Rights.  And then they had the temerity to rule that I can not recuse or sustain misconduct charges against them because the judges�f rulings I objected to were based on the �gmerits�h of the case and thus will violate their coveted appearance of judicial independence.  The latter this pro per contends, with a ton of evidence, that they need not worry about because they do not have any judicial independence to begin with.  With my cases where the �gmerits�h included prima facie evidence of constitutional violations in these judges�f rulings is supported by this US Supreme Court case law[7] in particular, Liteky vs. US.  In this ambiguous case law, the rationale behind any recusal, and by implication judicial misconduct charges, must be based on some outside source: the judge has financial or other personal interests in a party the litigant is suing or personal interests against the litigant himself.  Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing is a good example, where a federal judge was recused because this judge had staff that was affected by this bombing.  In that instance recusal is justified, but why does this case law effectively exclude the merits of judges�f decisions?  In fact, recusals in general are extremely rare occurrences and I believe not because they aren�ft warranted but because of tactics like these where judges create artificial self-serving shelters that protect their unjust decisions in case laws like this one.  I believe if Liteky vs. US was argued in a public forum in the case of the US Supreme Court vs. the Average High School Debate Team, the US Supreme Court would lose.  Because this case law gives these judges the leeway to violate the US Constitution without consequences when the abuse is based on the merits of a judicial decision.  This exclusive �goutside source�h argument invites judicial abuse on a grand scale and thus Liteky on that basis is unconstitutional and indefensible.  This not coincidentally in essence encapsulated the issues for review in my petition for certiorari at the US Supreme Court. 

 

Chapter II: Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker Warning, �gGet a Lawyer�h

            I only had one hearing with Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker and that was the initial case management conference.  This Judge had just denied my motion to quash the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, findings where I alleged that the EEOC decisions were based on prima facie evidence of fraud.  This was the first time this evidence was introduced.  This occurred because I had discovered this fraud after my EEOC cases were closed and I had filed suit in federal court.  The trouble with understanding injustice by non-lawyers in these courts is that the layperson has to understand the meaning of the statutes and law hurdles to appreciate the allegations.  However, with this prima facie fraud committed by my previous temporary assignment employer, Certified Employment Group and their lawyers, the fraud is self-evident and anyone but the mentally challenged can readily understand it.  In a nutshell, here is the fraud evidence submitted by Certified as their EEOC Answer (Response) to my charges of retaliation by blackballing me because I filed a complaint of racial harassment and retaliation with the California Labor Commission against their client, the law firm Bingham McCutchen LLP.

            The first three excerpts are Certified Employment Group logs that were automatically date/ time stamped by Certified�fs software program.  These index logs, or activity logs, go from 1 – 49 in chronological order except index 32.  Keep in mind that I was terminated May 23, 2002.  Also, note that between index 32 and index 33 the date switches from October 2, 2002 to May 23, 2002, which is out of chronological order.  The explanation for this is in the following exhibit, index 49, which is in order as the last log on October 1, 2002, one day before index 32�fs October 2, 2002.  Index 49 states, �gWE RECEIVED EEOC COMPLAINT TODAY IN THE MAIL�h.  Consequently, Index 49 explained the motive and timing of why Certified fraudulently altered the content of Index 32.  In their Answer, Certified�fs whole case at the EEOC relied on the fraudulent index 32 as evidence, see the following excerpts.  Since this evidence was presented at a federal agency, the EEOC, this is an alleged federal violation under the federal statute for fraud, US Code Title 18 �˜1001, and is called prima facie evidence of fraud, because at first look it is indisputable as anything but fraud.  Certified has yet to produce an explanation for this apparent fraud.  In my related case, Humbarger vs. EEOC et al., the EEOC similarly would have to come up with an explanation why they had closed and then wouldn�ft reopen my cases after I presented this fraudulent evidence to them.  In fact, this was the main causes of action in my complaint where the EEOC allegedly violated my Fifth Amendment due process rights by knowingly dismissing and not reopening my cases for reasons that they knew were based on acts of fraud.  And most depressingly, none of the judges from federal district Judge Walker to the US Supreme Court would acknowledge the prima facie evidence of fraud at all. 

 

 

 

 

EXCERPTS OF CERTIFIED EMPLOYMENT GROUP�fS EEOC ANSWER TO MY COMPLAINT AT THE EEOC

           

Keep in mind in the above Certified Answer that �gDo Not Use�h is the �gDNU�h reference in index 32.  Also note that if Certified blackballed me from work because I went to the California Labor Commission, which is a protected activity, as I alleged, this is retaliation as defined by Title VII.

In fact Bingham McCutchen LLP, the other defendant, has yet to explain how Bingham could say that the termination incident in their response to my charges happened at this termination meeting on the 26th floor but in index 32 Val Adamson, their employee,  stated the incident that led to my termination was at my workplace with the Conflicts Dept. on the 18th floor.  Below are excerpts in response to my Bingham interrogatory questions and an EEOC investigator�fs notes with Val Adamson.  The EEOC investigator, by the way, I caught red-handed as the responsible party by allowing both of these defendants to change their answers to my charges at the EEOC and consequently the EEOC investigator was the main perpetrator and co-conspirator in the fraud with Bingham and Certified.  (A plaintiff only receives written copies of the EEOC Answer after the case is closed.)

 

EXCERPTS OF EEOC INVESTIGATOR�fS

NOTES WITH VAL ADAMSON

            This is very strong evidence that Bingham made false statements as the reasons for my termination to my employer, Certified Employment Group - a retaliatory act. 

I believe the import as exhibited in the excerpts above is definitive of what constitutes retaliation at a job for complaining of racial harassment and the protected activity of going to the California Labor Commission under Title VII.  I am sure the reader can understand why I was perplexed by this denial of this motion to quash the EEOC findings of insufficient evidence of retaliation under this onus of prima facie fraud with Certified in this federal court.  And I clearly met the burden of proof that this was a frame-up job because I had complained of racial harassment, thus supporting my retaliation claims against Bingham. 

            I was seated at this case management conference with Judge Walker, two attorneys from Certified Employment Group and Bingham McCutchen, and a court reporter.  This judge began by asking about the nature of the suit, et cetera.  In the questioning of this case by this judge, I became more and more conscious that this judge did not know anything about this case.  With this consciousness came a rising feeling of anger as I realized with greater and greater conviction that this judge had denied this motion without reading it.  Finally, in this pique of anger and consciousness of this betrayal by this judge I could stand it no longer and interjected myself.  I then began to show this judge my evidence of prima facie fraud.  Though these attorneys had been quite proactive in the defense of their clients up until this point, both attorneys became silent except for an utterance of one of them of �gChrist!�h and both put their heads down like school boys caught in the act at the principal�fs office.  The reporter and the judge stared at them for some kind of rebuttal but they remained silent.  Until the end of this presentation, I had made my argument without opposition.  Without batting an eye or showing the slightest contrition for his failure as a judge to do his duty of reading the motion before judging it, Walker looked at me sternly and told me to �gGet a lawyer�h.  At the time, I was naïve enough to think that this judge was assessing my skills to represent myself and not what he really meant.  What I know now is that he was threatening me, in essence: �gYou either get a lawyer or I will kill this case whatever its merits�h.  Walking out of this conference, I had no doubt about this judge knowing of the fraud evidence and its implications.  And I also got my first lesson about the federal courts and the courts�f sense of jurisprudence – pro per litigants were definitely in this court, at least with this judge, second-class citizens. 

 

Chapter III: Sabotage

Judge Walker had this standing order where he had asked for no more than a two-page letter for leave for a formal motion to compel discovery.  Though I had complied with this standing order with this required letter and a formal motion to compel discovery over three years ago, this judge has yet to acknowledge the letter or respond to it.  Only after Bingham and Certified made a motion for a settlement conference did this judge address a discovery issue.  There were at least thirty discovery issues stated in my standing order letter and in my Opposition to this settlement conference.  My main argument in my opposition to this settlement conference was as follows: how could we even discuss settlement when there were so many unresolved discovery issues?  In Judge Walker�fs order granting this settlement conference he addressed one mischaracterized discovery issue as my only discovery issue.  This judge misstated this discovery issue in the most derogatory and frivolous manner possible.  �gHumbarger�fs only objection to a settlement conference at the present time is his belief that Bingham has been �edishonest�f in producing documents concerning records relating to �einappropriate [flatulence]    noises in the [records] department [at Bingham]�f.�h  My main charge of retaliation by job termination for complaining of racial harassment in this judge�fs mind had already been reduced to his own theory about a few farting noises.  Most startling in this judge�fs assessment of my discovery issues was that this quote was from Bingham�fs own alleged Answer to my charges at the EEOC where they admitted: �gsome employees were making inappropriate noises in the department�h.  See Bingham response excerpts below:

            This judge would not address my discovery issues of why Bingham employees were making those noises in the first place, why I couldn�ft get their names, who witnessed these acts of �ginappropriate noises�h, who investigated to discover these people who made these noises and the notes from these interviews.  In addition, all the addressed discovery issues around the fraud evidence at the EEOC to this judge were moot in this court as well.  Apparently, evidence of fraud and corruption at a federal agency were also farted away by this judge�fs theory.  However, this judge and the defendants�f lawyers made a fatal mistake when they allowed me one concession.  The judge granted my unopposed request that if this settlement conference was granted that one of the two magistrate judges who originally adjudicated my cases conduct this settlement conference.

 

Chapter IV: Redemption

The reason I insisted in my opposition to this settlement conference for one of the two magistrate judges who originally adjudicated my cases to preside over this conference is simple.  Both judges without the prima facie evidence of fraud in their hands at the time they originally presided over my cases almost granted me a lawyer.  Moreover, even though they rejected a lawyer at that time, I thought their reasoning was fair and impartial. 

Magistrate Judge James, who was chosen for this assignment, also had a standing order for these settlement conferences.  Judge James wanted a brief statement of the case, which was reasonable since she was there to settle the case and not try it.  I gave a settlement conference statement of fifty pages and a ream or so of exhibits.  Judge James would certainly have to entertain a �gliberal construction�h, Haines vs. Kerner[8], on this pro per statement.  I kept thinking though that the fix was in with this trial judge.  What pittance would these defendants offer me?  By the night before this conference, I had fretted myself into such a state that I got completely smashed, such was my conviction that nothing could happen there but my eating of huge amounts of crow. 

The next day I had one of the worst hangovers of my life.  In getting ready for this conference, my head was in such a foggy state that I had no tie because I couldn�ft manage to knot it and I threw on the wrinkly clothes I had somehow crumbled into the corner of my bedroom.  I barely made it to the conference on time.  When I walked into the conference, I recognized the three primary lawyers and there were at least five or six other people.  They also had some insurance people on the telephone from New York.  Fortunately or unfortunately, I was too sick to feel intimidated.  Although I was more than a little bit upset with myself for my unkempt appearance and this self-induced state of doldrums I was in.  Then the magistrate judge arrived. 

Judge James immediately requested that I join her in my own conference room.  I was more than happy to comply with this order.  We were seated with a few of her aides in this room.  Instead of castigating me over this lengthy statement, Judge James�f only comment was to tell me that it was �gsmart�h.  She then matter of factly told me that the $50,000 I requested was probably unattainable but she would see what she could do.  This judge�fs pleasant manner and acknowledgement that the money I requested wasn�ft totally crackbrained raised my spirits a little.  After a few minutes talking with this judge, I also had the sneaking suspicion that this judge just might despise the trial judge�fs prejudices and dishonesty, which I described in great detail in my conference statement, almost as much as I did.  The judge with her aides went to the other conference room with my first offer.  The defendants counter-offered $5000 with a message that they were not trying to humiliate me with this offer.  Much to this judge�fs credit, she went back and forth a dozen or so times and every time the offer got sweeter.  I must have pinched myself a few times to feel if this was really happening.  In the end, I didn�ft get the $50,000 but I was in the right ballpark and definitely not in the bleachers.  Heading for the courtroom to sign the settlement agreement, I told Judge James if she wanted to reassure the people who thought I might be feeling humiliated that if I ever did I surely wasn�ft feeling that way anymore.  This brought a smile and a sparkle to her eyes.  After all the �gI�fs�h were dotted and the �gT�fs�h were crossed on this settlement agreement, I left the courtroom.  By happenstance, Judge James was waiting for the elevator in the hall.  With the defendants within earshot, I thought it was bad timing to holler at this judge, �ggreat job!�h.  I instead impulsively gave her a conspiratorial up and down thumbs-up in sync with a smiling bobbing head.  She did a double take at this queer-looking dodo bird but then burst aloud with appreciative laughter.  In this black hole of moral turpitude that I experienced with the federal courts, this judge will always be to me a bright shining star of decency, honesty and the quintessence of what judges should be.  I practically fled the courthouse to put it all in perspective.  Back at my regular job, I would periodically laugh out loud and shake my head in disbelief at this strange twist of fortune.  This by far was the happiest hangover I will ever have.

 

After much thought about why these defendants settled with me only became clear over time.  I concluded that these lawyers out and out panicked thinking they might be disbarred over their individual acts of fraud at a federal agency.  So being lawyers, they convinced their clients to settle out of these lawyers�f own self-interests.  I�fm also 100% convinced that if they waited it out I wouldn�ft have gotten a penny.  With the first motion for summary judgment by these defendants, this trial judge would have granted it by any nonsense rationale and fabricated evidence this cockeyed brain could think up.  And that decision despite it being stripped of all pretensions of due process of law would have been upheld through the US Supreme Court.  And why am I so sure of this?  This is what happened with this same judge with my related case against the EEOC.

 

BACKGROUND OF EEOC CASE

Chapter V: Racism and the Employment Merry-Go-Round

I could discuss for days the nature of relationships with people of different races and how I knew at this law firm that this brand of harassment I received at this firm was racial in origin.  What gives credibility to my contention that this occurred was that the law firm had admitted themselves of the �ginappropriate noises�h that went on in my department.  I�fd like to extend this statement one step further: this obnoxious daily dose of racial harassment towards me began on my very first day working there and went on for months and dozens of people of all races and backgrounds witnessed this harassment and did nothing to stop it.  

To this day, I have experienced people with racist attitudes at the workplace.  There is a white person I work with occasionally who tells me that prejudice is not a negative term to her and she would quit a job rather than work with a black person.  I will be quite frank about people in general who think in this racist way.  To the exact degree people think that way, in my book, to that degree they are idiots.  And when push comes to shove and I am in any way thrust into the middle of it, I will let that person know one way or the other that that is what I think of them. 

San Francisco is considered a multicultural city but that does not mean that the various races learn to get along with each other through familiarity alone.  This is something that I have had to learn the hard way.  This is especially true in my relationships with Latino day laborers.  These day laborers congregated to solicit work right across the street from where I used to live near Bryant and Cesar Chavez streets in the Mission.  Of this group there always seemed to be a few belligerent Latinos who got their kicks from racially harassing people whom they perceived as non-Latinos.  The belligerent Latinos�f favorite weapon by far was this high-piercing dog whistle they would emit at a person when that person walked within proximity of them.  Although I have seen them do other acts like spitting on the ground in front of a person and on occasion raising their fists like they were going to hit someone, this whistling idiocy was their favorite tactic.  Actually, I thought for quite a while that their primary targets were white men exclusively and the bigger the better: kind of like hunters in a safari who gave themselves boasting rights for bagging the biggest lion out there.  But I have had to adjust my thinking of their targets for this kind of ridicule in talking to other people who have been harassed by this group.  The most surprising for me were women who got this same treatment.  At first, I thought these women were talking about what we call the double-toned wolf call or whistle which is a universal taunt of men in particular towards women.  However, I was wrong.  When these women got into specific descriptions of this whistle, I knew they were talking about the same kind of harassment.  I was particularly enlightened by one woman in particular, who is Latina herself, who told me that she had the same experience and she had talked to other women who had the same experience.    She explained that these Latino men didn�ft believe she was Latina because she was so tall and in effect dismissed her as fair game for this kind of ridicule.  On occasion, she bravely stopped and asked them in Spanish if they would disrespect their mothers and sisters in this way.  She said they would normally stop the heckling, looked and acted apologetic, but a few times the harasser got even more ridiculing. (She also claimed she had a white boyfriend who had both arms broken by a baseball bat by a Latino that the court in its ruling considered a racial incident.)  I personally experienced these hateful expressions hundreds of times, including at the workplace, which we�fll now turn our attention. 

Before Bingham, I had this part-time weekend job as a manager of a storage facility in the Mission.  As elsewhere, at this job I would occasionally get these distinct whistles from people who I presumed were primarily Latino tenants as I would on the streets.  I almost always ignored it.  But this became impossible when these movers would park right next to the office inside the building.  These movers, whom I was told were Nicaraguans, would whistle loudly at me whenever they passed the office or me.  They would be in and out of there several times a day during my shift.  They would be particularly annoying when I was doing our private mail service outside the office near their unit.  They would purposely walk up behind my head as I was putting the mail in these mail slots and blast these whistles that were so loud I would jump.  Finally, I had enough and told them to stop.  They responded by being even more aggressive in their harassment.  Out of total frustration, I finally went to a supervisor and complained.  The supervisor called the business and told them if the harassment didn�ft stop they would be evicted.  The harassment stopped for about two weeks and then started up again.  I immediately complained to the supervisor and asked her to specifically evict this moving company.  Much to my consternation, this ridiculously insensitive supervisor told me that they paid above average market rates for their unit and therefore they wouldn�ft be evicted.  This was typical of businesses from my experience where a worker would expect certain rights, in this case an harassment-free environment, was overridden by some profit motivation or other self-serving motive.  Though I had worked there for two years, I immediately started looking for another job.  But how was I to put up with this harassment until I found this other job?  The answer came a few nights later at a bar.  I explained this problem sitting at this bar to a very large white guy, who also lived in the Mission, and he understood immediately what I was going through.  He�fd been there and done that, so to speak.  In fact he laughed at my situation and gave what he assured me was an immediate cure-all.  He told me the next time these Latinos started this act call them �gmaricones�h.  I found out the word meant homosexual or even �gfaggot�h.  At the first whistle from these bigots at the job, I cried out, �gmaricones!�h  They immediately stopped whistling in mid-breath and had this horrible look on their faces as if they were going to make a mad rush at me in their anger.  But I was beyond caring what they would do.  When I saw how effective this was in stopping this obnoxious, idiotic behavior, I couldn�ft help myself.  I started laughing and singing out �gmaricones!�h �gmaricones!�h �gmaricones!�h and doing my own spontaneous version of something like an Irish jig.  Amazingly, this would stop them for maybe a week or two and then they would try it again.  And I would shut them up with �gmaricones!�h and I didn�ft care who was around to witness it.  I�fd had enough. 

A couple months later, after this storage facility had just given me a $500 bonus for Christmas, coincidently the same week I gave them my notice.  From this experience, I concluded that racism is a disease.  The fact that I could insult these Latinos with the worst slur imaginable in this very macho culture and they would still persist told me that nothing short of violence could deter people with such deep hatred and maybe not even then.  Moreover, I had another deeply insulting episode from an employer, though they probably hadn�ft done anything illegal, nonetheless, they negligently let the workplace turn into a free-for-all with their callous attitude towards their employee: an employee that never missed a day of work in his two years there.

Ironically, the company that had bailed me out of this job was none other than Certified Employment Group.  They had been giving me short-term jobs before this.  After a few weeks on this job with Fax and File Legal Services, through Certified, Fax and File offered me a permanent position, which I gladly accepted. 

 

Chapter VI: Here We Go Again

About nine months later, I was in need of work again and enlisted Certified to help me.  I explained to Certified the reasons for this parting of ways with Fax and File and they accepted it and started giving me temp jobs again.  After a couple different stints at temp jobs, I was interviewed at Bingham.  I got the job as records clerk located near the file room and file clerks. 

On my first day, I was introduced to everyone there.  I then was told what my job was and started doing it.  About an hour after I started I heard a loud whistle, I looked up and then I heard the file manager, Tony, a few feet from me, echo that whistle.  I couldn�ft believe it.  The part I found most strange was that it was in this open area where fifteen or twenty people could hear it.  And I soon learned that the other person was a woman.  This was the first time I heard a woman act in that racially obnoxious way.  And the final surprise was that these two weren�ft Latin at all but Filipino.  My experience was that once a person started this compulsive racial idiocy, they never stopped.  But for about three months, Tony didn�ft start up again.  It was all one person that continued on a regular basis and that was the Filipina, Linda.  In the EEOC interview with Linda, the investigator in her notes stated that Linda didn�ft know how to whistle.  I will testify on a stack of bibles that not only could she whistle but she could whistle loud enough to blow the eardrums out of an elephant.  Not only was Linda that loud, but she was not shy about it at all.  She would blast away anywhere in our area of the 18th floor.  Now it is true that when Glenn Bizzarro, the 18th floor manager, or a lawyer was around I don�ft believe she ever whistled at me.  But I would estimate that at least twenty people, of all nationalities, backgrounds and races, must have heard her on a regular basis and they said and did nothing about it.  This was our own extremely loud little secret.  I also noticed something peculiar about her version of racism.  She was also very sexist.  Linda was always getting angry with the white men she had to deal with and I fortunately had only marginal dealings at my job with her job.  Linda would laugh with ridicule at them over nothing including my immediate supervisor, Ross Foster, who, by the way, was a white gay man who would pretend that the stupid catcalls at me weren�ft happening within a few feet of him most of the day.  I believe the motive behind this acting out of racism on a job is to make the person so uncomfortable that he or she will quit.  The irony of my immediate supervisor�fs attitude, who occasionally was verbally confronted by Linda, is that if she was given free reign and didn�ft worry about a supervisor like him reporting her, he would have been victimized as much as I was.  There are a couple of theories I could understand of why this racist singled me out and the almost as ridiculous deaf, dumb, and blind attitude of my coworkers.  The first theory is that because I was a temporary worker, I therefore was not in their book a permanent employee, so Linda could act out her racist idiocies and the rest conformed to the thinking that �gwe�fll just act like nothing is happening until Karl inevitably goes�h.  My second theory is that this had happened before.  Linda and probably others had acted in this racist way to other people, and they had gotten away with it.  In both of these theories�f underpinnings is the notion that the non-harassers in this negative environment are too scared with their sense of job security to rock the boat regardless of what is happening to another worker.  And when supervisors are standing around acting like nothing is happening or participating only reinforces this insecurity.  The non-harassers�f non-actions are cultured out of their own sense of vulnerability that they have no protections on the job.  I could envision myself going up to the floor manager and complaining about this woman.  A few weeks later without a single person confirming that any of this was happening, management would decide, �gWe don�ft need paranoid Karl anymore, especially being a temp person, he must know his job is not secure�h.  Moreover, I could see the racist Linda swell with Filipina pride at her efforts to rid her world of non-Filipinos.  And in fact when I did complain, even though another manager witnessed the stupid noises, I was terminated, but even in a worse way than my worst scenario I could have imagined.

However, the circumstances for me were different from this storage job I described.  For one thing, I wasn�ft bothered by Linda that much.  I can�ft logically explain the difference outside of a few mitigating factors.  The fact that she was a woman just made this behavior seem more ridiculous and less aggravating.  The fact that she was a very homely woman with an obvious scar down her chest from heart surgery frankly made me feel sorry for her.  The sum of these parts didn�ft amount to anything to compel me to do anything drastic about it.  I at first ignored her attempts to torment me.  But soon after this started, I happened upon a method of dealing with Linda, which came very naturally to me.  I laughed at her.  Occasionally I would interject a comment like, �gNot now Linda, not when I thought we were beginning to fall in love�h or some such comment to throw her off balance.  Most of the time I responded with this big, cheerful guffaw, almost in a kidding way.  As if I was giving her a big wink and saying, �gAren�ft we being very amusing today!�h  Admittedly, I laid it on a little thicker than I actually felt.  But honestly, it was not that far away from how I did feel.  I could live with this and I needed a job.  What else could I do?  In fact, with time, Linda had tried to aggravate me less and less and I believe she would have stopped if �c.

 

Chapter VII: Tony and the Attack of the Bigots

I learned another lesson about racist people.  It doesn�ft matter how nice you are to them, you will never overcome their hatred for you and your race.  Tony had worked for this firm for thirty something years and was their file clerk manager.  We shared the same work area.  Tony also had developed a work related handicap.  Tony had an aggravated rotary cuff problem and had trouble lifting boxes, which was a big part of his job.  When I saw that he had boxes to lift, though it wasn�ft part of my job, I�fd routinely help him.  I would say we had a fairly friendly relationship.  But when Tony got back from a vacation about three months into my job there, none of that relationship mattered. 

I don�ft know what first set Tony off on his racist rampage particularly.  I know when he was on vacation I imitated him.  When the file clerks were doing labels for the file folders, they needed to use special paper for the printer near our workstation.  Tony would warn the other clerks by saying in what I thought was in a purposely-exaggerated way, �gprinnnnn-ting!�h, so the other clerks wouldn�ft print anything at that time.  In the absence of Tony on his vacation, I was in effect filling in for him.  When I saw a clerk load this special paper, I�fd warn the others, �gprinnnnn-ting!�h.  The clerks, including the Filipino clerks, would laugh and to me anyway it was a little harmless joking.  Maybe those attempts at humor got back to Tony and made his racist hatred boil over.  I really can�ft say for sure.  If it had something to do with that, he never said a word to me about it.  Moreover, my experience is that racists don�ft need any props as an excuse for acting out on their racism anyway.  All that I remember for sure is that as soon as he was back at his station working, the so-called dog whistles were constantly ringing in my ears.  Tony would do this routine where he�fd pretend everything was fine and dandy, but then I�fd walk past him and he�fd whistle at me, when I first walked through the door in the morning he�fd whistle at me, anything I did that got his attention produced this very loud piercing whistle and this went on all day long.  And when this manager started this harassment, he unleashed every racist on the 18th floor.  For at least a couple weeks, there were at least ten different people whistling at me in all different locations on the 18th floor.  At first I told them to �gcut the crap�h and other words to that effect.  But I found out like my experiences at previous jobs and the streets, the more you showed it was bothering you the more sadistic they became.  I was getting more and more irritated and frustrated with these absolutely obnoxious people and everyone who just sat there pretending it wasn�ft happening. 

One day the very incompetent manager and my supervisor, Ross Foster, who had let the file room boxes he was in charge of overflow out of the file room and were making their way down the hall, was on his knees across from me looking for some files from these errant boxes.  Tony let out this very loud whistle.  I spontaneously went into a version of the �gFrito Bandito�h song that was in an advertisement for Fritos corn chips.   �gAye, Aye, Aye, Aye, I am the Frito Bandito, I love �eem, I munch �eem �c�h.  Everyone stopped what they were doing and just stared at me.  I guess that was my opening battle cry because after that anyone who whistled at me I was going get their goat no matter if that meant I�fd make believe I couldn�ft tell the difference between a Mexican and a Filipino.  Or I�fd ask them, �gthat whistling crap you got from the Mexicans, can�ft you Filipinos make up your own racial slurs?�h; or Tony became Tanya, �gsorry Tanya, I only date women�h; or �gHark, hark, that must be the yellow-belly sap-sucker!�h in response to a whistler.  My mouthy ridicule of these one-trick bigots did have its affect.  For one thing, Tony would get visibly angry and would not do it so often.  Many of the people stopped all together.  And I had the knowledge that I could give them some of their own medicine and I wasn�ft some helpless victim.  However, it was demoralizing to work in such a hostile environment, so I started looking for another job.  I didn�ft check back with Certified because I had learned from other people who worked there that their business like the whole local economy was in a slump and if I inquired about another job with Certified they might inquire about me and find out about my problems.  I�fd likely lose this job without another one being offered me.  I couldn�ft afford monetarily to take that chance.

I then decided to add another tactic.  I tried to get someone to go to another department and tell a manager about the harassment.  I figured as I said if I did it alone no one would back me up and I knew I would be jobless.  In a normal conversation, I�fd broach the subject and if I could discuss it, I�fd then ask for their help.  Well, this didn�ft work for anyone but one person, Sammy Vasquez.  He was a gay Latino man who never tried to harass me.  He acknowledged what was going on but he refused to help me by going to another manager.  I believe he was loyal to Tony.  Tony, even among the non-harassers, had this elevated place with all the clerks and somehow they divorced any feelings they had for my predicament and his involvement. 

Though I kept putting out my resume, I was getting no responses, which wasn�ft surprising with all my job switching.  For about four and a half months, I put up with the five core �gbigots�h.  The quote marks are because one of the harassers was a white guy, who must have had some amazing identity crises.  The two in the Conflict Department usually weren�ft a bother because I avoided that department like a plague.  The only time they had at me was when I was in the filing room next door.  There was a three-foot opening along the wall the entire length of these respective departments.  All they had to do was see or hear me filing and like dogs on chow, they would start.

It was late in the afternoon on Friday, May 17, 2002 when my job, racism and management all came to a head.  I was rushing about to get things done before starting my weekend.  One of my immediate tasks was to file some loose documents I had in the file room.  As soon as I was there I heard a loud farting noise, and someone yelled back, �gStop that!�h loudly.  Then I heard a loud whistle and the same person yelled, �gwhat�fs going on in here?�h  Out of habit I put in my two cents worth, �gthey must be discussing the Socratic dialogues!�h  I finished my rushed tasks and got back to my work area before I realized my opportunity.  I knew that the person complaining had to be Lisa Yu, the manager from that department.  I immediately tried to find her.  When that failed, I decided to email her.  At the last minute I cc�fd it to my home.  As naïve as Candide,  I thought that now the racial BS would stop.  I thought that this was an honest person, unlike the floor manager, Glenn Bizzarro, who always acted like a jerk around me.  For instance, when I would have Bizzarro sign off on my pay timesheets, he�fd make comments like �gwhen I sign off on these I feel like I�fm signing off on a traffic ticket�h.  I avoided his nonsense whenever possible.  Here is the email I rushed off to Lisa, typos and all (the rest I�fll explain):

 

Chapter VIII: The Wide Maw of Hypocrisy

            The following Tuesday, May 21, 2002, Glenn Bizzarro, the most appropriately named person I ever met, asked me to attend a formal hearing about my complaints with these bigots.  As we approached the elevator, Glenn told me that I should have come to him first.  He looked pissed off.  After I�fd gotten home the previous Friday, I thought of my relationship with management in general and Glenn in particular.  Consequently, I thought I should cover my bases.  I forwarded the above email to the senior executive officer of Bingham/ San Francisco, Dale Barnes, with a brief explanation of the issues.  I realized my premonitions to take my complaint above the 18th floor were right.  I was convinced that if I hadn�ft forwarded the email to Barnes, I would have been fired immediately.  And I had another flash of insight about Glenn�fs bitterness: Glenn knew of the harassment all along!  In fact, Glenn, another gay white man and my immediate supervisor, Ross Foster, got together for tête-à-tête conferences on a regular basis.  I suddenly realized that I was at some Geek Carnival where I involuntarily was the main attraction!  At least I thought this way going to this conference.  (I�fll let you be the judge if I was right.)

            But by the time we got to the meeting, the old palaverer Glenn had showed up instead of this other guy I thought I knew, with the human resource person, Judy Lefkowitz.  At this meeting, I spilled the beans about everything.  Glenn even chirped in that he�fd heard about that particular whistle from the Latino community as having racial implications.  Then Glenn and I made a pact.  He told me not to respond to the harassment but, in the event of this reoccurrence, to tell him and he would confront the person himself directly.  I agreed.  Though I had no faith in Glenn himself, I thought the fact that anyone in a place of authority could simply have asserted that authority on the harassers and that would be the end of it.  Even bigots must have some sense of self-preservation, I thought.  Boy was I wrong in my perceptions.  I specifically stated at the meeting that I did not want anyone fired over this; I should have emphasized that that especially applied to me.

Within minutes after I got back from this meeting, Tony started in again.  He did it with such gusto that I thought at first that it was only because I was not responding.  I immediately went to Glenn�fs office to complain but Glenn per usual wasn�ft there.  I then sent Glenn an email complaining about Tony and the racial harassment.  I got no response from Glenn this day or the next.  Tony was having a field day of it and I was getting more and more irritated by the second.  However, keeping up my end of the bargain with Glenn, I did not respond. 

On Wednesday, Glenn came to our area to address the troops and didn�ft say a word to me.  On Thursday, May 23, I was heading for my workstation and entered the elevator.  Coincidentally Glenn was there and he asked me if I was going to the sexual harassment seminar.  I told him I wasn�ft invited to this seminar.  Glenn told me to go to it anyway.  I told him fine but what about my email complaining about Tony harassing me?  He refused to discuss it and reiterated that I should go to this seminar.  At this seminar, I learned that Bingham actually was paid by companies to lecture on harassment issues. 

When I got back from this seminar to my work area, the usual work had piled up.  Nonetheless, my first task was to email human resource person, Judy Lefkowitz, and complain that nothing was being done about the harassment and Glenn wasn�ft interdicting the harassers as he promised.  I truly believed that this was a setup where Glenn was hoping that I would react to the harassment and then he could fire me for insubordination.  When I got an auto-reply that Judy was on vacation, I forwarded this email with my own message to the director of this firm, Dale Barnes.

           

           

            I was actually trying to be politically correct in this attached email.  This Sally, white female (male or previous male?), in fact had followed me down to this coffee area and she was getting pushier and pushier about me meeting her after work.  In fact, I�fd been purposely avoiding her for weeks.  I am absolutely convinced that because I wouldn�ft have sex with her, Sally was trying to get me fired.  In Certified Employment Group�fs first Answer to my Complaint at the EEOC, (not the second fraudulent one), read to me by the EEOC investigator, they out and out accused me of sexually harassing a non-identified woman, which I assumed was a reference to Sally.  By the way, Sally was always talking about her athletic prowess. 

 

Chapter IX: The Maw Widens

            I know now that it was that email to Dale Barnes that sealed my fate.  Glenn probably had this game plan in the works where he was hoping I would act out in reaction to this harassment and that would be the justification for my termination.  However, I wasn�ft cooperating.  Now I was emailing the executive director again asking that someone get these harassers to stop and have anyone else but Glenn supervise this harassment issue.  When you think about it, this was an abysmally destructive attitude of management not to intervene on my behalf whether I was a temp or not.  This is a pattern of behavior that I have found universal in my brushes with power.  People in these positions typically only feel powerful not in the exercising of the rules and laws under their authority but only in relationship with their perceived powers to ignore those rules and laws.  How else could such obnoxious decisions be made in this present case?  As in operation at Bingham, this was a pattern of behavior that would allow the most ignorant acting out of prejudice to prevail over a self-described �gFortune 100�h law firm that had the hubris to give sexual harassment seminars in the morning but then terminated a person at this seminar in the afternoon for complaining about racial harassment. 

            In the latter part of the afternoon on this same Thursday, May 23, 2002, I was called up to the 25th floor to see Glenn Bizzarro.  At the reception desk, I was told to go up to a room on the 26th floor where Glenn was waiting for me.  On the 26th floor, there is a law library and a couple conference rooms.  I don�ft believe there is a single office up there.  When I entered this small room there was Glenn waiting for me.  The first question out of Glenn�fs mouth was �gwhy were you yelling in the halls?�h  I asked him what he was talking about.  I knew immediately that this was a setup and I was being let go.  Glenn then stated that he was looking into my claims but he couldn�ft find any confirmation that the harassment was happening.  In fact they had a new coordinator of the file clerks, Mike Babour, a black male, whom I coincidentally met outside exiting the building after my termination, who was interviewed that same afternoon and he told me he had told Glenn that Tony and I were constantly arguing.  I told Mike that I was terminated for complaining about being racially harassed.  Mike�fs response to this was �gI didn�ft know it was racial�h: a very revealing comment.  Whether Mike knew or didn�ft know if the harassment was racial, he certainly knew I was being harassed and I�fd assume had told Glenn the same thing.  At this meeting with Glenn, Glenn asked me to step next door into a large conference room and to wait there and he was going to bring in the manager who witnessed the conflict people making noises, Lisa Yu.  When Yu arrived, we started discussing what happened that day with the Conflict Department.  But every time I mentioned the harassment Glenn would make derogatory comments like �gYou�fre lying�h and �gYour claims are outrageous�h and laughed incredulously at anything I said.  Glenn was being so obnoxious and disruptive of any serious discussion of the issues that I decided to block out anything he had to say and made a gesture at him like I was pointing at him, which said in effect �gI�fm ignoring you�h but instead I used my whole hand, averting my head, and wouldn�ft acknowledge anymore that he was there.  Until the end of this conference, I wouldn�ft even look Glenn�fs way and I only acknowledged what Yu was saying.  Yu was actually laughing loudly at the situation where Glenn was so intent at ridiculing me and I was shucking him off with this hand gesture.  It was very obvious to me that Glenn was trying to bother me and I knew I wasn�ft going to take the bait.  Finally Glenn, not me, got up and angrily looked at me and said in obvious exasperation, �gAren�ft you mad? Aren�ft you mad?�h  I redirected this question back at Glenn �gAren�ft you mad?�h and, by God, he sure looked mad.  At first he responded �gNo!�h but then dramatically changed his mind, �gYes I am!�h, turned off some kind of intercom or listening device in the center of this conference table and stocked out of the conference room.  When I turned around to see Glenn exiting, I looked out the glass door and partially curtained large windows and I saw at least ten people who were gathered around outside of this conference room.  One of the people outside the conference room I later recognized as one of their lawyers in my action against Bingham in the federal courts, Michael Loeb.  Why were these people there who weren�ft there before?  The obvious reason was that this was a setup and they were there as witnesses to anything Glenn could provoke out of me.  The jig was up if they were trying to entrap me by this stunt since the second that Glenn asked me what I was yelling about.  What a bunch of A-Holes!  And the biggest A-Hole of all is executive director Dale Barnes, who in the exercise of his perceived power, obviously gave me no chance of reprisal for the retaliation that I had experienced.  A person who was so morally deranged that he�fd stage this zoo exhibit instead of telling a bunch of stupid bigots to shut up! 

              Glenn then took me aside and told me that Bingham was laying me off because they didn�ft need me anymore.  In a soft voice so no one else would hear, Glenn worriedly asked me if I was going to file a formal complaint.  I didn�ft answer him but I was resolved that the first thing I would do after I was out of this building was go to the California Labor Commission.  Two women approached me; one I later found out was Val Adamson.  She asked, �gWhy were you yelling in the halls?�h  When I didn�ft respond, Adamson ventured, �gwhy are you making phony racial harassment claims?�h  I told her to mind her own business and the other woman surprisingly agreed with me.  Outside of telling them I needed to go to my workstation on the 18th floor to grab my belongings, that was the last word I�fd say to anyone at Bingham until I left the building.  I went back to my workstation escorted by these women.  Davin, one of the harassers, was there and looked up from his desk at me.  Obviously privy to what happened, he asked with great satisfaction, �gwhat�fs happening Karl?�h  At the elevator, Val sarcastically wished me a hardy goodbye.  Val apparently then proceeded to call  my employer as in evidence in index 33 and told my employer that I was yelling, �gHarassment! Harassment! Last time I checked it was illegal in this state�h, which was pure poppycock.  What would I need to prove to these lead-brained fools?  In fact, I had shown great restraint under these extremely ridiculous circumstances.  I left the building and headed straight for the California Labor Commission.

THE EEOC FIASCO BEGINS

Chapter X:  True Lies and Certified Nonsense at the EEOC

After picking up the forms at the Labor Commission, I headed straight home.  I walked through the door and I immediately heard the phone ringing.  I picked it up and the person on the line was none other than my manager at Certified Employment Group, Erin Zuercher. 

Now reader, let us review what I believe is firmly established about this important conversation that gives such heavy-duty weight to my arguments.  Keep in mind that Certified�fs whole Answer at the EEOC was based on this fraudulent index 32.  And is therefore primarily there to deceive the EEOC.  Moreover, the contents of this index 32 are based on misstatements that only Bingham themselves could have supplied Certified.  So Bingham with this Certified Answer is just as guilty as Certified in using false statements to cover up what I believe is overwhelmingly convincing evidence of retaliation by both parties.  So let me state the obvious: nobody with the slightest whit of credibility is going to attempt fraud at a federal agency to reveal �gthe truth�h.  Only the most jaded mind would believe that.  So let us look at Certified and manager Zuercher�fs contentions about this conversation and what light this might have thrown on the EEOC�fS determination to close these cases. 

Certified�fs manager, Erin Zuercher, was interviewed by EEOC investigator Linda Scanlan.  See excerpt:

 

Zuercher stated that Bingham was letting me go �gbecause [I] was yelling and screaming in the lobby area of the law firm�h.  Basically this is what Certified and Bingham stated in their original Answers that were read to me over the phone by this EEOC investigator.  But Zuercher in this interview made a very revealing statement.  After Zuercher stated that since she wasn�ft a witness to these alleged events, she�fd �greserve judgment�h until she talked to me.  Zuercher then stated that after she talked to Adamson she �gcalled [me] and left [me] a message to call her�h.  If the reader refers back to these indexes, the reader will see a great flaw in Zuercher�fs testimony.  If you look at this reference, you will see as I stated that the indexes, except for the fraudulent Index 32, are in chronological order.  Index 31, for instance, which is dated 10/26/01, states �gconfirmed with Karl to start on 10/29�h.  A reference to my job starting date with Bingham (McCutchen).  The next index would be Index 32 at a time in the future of Index 31.  But Zuercher has this left message activity log after Index 32 in Index 34.  In Index 32, my status, according to Zuercher�fs entry is �gDNU�h, do not use.  So logically and in accordance with the laws of nature, time and this software program, how is it possible for Zuercher to �greserve judgment�h until she talked to me if the left message for me was after I was blackballed as Do Not Use?  Obviously, whatever was originally stated in this index 32 was changed to rationalize making me �gDo Not Use�h before I went to the Labor Commission and before I had a chance to talk to Zuercher about going to this commission.

Now let�fs return to the essence of my retaliation claim with Certified that they retaliated against me because of my racial harassment and retaliation complaints with Bingham and the consequent blackballing of me as a result of telling Certified that I went to the California Labor Commission.  See the next excerpt from this same EEOC interview:

 

This is an amazingly translucent statement of Certified�fs policy towards employees who complain of harassment.  Certified had pulled all their employees out of a location because one person complained of harassment.  How this EEOC investigator didn�ft understand the significance of that confession is mind boggling.  Anytime Certified terminated an employee, including other employees of theirs at the same harassment claim workplace, which met the criteria of Title VII or the California State equivalent is retaliation for making a harassment complaint and therefore a violation of state and federal law.

Now look at the next excerpt from this interview:

Again, another confession, Certified�fs own manager admitted that I was blackballed.  And how does Zuercher justify this admission?  By none other than the fraudulent Index 32 that was inserted over four months after my termination.  All this crap about being terrified they manufactured from their own lies in Index 32 in collusion with Bingham�fs employee, Val Adamson.  This interview with this investigator not only supported my allegations of retaliation but also supported my contentions of fraud with the direct collusion of this EEOC investigator.  It is simply not believable that this EEOC investigator could not have understood the contradictions and implications of this witness�fs statements, the extremely obvious fraud of index 32 as the main evidence in Certified�fs EEOC Response and Bingham�fs 180-degree different statement of where this termination event occurred eight floors up from Certified�fs alleged incident with the Conflict personnel.

Actually, instead of the California Labor Commission, I needed to go to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.  At the meeting, the caseworker was a black man with a heavy accent that I recognized as actually being from Africa.  He told me that my claim would not be investigated.  I asked him point blank that I was terminated two days after a formal hearing at Bingham McCutchen where I stated that I was being racially harassed and that wasn�ft a good cause for investigation?  This caseworker wouldn�ft answer my question but only said I could appeal it and also file with the EEOC.  This may be a presumptuous judgment on this person but I don�ft believe he thought any white male could ever be justified under any circumstances to make a racial harassment complaint.  I�fll have to send him a copy of this article.

In a decision I�fm sure the EEOC now regrets, they did accept my complaint, as they should have.  On December 30, 2002, I received a phone call from the EEOC investigator, Linda Scanlan.  Over the phone, Scanlan proceeded to read both Certified and Bingham�fs Responses to my retaliation charges.  In my amended complaint against the EEOC in the federal

courts, I listed what I remembered from these readings:

 

 

After this reading, EEOC Investigator Scanlan asked me �gwhy were you yelling in the halls?�h, as if she was an eyewitness herself.  Though offended by her presumptuous attitude, I completely denied that anything like that ever happened and that Bingham stated that I was only laid off because they didn�ft need me anymore.  I then asked for the   exit questionnaire that Certified always gave their clients as proof of my assertions.  I also asked this investigator if I was spitting and talking to myself, and sexually harassing managers and other obnoxious, irrational, neurotic acts as Bingham and Certified described, why would Bingham wait until I had complained of racial harassment before they let me go?  Scanlan stated that even Certified manager Zuercher thought they were exaggerating.  At the end of this teleconference, Scanlan told me that my charges against Certified might hold up.

On January 28, 2003, EEOC investigator Scanlan called me and told me she was closing the case against Certified.  For the first time, Scanlan informed me that Certified�fs Manager Zuercher had blackballed me as �gdo not use�h, a designation not to hire me for temp jobs.  What this investigator was telling me was so different from the original Answer (Response) that she read to me that I finally asked her if employers only had to make up unbelievable lies to win a discrimination case.  Without any qualifications, this Investigator Scanlan responded, �gYes�h.

On February 11, 2003, EEOC investigator Scanlan called me again.  For the first time, Scanlan informed me that yelling in the halls could have been yelling at the termination meeting.  This was the first time I had heard this and I denied that I had yelled at anyone.  I then made a request: I then asked her for the fourth or fifth time in writing and verbally to get Certified�fs exit questionnaire, which they always gave to their clients that would be evidence that would dispute all the other nonsense.  If it was real, it should say that I was laid off because they didn�ft need me anymore.  This EEOC investigator said she�fd try though her notes of that day stated basically that she didn�ft need to do this and thus broke this promise.  She then told me that she was conducting interviews with Bingham that day.

On February 12, 2003, EEOC investigator Scanlan had a meeting with me at the San Francisco EEOC offices.  Scanlan said that there had been some misunderstanding with Bingham�fs EEOC response and she proceeded to read the alleged EEOC response again.  Scanlan laid the alleged Bingham EEOC response flat on the meeting table within three feet of me, which I could see though it was seen upside-down from my position.  I noticed it was double-spaced and had no direct quotes from my EEOC charges.

Four or five minutes into this reading, I interrupted Scanlan and asked Scanlan if this was the same document that was read to me on December 30, 2002.  Among the changes, was the allegation that I was now �gshouting and waving [my] arms�h at the manager, Glenn Bizzarro, at the termination meeting.  There were no references in this alleged EEOC response read by Scanlan that day to yelling in the halls as the cause of the my termination.  Now the cause of my termination was this termination meeting itself. Scanlan responded that it was the same EEOC response.

After Scanlan finished reading the alleged Bingham EEOC response, I asked her twice to read the Certified EEOC response.  But she refused to read it. 

In response to my inquiry about yelling in the halls that Bingham misstated about me to Certified as the reason for my termination, Scanlan stated that the temp agency�fs clients could lie as much as they wanted about a temp worker if it was in their business interests (and that is not retaliation?!).  Furthermore, this, according to this investigator, could just be �gZuercher�fs memory and interpretation of what R[espondent Bingham] told her�h This Scanlan quote was in her determination notes.  (See index 32 and Certified�fs EEOC Response to see if Scanlan�fs statements have veracity.)  She then told me she was closing the Bingham case.

On February 14, 2003, I wrote a letter to Scanlan�fs EEOC supervisor, Rich Proulx, stating that the EEOC investigator Scanlan had allowed Bingham�fs EEOC response to be falsified after the investigation had begun and consequently Scanlan should be investigated.

           

Keep in mind when you read the above letter that the Conflict Department and my department are on the 18th floor and the termination meeting was on the 26th floor at Bingham McCutchen.  No one can yell that loud either way. 

On the same day, I attached the above letter and sent it to EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo and I asked that EEOC investigator Scanlan be investigated.  Tamayo never responded.

Around March 17, 2003, I received the EEOC files and observed immediately that this alleged Bingham EEOC response from the received charge files was different from the one I observed on February 12, 2003 at the EEOC offices with EEOC investigator Scanlan: 

a) there were headings on the top and side of this current document;

b) this current document was single-spaced;

c) this current document had quotes from my charges, which were italic formatted.

The Bingham response was fraudulently altered a second time.

I also observed immediately that this alleged Certified EEOC response from the received charge files was different from the one read to me by EEOC investigator Scanlan on December 30, 2002. 

a) there were no references to �gindex 32�h, �gDNU�h, Do Not Use, in the original EEOC response read to me;

b) there was no link in the original reading between DNU and the timing of this entry and my complaint with the California Labor Commission; 

c) and the specific accusation that I had sexually harassed a manager at Bingham was no longer in this alleged EEOC response.

            After many attempts to resuscitate my cases with the EEOC, I gave up on them and filed suit against Bingham and Certified in federal court on May 5, 2003.

On June 1, 2003, I sent my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and waiver to Assistant Legal Counsel Garner at the EEOC headquarters in Washington DC, see excerpt: 

The reader may justifiably find me very slow witted for the following reason.  It took me until June, three months or so after receiving the EEOC files to discover that the Certified files included Certified�fs indexes as referred to in Certified�fs EEOC response that exposed prima facie evidence of fraud by Certified at the EEOC as I�fve already described.  I remember the day very well.  I had just returned home from the hospital after my second operation to remove my thyroid glands because of papillary cancer.  I had a very sore throat.  I could not figure out the dating of these indexes and why I couldn�ft get them in the right order.  As arranged in my exhibits above I started reading them in backward order and this made them much more clear to me.  I then got back to index 32 and like a thunderbolt, it all became crystal clear.  I thought at that moment the tables had definitely turned and I started to laugh but every time I did my throat would throb with pain.  If I knew of the hell I�fd have to go through to get justice in these courts, I could have spared my throat this aggravation.  But I didn�ft know that then and I dashed off a letter to the Washington DC EEOC headquarters and addressed this letter to Legal Counsel David Frank attached with the prima facie evidence of fraud which included the indicting Certified index logs:

 

You may sense a bit of frustration with this attached angry letter to the EEOC:

Fortified with this prima facie evidence of fraud by Certified, I renewed my attempts to reopen my cases at the EEOC.  Here is part of my pitch to Office of Field Programs Director Soto:

            OFP Director Soto in his determination completely ignored the prima facie evidence of fraud by not acknowledging it even though Soto stated that he had received my letter to Washington EEOC Legal Counsel Frank on June 22, 2003 with the prima facie evidence of fraud attachments, whom I had initially divulged this evidence:

            SF EEOC Director Baldonado also suffered from a similar paralysis in not acknowledging the obvious fraud with the same script as OFP Director Soto:

With gross negligence for their fiduciary duties, these EEOC individuals refused to acknowledge the Certified prima facie fraud evidence that should have compelled them to reopen these cases.  In fact, by law, they were required to reopen these cases under the fraud and conspiracy federal statutes and their responsibilities under Title VII.  As I rightly concluded upon reception of these denial letters, these cases would not be reopened because I had implicated their EEOC investigator, Linda Scanlan, as a co-conspirator in this fraud.  Consequently, these EEOC individuals by not disclosing this fraud obstructed justice with my cases and by doing so they became co-conspirators themselves with this corrupt EEOC investigator and the defendants Bingham and Certified.

I ended up having to prove that I had cases in the federal courts before my FOIA request was granted.  Here is my second waiver for filing fees that stated that I�fd been informing the EEOC of the prima facie fraud of Certified and consequently the EEOC certainly had to know about it.  And note in the �gCC�h that I also had sent a copy of the fraudulent Certified evidence and FOIA request to the Chair of the EEOC, Cari M. Dominquez:

            One part of this that stung me deeply was that I had exposed this corrupt investigator.  I had proven this decisively.  I had informed the EEOC in the role of whistleblower.  Yet they were willing to let this proven fraud subsist in a federal court as evidence.  I could not fathom the cynicism and hypocrisy of people like this.  What were they protecting more precious than their duties to protect workers from abusive employers?  It was obvious to me that they were hell-bent on preserving the image of the institution over its basic function.  Moreover, I�fm sure they were quite aware of EEOC investigator Scanlan�fs other cases that should have been reviewed and reopened as well.  I return to the power dynamic here.  If I was a lawyer representing a client in my same shoes, I believe the EEOC approach would be quite different.  I believe they would have found it expedient to reopen the cases on that basis.  But with a pro per without means they had to think little about repercussions and so squashed my protected rights like a bug, despite my public service of exposing a corrupt official.  And you will see with my federal court experience why the EEOC cared so little about my rights; the federal courts would coddle the pernicious acts of this agency with the care of a baby in his mother�fs arms.  But I�fm getting a little ahead of myself. 

Between this time and when I actually got some records from the EEOC through the FOIA, I received phone calls from two women from their respective San Francisco and Washington DC EEOC offices who called me in regard to my EEOC FOIA requests.  Both women admitted to me that they believed there was fraud at the EEOC in relationship to my charges.  Unfortunately, I was too legally naïve to ask for their names, though I believe in federal court, if given the chance, I could have found out who these women were as potential witnesses.  During a phone conversation with the San Francisco EEOC woman concerning the FOIA request, she admitted to me that I�fd only receive essentially the charge files and no other records unless I appealed to the EEOC for not meeting the FOIA requirements.

Around August 25, 2003, I received these records just as this SF EEOC person predicted.  Except for attorney Tamayo�fs letters addressing a few withheld records of memoranda and a few other records the EEOC claimed under the FOIA exemptions related to the charge files, the records were essentially the documents received in the circa March 17, 2003 charge files originally sent to me from the EEOC.  As quoted in my FOIA request, there were no records received of �gemails and other correspondences between Investigator Scanlan�h and Bingham or Certified or other EEOC officials related to the charges as I�fd requested.  However, there was included in these records a record that should have been in my charge files.  And that was index 49 from the Certified indexes that was one day before the 10/02/02 index 32 chronologically, which stated:  �gWE RECEIVED EEOC COMPLAINT TODAY IN THE MAIL.  I FAXED THE COPY SENT TO US IN ERROR, MCCUTCHEN�fS COPY�h.  I had already submitted the full record from the EEOC as required in my May 5, 2003 motions to appoint counsel in federal court and index 49 was not among these files.  This was further evidence supporting my allegations that EEOC investigator Scanlan conspired with Bingham and Certified by withholding a charge file record that would expose evidence of the conspiracy and corroboration of Certified�fs prima facie evidence of fraud in their alleged EEOC response at the EEOC.  Taking my cue from this SF EEOC woman, I submitted an appeal letter as excerpted in full here for the missing correspondence that I thought would expose the corruption:

 

 

 

On October 26, 2003, I complied with the October 16, 2003 Assistant Legal Counsel Garner letter requesting me to send to the San Francisco EEOC Regional Attorney this letter as required for a FOIA appeal.  With this letter, I also forewarned that I was considering these omissions of FOIA requested records as part of a civil rights complaint I would file in federal court if the records weren�ft produced. 

On October 30, 2003, the EEOC Office of Inspector General's September 2003 six month report to the US Congress included this item under "Ongoing Investigative Activity�h, see excerpt:

                                                                                                                    

 This was a very curious item to me and opened this can of worms that this was possibly evidence that the EEOC OIG had already investigated EEOC Investigator Scanlan and was about to report the findings to the proper authorities.  The thought that EEOC officials would do this and not reopen my cases or other Scanlan cases sent chills up and down my spine at the injustice of this negligence.  This would be premeditated acts of corruption where plaintiffs trusted this commission to investigate their claims but instead these claims were maliciously thrown into a collective trash heap.  If this wasn�ft shades of the Catholic Church and the clandestine, codependent lives of porno priests I don�ft know what is.

On December 1, 2003 Assistant Legal Counsel Garner letter stated that the EEOC �gwill close-out all records regarding your September 16th letter�h.  This was a reference to the certified US mail copy of the September 7, 2003 appeal letter.  There was absolutely no effort by the EEOC to comply with this Appeal letter or the June 30, 2003 FOIA request.  On December 24, 2003, I filed a complaint against the EEOC and individuals of the EEOC in San Francisco US District Court.

I�fd been trying to contact the EEOC Office of Inspector General since July 2003, but they would not respond to or acknowledge my claim.  I finally forced the issue when I received a response from Congresswoman Pelosi on March 31, 2004, who very nicely intervened on my behalf.  See excerpt.

The Inspector General fell into line.  See excerpt:

IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF FEDERAL JUDGES

Chapter XI: The Force of a Five-Week-Old Unrefrigerated Dead Fish

I believe I�fve updated the reader with most of the major issues in my cases.  So I�fm in hope that the reader can correlate the important parallel issues from above into the federal court decisions I�fll discuss here.  Most of Judge Walker�fs rulings are mere parroting of the EEOC decisions in my case and the US Attorney office�fs positions.  In my opinion, Walker�fs decisions are so consistently off the wall, I doubt if he even looked at any of the evidence I presented.  I thus allege that not only is this judge dishonest but he is decidedly from my observations lazy and incompetent at his tasks of being a judge in a federal court.  Let�fs start with the FOIA request. 

In Judge Walker�fs December 22, 2004 orders, doc. #31, see lines 8-17 of this order in excerpt below, Walker contends �gthe EEOC eventually processed Humbarger�fs FOIA request�h.  The request was �g�egranted in part and denied in part.�h  �gAccordingly, the EEOC released all agency records concerning Humbarger�fs complaints, save six pages the EEOC withheld pursuant to the �einter-agency or intra-agency memorandum exemption�f�h. 

The withheld documents referred to here were Investigator Scanlan�fs circa February 12, 2003 Certified and Bingham Memoranda in closing these cases that I never specifically asked for.  Judge Walker parroted SF EEOC attorney Tamayo�fs pre-suit claims that these few documents were the only documents I requested in my FOIA request and Appeal letter besides the charge files.  In the FOIA release of records through Tamayo, there were no correspondences as the FOIA request asked for as specified between the EEOC investigator and the related case Defendants and other EEOC officers related to my charges.  In this attorney Tamayo FOIA release of records, there were no correspondences with the exception of one from the Washington DC EEOC.  An obvious example of a missing correspondence was my correspondence of June 22, 2003 addressing Certified Employment Group�fs prima facie fraud sent to Washington DC EEOC legal counsel Frank.  See excerpt above.  Despite Judge Walker�fs contentions that my FOIA requests were addressed with the exception of the EEOC investigator�fs memos, these requests for correspondences were completely ignored.

In Judge Walker�fs doc. #31 orders in 18-25 of excerpt below, Judge Walker stated that my September 7, 2003 Appeal letter was an appeal of the EEOC�fs �gdecision to withhold the six pages�h of these same withheld pages.  As you can see in the excerpts of my appeal letter above, Judge Walker completely misstated what I asked for in the Appeal letter.  Contrary to Judge Walker�fs assertion of fact, I never asked for the withheld pages of Bingham or Certified�fs memorandum.  As is obvious in this section of Walker�fs orders, Judge Walker was reinventing my FOIA claims.

Defying all reasonable explanation, Judge Walker in this same doc. #31 orders extended this misstatement and stated that I filed suit against the EEOC for specifically �gwithholding the remaining three pages of agency records.  Doc #1 at 12�h, see excerpts below. 

There is not a word about these withheld pages on page 12 in the original complaint: 

            In these statements, Judge Walker completely fabricated what was stated in my original EEOC complaint, Doc #1, and the September 7, 2003 appeal letter.  Here are excerpts from my original complaint in regard to my FOIA request and the only references I made to EEOC attorney Tamayo�fs FOIA records sent to me:

 

If this agency could not legitimately under the FOIA rules justify an exemption, the correspondences requested should have been released to me.

After I filed suit though, in section 14 and section 18 of EEOC Legal Counsel Garner�fs declaration, doc. #10, Garner admitted that the EEOC did not search for emails or other correspondence as requested in my June 30, 2003 FOIA request until after I made a complaint in federal court.  In the excerpted section 23 below, Garner admitted, �gSFDO neglected to make a separate search for e-mails and other correspondence between EEOC employees that were not contained in the charge file and I did not notice or consider that omission on appeal�h:

 Furthermore, Garner admitted as attachments to her declaration in section 24 above had produced �gmany of these letters and responses�h that were illegally withheld under the FOIA before I filed suit.  In fact all the excerpts in this article with EEOC written references on the documents are from this declaration that were illegally withheld under this act.  In this declaration there was no statement stating the �gvolume�h or total number of withheld documents as required by the FOIA.  There were no emails or other correspondences concerning my fraud and conspiracy allegations from EEOC officials as would be expected.  Consequently, without a statement of the �gvolume and content�h in Garner�fs Declaration as the FOIA required there was no way of assessing what other correspondences and other records were still missing and not in compliance with my FOIA request and appeal. 

And with the fraud and conspiracy facts so well established, the idea that there would not have been correspondence or an investigation in regard to EEOC investigator Scanlan as stated in my Complaint is not believable.  The involvement of the EEOC Inspector General, as suggested in the report to Congress excerpt above, would be in order.  A fair-minded judge would think likewise that these documents needed to be compelled especially with Garner�fs own admissions of the EEOC�fs failure to comply with my FOIA request.  Furthermore, cases that involved prima facie evidence of fraud in fact breaches the attorney/client privilege and Washington EEOC attorney David Frank, who was the first person there that I informed of the Certified and Index 32 fraud evidence, would have to produce all correspondences and related files with an injunctive order from a judge.  This is supported in Clark vs. US and in In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation (Ninth Circuit).  The results, I believe, would confirm that the EEOC individuals were directly involved in a conspiracy after I presented to them this evidence of fraud involving this EEOC investigator.  Therefore, with malice towards my civil rights concerning my retaliation claims, they deliberately refused to reopen my related cases because I had informed the EEOC of this EEOC investigator�fs fraud, conspiracy, and corruption with these related case defendants.

 Additionally, the evidence showed that Garner only gave me a very selective group of documents.  For instance, Garner gave me the Bingham memo (an excerpt from this Bingham memo is in my Ninth Circuit Appeal section below) but not the Certified memo that Judge Walker deliberately misstated was the three withheld pages I asked for and my stated reason for my complaint and my FOIA appeal.  In fact, this is very strong evidence that Judge Walker was making the facts up as he was going along.  This Bingham memo was three (actually four) of the six (actually seven) pages that were withheld according to Judge Walker.  I received this Bingham memo as an attachment to Garner�fs Declaration after I filed suit.  In the excerpt above Judge Walker stated that I filed suit under the FOIA �gasking the court to enjoin the EEOC from withholding the remaining three pages of agency records. Doc #1 at 12�h.  The latter part being a reference to the non-existent Judge Walker�fs citing of my alleged missing three Certified memo pages in the content of this Complaint page.  How would I know to ask for only three pages and not the six (actually seven) pages if I hadn�ft gotten this Bingham memo yet?  Judge Walker deliberately attempted to mislead in these statements by implying that I was given the Bingham memorandum from EEOC Counsel Garner before I filed suit in response to my fictitious request for these Certified and Bingham memos in my FOIA appeal letter.  Under this rationale, according to Walker�fs intentions, Garner by the time of my Complaint exempted under the FOIA rules only the Certified memo by this Judge Walker ruse.  Here are relevant parts of excerpts of Walker�fs above referred to October 8, 2003 Garner�fs Bingham response to my fictitious request for the Bingham memo in my appeal letter that exposes this judge�fs misstatements in this regard:

 

This is a glaring example of how this district judge was reinventing my FOIA claims in order to dismiss this case by asserting this falsehood that the EEOC had cooperated with my fictitious appeal for these two memos and not my real request for correspondences from all EEOC offices as I actually requested.  And by Walker�fs rationale, the EEOC were therefore cooperating with my appeal by releasing this Bingham memo before my suit.  In the above excerpts, Garner unequivocally stated that this Bingham memo was being withheld under this FOIA exemption.  On October 6, 2003, Garner had identically exempted the Certified memo by this same FOIA rationale.  Later on the reader will see that Judge Walker referred to these Certified memo three pages as �gthree documents�h.  This will be evidence that Judge Walker gave scant attention to this memo in his determination regardless of its weight as evidence, though it was the deciding factor in this judge�fs rationale for summary judgment dismissal of my case against the EEOC.

As I�fve already stated, this Bingham memo, in fact, was one of the attachments to EEOC Counsel Garner�fs declaration that EEOC Counsel Garner referred to after I filed my Complaint.  Judge Walker as evident here was reinventing the facts of my FOIA claims in my appeal letter and Complaint to dismiss these claims on those false bases.

Furthermore, in section 26 of this same Declaration, Garner admitted that email were �gautomatically deleted�h, and Garner further stated after the complaint was filed that the EEOC employees themselves were asked to check their own email messages related to my charges.  This was after I had alleged to Garner�fs Washington DC EEOC offices that I had witnessed EEOC investigator Scanlan committing acts of fraud.  For any impartial judge this evidence would be a no-brainer that my claims were justified and supported by EEOC Garner�fs own admissions of withholding records and injunctive orders to compel records under the FOIA were warranted.

Instead of compelling the correspondences I requested under the FOIA, in this same doc. #31 orders, Judge Walker again completely ignored and misstated the June 30, 2003 FOIA request and appeal and the EEOC�fs own admissions of FOIA violations in regard to requested correspondences from all EEOC offices.  Judge Walker ordered the EEOC to produce �gin camera�h (sealed) the withheld pages of this Certified memorandum, which Judge Walker dishonestly misstated was specifically requested by me, the reason for my Complaint and the only documents I requested, so he could see if this document met this FOIA inter-agency exemption with the obvious intention of dismissing this case on that false basis.  See Excerpt.

In summation, Judge Walker was doing backward somersaults to get the FOIA requests shut down and have my case dismissed despite EEOC Legal Counsel Garner�fs own admissions of negligence and obstructions of justice in regard to the FOIA requested correspondences.  Judge Walker intentionally ignored the evidence produced after the complaint was filed that included EEOC Official Garner admitting EEOC�fs non-compliance with my FOIA request.  Consequently, this judge would not acknowledge the legitimate reasons for injunctive relief to compel these correspondences.  After purposely misstating the facts in my complaint, the FOIA Request and Appeal, Judge Walker intentionally and dishonestly resorted to the EEOC�fs pre-suit non-compliant position and arbitrarily ordered the Certified memo with the intention of dismissing this case based on Judge Walker�fs own misstatements. 

In doc. #31, Judge Walker also deliberately mischaracterized my position with this original complaint concerning the defendants.  Contrast Judge Walker�fs assertion that Humbarger �gdoes not oppose the motion to dismiss his complaint in so much as it relates to the employees. Doc #19 at 5-6.  Accordingly, the motion to dismiss all claims against the employees is GRANTED�h, see excerpt below.  In my Opposition to dismiss the original complaint that Judge Walker cited at 5-6 below, I stated that:

Here is Judge Walker�fs ruling to this cited statement:

Note in the excerpt above, how Judge Walker twisted my statements.  Judge Walker stated, in effect, that I permanently wanted these individual defendants excluded and granted dismissal.  In fact I unequivocally stated that the individual defendants were to be included in an amended complaint.  Judge Walker unabashedly mischaracterized what I stated, with the proposed amended complaint with individuals named in Walker�fs hands, and then granted dismissal as if I complied.  This was an unconscionable act on Judge Walker�fs part to sabotage by dismissal these EEOC Officials as if I complied.  This was a blatant act of judicial misconduct.

In these same #31 orders, this judge addressed the fact that I�fd included Aletha Brown, EEOC Inspector General, to this amended complaint as a defendant.  Walker stated:

I�fm a member of the mafia because I �gpulled people back in�h like I withdrew them in the first place?  Being a full-fledged member of the Lawyers Syndicate isn�ft this lawyer in black robe calling the kettle black?

This judge, in the same #31 orders, then created his own legal theory that misstated and mischaracterized the proposed amended complaint in regard to these named defendants. See Excerpts:

�gHumbarger�fs PAC [proposed amended complaint] alleges that the employees violated his Title VII rights by conducting a deficient investigation into his complaints against Certified and Bingham and improperly refusing to release EEOC records�h.  And this judge concluded that:  �g[t]o allow Humbarger to amend his complaint to add these Title VII claims would be futile�h.  And �gTo the extent plaintiff seeks to assert a conspiracy claim against the employees, that claim fails for the same reason that the similar claim in Ward failed: plaintiff fails to allege �efacts probative of a conspiracy�f Id at 314. Mere conclusory allegations and use of the term �econspiracy�f do not make out a claim for the same.�h  These �gTitle VII claims�h were denied under FRCP 12 (b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

(Refer to my following PAC excerpts)  First, my main charge was not the accusation that the EEOC officials conducted a �gdeficient investigation�h.  And despite Judge Walker�fs contention that I was merely yodeling �gconspiracy�h, I accused these defendants of committing criminal acts of fraud and conspiracy in obstructing justice with my EEOC cases that I backed up with prima facie evidence of these acts of fraud and conspiracy.  And as a direct consequence of these claims, these individuals violated my due process Fifth Amendment rights as stated in my amended complaint.  And these Judge Walker so-called Title VII claims, which according to this statute is claiming a employer/employee relationship exclusively as Walker stated above, is a red herring and had absolutely nothing to do with this amended complaint.  Consequently, I allege that Judge Walker deliberately and maliciously misstated these claims against these defendants to deny the legitimate claims supporting my stated Fifth Amendment right of action.

In fact, I amended this complaint specifically to convert what I had jurisdictionally mistook in my original complaint for Title VII and 42 USC�˜1983 claims against the EEOC individuals into a Bivens Action as was cited under jurisdiction in the amended complaint.  In the excerpt of my �gmafia�h connections above, Walker even stated there that it was a Bivens Action complaint.  Here are excerpts about jurisdiction, venue, and the nature of suit in the amended complaint:

In the following excerpts, I stated clearly in all three Causes Of Action[9] of the amended complaint that the consequences of my stated allegations were due process violations of the Fifth Amendment, which are at the core of this proposed Bivens action complaint and is clearly supported by case law: Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478 (1978). 

Here is the first of three Causes of Action in the amended complaint that Judge Walker cited at �gPAC 41-45�h in the previous excerpt:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In reference to the statutes cited in this Cause of Action; 42 U.S.C. �˜ 2000e-5 is the federal statute that specifically refers to the official duties of EEOC Officials �gto prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employment practice as set forth in section 2000e–2 or 2000e–3 of this title�h, and therefore encompasses the EEOC�fs official fiduciary duties as federal officers.  Bivens Actions give the right to hold Federal employees personally liable for damages remedies for constitutional violations and thus 42 U.S.C. �˜ 2000e-5 was cited in the Causes of Action because these defendants by committing acts of fraud and conspiracy violated their duties as federal officials; 5 C.F.R. �˜ 2635.101 is the statute in reference to the Standards Of Ethical Conduct For Employees Of The Executive Branch, which describes their basic obligation of public service;  18 U.S.C. �˜ 1001 is the federal statute for fraud; 18 U.S.C. �˜ 371 is the federal statute for conspiracy.  And the consequences of these were violations of my due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as clearly stated in the Causes of Action.

The amended complaint as evident in my first Cause of Action that Walker cited made no Title VII claims, which are strictly in 42 U.S.C. �˜ 2000e-2 �gUnlawful employment practices�h and 42 U.S.C. �˜ 2000e-3 �gOther unlawful employment practices�h concerning unlawful acts of employers to employees that Judge Walker erroneously and deliberately misstated and misapplied under the case law Ward vs. EEOC.  And I made no 42 USC�˜1983 claims, constitutional rights violated by the states (non-federal), which is self-evident in this statute�fs absence in any of my Causes of Action including those  cited below.

Also stated in this Cause of Action were the deprivation of my civil rights concerning my employment claims, which were the defendants�f fiduciary responsibilities, that these defendants under the color of their legal authority sabotaged by these criminal acts of fraud and conspiracy.  Judge Walker though claimed that the �gPlaintiff�fs PAC alleges that the complicit EEOC employees were all acting in their �eofficial�f capacity�f�h.  As if the defendants actions were the �gnormal processing�h of a claim as Walker cited within the parameters of this case law, Ward vs. EEOC 719 F2d 311, 312-13 (9th Cir 1983).  This case law rejects a Cause of Action against the EEOC for the normal processing of a complaint at the EEOC as it applies to Title VII claims, which is strictly defined as an employer/employee relationship under 42 U.S.C. �˜ 2000e-2 and e-3 exclusively, against the EEOC.  My amended complaint was a Bivens Action under the Fifth Amendment and as evident in my Causes of Action made neither of these Title VII claims.  Furthermore, the term �gcolor of legal authority�h as stated in my Causes of Action has a very special meaning in the law and is a quote from part of the statute in 28 USC �˜ 1391 (e) concerning suits against federal employees in terms of legal venue in a federal court.  �gA civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority�h.  The latter �gunder color of legal authority�h refers specifically to an alleged wrong committed by an officer under the pretended authority of his office.  So what I was alleging was the opposite of defendants acting in their official capacities as implied in their normal duties that Walker stated out of context.  I obviously meant the opposite and should have stated the legal term �gindividual capacity�h as the pleading intended.  My intention was to state as evident in this pleading that the defendants were literally �gacting�h, as under the guise of their official capacity, with the same meaning that I cited 42 U.S.C. �˜ 2000e-5 in my Causes of Action alleging that these federal employees violated their fiduciary duties.  And my claims still should have been allowed as supported in the case law, Haines vs. Kerner: �gA pro se litigant�fs pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers�h[10].  Thus, if my pro se amended complaint can reasonably be read �gto state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it [the court] should do so despite the plaintiff�fs failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.[11]�h  In fact I misquoted 28 USC �˜ 1391 (e) in my statement of Venue in the excerpt to my amended complaint above.  I misstated �gindividual official capacity�h for what should have been simply �gindividual capacity�h, which is closer to the meaning I intended.  As further evidence of my misconstruing this term, if you look at the 1^st page of my amended complaint excerpt above, my title page, where I named the individual defendants, I didn�ft include the EEOC as a defendant, which meant that I was perceiving the individual defendants as distinct from the federal agency and its normal processes.  Also in evidence is  the section as exhibited in the excerpt above under the NATURE OF SUIT in my amended complaint, where it states that a �gBivens action is proper in this case where it is alleged that individually responsible federal defendants (�gDefendants�h) had interfered with, foreclosed and effectively rendered unavailable to the Plaintiff D. Karl Humbarger (�gPlaintiff�f) the civil rights remedies that he was entitled to pursue at this federal agency:

a) In this case there is abundant evidence that these obstructions of justice were

committed and superseded the Defendants normal official duties as US Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (�gEEOC�h) officers;

b) And the same alleged offenses were done in violation of the federal statutes and the Plaintiff�fs civil rights and consequently denied the Plaintiff�fs right of due process of law.�h

This is a very plain and simple statement that clarifies the positions in my Causes of Action in my amended complaint, which stated that these defendants were acting individually and intentionally outside of their official capacities.  Consequently, they violated my due process rights, a direct reference to the Fifth Amendment as intended here.

In this light, my 1^st Cause of Action can be read as stated: CAUSES OF ACTION: First Cause of Action, �gThe Defendants by the Commission of Fraud And Conspiracy Obstructed Justice with�c�h.  The statements are clearly not the EEOC as a federal agency in acts that are the normal processing of a complaint as in Ward vs. EEOC, but allegations of federal statute violations that encompassed fraud and conspiracy.  If you read my 1^st Cause of Action in regard to individual defendant Linda Scanlan, for instance, substituting �gindividual�h for �gofficial�h from the above excerpt you will see that my allegations don�ft fit the normal duties of an EEOC official:

�gThe Plaintiff alleges that Linda Scanlan acting in her [individual] capacity and under the color of legal authority sustained by the evidence:

a)         closed the EEOC respondents�f cases under false pretenses:

b)         based on the falsification of documents;

c)         deception and other frauds:

d)         and with malice and indifference to the Plaintiff�fs civil rights;

e)         violated the Plaintiff�fs civil rights and his rights to due process of law;

f)          42 U.S.C. �˜ 2000e-5, 18 U.S.C. �˜ 1001, 18 U.S.C. �˜ 371, 5 C.F.R. �˜ 2635.101 and The Fifth Amendment.�h

When individual federal employees engage in these alleged criminal acts of fraud and conspiracy, they are acting according to legal protocol, ultra vires: beyond the legal power or authority of the federal government and as stated in my Causes of Action, �gunder the color of legal authority�h.  And is supported in these case laws: Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).  When I named the defendants individually who acted under the color of legal authority as stated, I was alleging acts by these defendants that were beyond the scope of their official duties.  Under Haines vs. Kerner, this pleading must be construed liberally and with the compelling evidence I�fve produced to support my claims should have been accepted on that basis and my amended complaint accepted and not rejected because of my misusage of the term �gofficial capacity�h.

But even if accepted out of context of my stated positions literally as individuals in their �gofficial capacity�h, which would mean a suit against the EEOC with their sovereign immunity and likewise these defendants �gunder the color of legal authority�h as stated and as intended in this amended complaint, which would mean a suit against the defendants in their �gindividual capacity�h, my Bivens claims should still have been accepted.  Bivens Action damages are recoverable upon proof of injuries resulting from federal employees' Fifth Amendment due process violations alone.  As far as the �gofficial capacity�h of federal employees, the Bivens Action US Supreme Court decision did not rule on the immunity question and therefore legally should depend on the EEOC�fs willingness to waiver immunity.  And even if this waiver is not legally viable does not preclude the federal employees�f liability established by the evidence in my Bivens Action.  This Bivens Actions case law established as precedent that the sovereign immunity of a federal agency does not negate the federal employees�f personal responsibilities for constitutional violations.  Therefore, the compelling prima facie evidence supporting the allegations stated in my Bivens Actions�f Causes of Action against the defendants as federal employees acting under the color of their legal authority should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.  Judge Walker deliberately ignored this stated part of my claims in the Causes of Action and the prima facie evidence of these violations that accurately reflected my amended complaint�fs contentions of Fifth Amendment due process violations.  Therefore my amended complaint as stated should have been granted and not rejected under FRCP 12 (b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Here are the other two Causes of Action:

 

 

 

5 U.S.C. �˜ 552 is the federal statute in regard to FOIA. 

Clearly and indisputably, Judge Walker misstated my claims by reverting to my Title VII claims in my original complaint instead of a Bivens Action as stated under jurisdiction with Causes of Action resulting in Fifth Amendment violations in the amended complaint.  And Judge Walker would not acknowledge my prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy and fraud by these defendants that supported these due process violation claims.  Consequently, Judge Walker misstated the intent of my Bivens Action, the Causes of Action and deliberately ignored the prima facie evidence supporting these actions in the amended complaint to deny my claims against these defendants. 

 Judge Walker�fs �gfacts�h though that led to his conclusions denying leave to amend the complaint were completely Judge Walker�fs own.  In doc. #31, Judge Walker reduced his self-generated legal theory down to one bare-bones contention. 

This was Judge Walker�fs theory that I filed the original complaint against the EEOC for �gwithholding the remaining three pages of agency records�h.  A reference to the Certified memo.  This absurdity was now extended to this proposed amended complaint.  Judge Walker concluded in his thesis that �gthe [EEOC] employees�f alleged improper withholding of three documents and Humbarger�fs asserted injury �eare far to weak for the chain as a whole to sustain [Humbarger]�fs standing�f�h and �gtherefore could not survive a motion for dismissal under 12(b)(1)�h.  The leave to amend was DENIED.  See excerpt below of this judge and his �gthree documents�h (actually Certified memo pages) theory, which I never even suggested as part of the Cause of Action in regard to the FOIA requests.

Judge Walker had gone full circle in fabricating my �gfacts�h.  In my original complaint Judge Walker created these �gfacts�h out of whole cloth by stating that that was the main reason that I filed the original complaint were these �gthree documents�h (actually three pages of the Certified memo) through my September 7, 2003 Appeal letter.  Judge Walker then reintroduced those �gfacts�h as the most relevant issue in the amended complaint to deny it and then denied leave to amend the complaint based on Judge Walker�fs completely manufactured �gfacts�h.  Judge Walker�fs conclusions were only convincing of his inability to perform his duties as a judge. 

On January 28, 2005, Judge Walker found that this withheld Certified memo that I never specifically asked for met the FOIA exemption and he dismissed my case against the EEOC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction[12] on that false basis.  This was after he fabricated my consent in dismissing the EEOC defendants in their alleged civil rights violations in the original complaint.  And then Walker reinvented my case under the false premise of Title VII claims to dismiss these defendants again in my amended complaint.  As stated in my conclusion in the Ninth Circuit appeal, �gJudge Walker�fs rulings clearly show judicial errors and abuses of discretion that �estrike us as wrong with the force of a five-week-old unrefrigerated dead fish�f as quoted in Hayes v. Woodford, 301 F.3d 1054, 1067 n.8 (9th Cir. 2002). Humbarger is not stating here that Judge Walker is corrupt but Humbarger fails to distinguish how Judge Walker�fs rulings would differ if he were.  Put plainly, whatever his motivations or inability, Judge Walker has proved himself incapable of adjudicating this case.�h 

Chapter XII: The Ninth Circuit Appetite for Five-Week-Old Unrefrigerated Dead Fish Act I: My 1^st Amendment Rights DENIED

Even before this summary judgment, I had already filed in the Ninth Circuit Court a petition for writ of mandamus[13] to recuse Judge Walker.  This judge�fs fabrication of the evidence and gross misstatements, which were the bases of his rulings and consequent due process violations that included: this judge�fs judicial misconduct in fabricating my consent in the dismissal of the defendants in the original complaint; reinvented my case to dismiss these defendants in my amended complaint; the judge�fs deliberate ignorance of the prima facie fraud and conspiracy evidence that supported my Fifth Amendment claims; the judge�fs deliberate ignorance of the EEOC individuals admitted violations of the FOIA by withholding requested documents and the deletion of email; and the judge�fs non-acknowledgment of  my legitimate case for injunctive relief under the FOIA, were the reasons for the petition for writ of mandamus  for the recusal of this district judge with the EEOC case.  I also filed a petition for writ of mandamus for recusal in my Bingham Certified related case. 

See excerpts of cover page and statement of jurisdiction for the EEOC case below:

 

 

Both the petitions and the motions for reconsideration in both related cases were denied using the same wording and rationale.  See excerpt of EEOC lack of jurisdiction ruling:

 

 

Both sets of rejections were based on this fabricated rationale that my petitions were not really petitions for writ of mandamus for recusal at all but appeals to interlocutory[14] orders under FRCP 54(b) and 28 U.S.C. �˜ 1291, which refer specifically to pre-judgment orders and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction since it wasn�ft a post-judgment appeal.  The petitions were for the recusal of a judge and I clearly invoked in these petitions 28 U.S.C. �˜1651 as the authority for jurisdiction.  It is clear with these judges that whatever their intent here they did not want to judge these petitions on the merits.  In addition, I would argue this is especially true when the petition or other pleading is by a pro se litigant, as the evidence bears out.

This US Congressional statute for a petition for writ, 28 U.S.C. �˜1651, is clear about jurisdiction.  �ga) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law�h.  And since the petitions had venue from a district court to an appellate court, it�fs inconceivable after citing this statute, 28 U.S.C. �˜1651, as I had in these petitions in regard to jurisdiction, that the petitions could be anything but within the jurisdiction of this Ninth Circuit Court.  In fact virtually all courts of appeal permit a party to seek interlocutory review via mandamus, reasoning that, at least in some cases, the damage to public confidence in the justice system and to the litigants would not be undone by post-judgment appeal.  Here�fs the case law from virtually every circuit court supporting this mandamus appeal: In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981); In re IBM Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 926–27 (2d Cir. 1980); In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 774–78 (3d Cir. 1992); In re Rogers, 537 F.2d 1196, 1197 n.1 (4th Cir. 1976) (per curiam); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 614 F.2d 958, 961 n.4 (5th Cir. 1980); In re Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 919 F.2d 1136, 1139–43 (6th Cir.1990); SCA Servs. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 117 (7th Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Liddell v. Board of Educ., 677 F.2d 626, 643 (8th Cir. 1982); In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1982); Bell v. Chandler, 569 F.2d 556, 559 (10th Cir. 1978).  The three-panel judges could have either granted or denied these petitions on their merits.  But to reject them as non-jurisdictional, presumably without having to read or to judge them on the petitions�f merits, an objective person would have to conclude is a ploy to be used on  the inexperienced pro se litigant.  And as corroborative evidence, observe the pro se WordPerfect boilerplate references �gS:\PROSE\panelords\2005\2.05\05-15024.wpd�h at the bottom of this ruling on the petition, which is evidence that this is standard operating procedure when it comes to pro se (pro per, same thing) litigants.

 What is very apparent here is that these panel judges would not allow a pro se litigant to remove a federal judge no matter how strong the evidence the litigant presented so they denied the petitions as lacking jurisdiction under false pretenses.

With both related cases, I filed judicial misconduct charges against these three-panel judges, which is adjudicated by the Chief Ninth Circuit Judge. 

Check out how these three-panel judges tortured the reasoning in their denial of my EEOC motion for reconsideration:

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Schroeder stated that in denying my motion for reconsideration that these three-panel judges ruled to the extent that I had �gsought mandamus relief, such relief was denied�h.  These judges ruled that my motion for reconsidering �gthe order dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied�h.  If they legitimately denied mandamus relief they would have had to have granted my motion, acknowledging that, in fact, this petition is within the jurisdiction of this court, and then denied relief for the petition.  They didn�ft do that.  These judges obviously by denying it jurisdictionally never considered the merits of the petition.  And legally how after these judges considered my petitions non-jurisdictional could they then deny relief for an appeal on another basis?  This was a pro se litigant special ruling where judges, as illustrated with Judge Walker�fs rulings, make up the rules as they go along. 

So Judge Schroeder, obviously aware of this, in denying misconduct charges made up another couple rules that don�ft exist:

This is a patently inaccurate reading of both the US statute and the Judicial Misconduct rules and illustrates this chief judge�fs prejudice against this pro se litigant and is in liaison with the 3-panel judges�f extreme abuse of discretion.  The US statute 28 U.S.C. �˜ 352 states in part:

(b) Action by Chief Judge Following Review.  After expeditiously reviewing a complaint under subsection (a) the chief judge, by written order stating his or her reasons, may -

(1) dismiss the complaint—

(A) if the chief judge finds the complaint to be—

(i) not in conformity with section 351 (a);

(ii) directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling;

 

Misconduct Rule 4(c) states in part:

A complaint may be dismissed if the chief judge concludes:

(1)        that the complaint is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling.

The US Code obviously said may instead of �gwill be dismissed if it is directly related to the merits of a judge�fs ruling�h as Chief Judge Schroeder contends.  Certainly, the US Congress was not stating in its intent with this statute 28 U.S.C. �˜ 352 for judicial misconduct that there can be no exception especially when it comes to the overthrow of their own US congressional statutes.  This is why there is a separation of powers in the first place.  The judiciary has no authority to turn congressional statute 28 U.S.C. �˜1651, concerning writs, on its head when it is convenient for them to do so to reject a pro se litigant�fs petition for writ as lacking jurisdiction. 

Article III, section 2 of the US Constitution states:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It is an Act of the US Congress that the US Supreme Court and by implication all other appellate courts may issue all writs necessary �gin aid of their respective jurisdictions�h under 28 U.S.C. �˜1651.  So the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear a petitioner�fs petitions under 28 U.S.C. �˜1651, which authorizes courts of appeal �gin aid of their respective jurisdictions�h to entertain applications and issue writs.  As stated in Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, under this provision an appellate court, like the Ninth Circuit court of appeal, cannot deny jurisdiction since it was regulated by a congressional act. 

Judge Schroeder may deny judicial misconduct charges against these three-panel judges under 28 U.S.C. �˜ 352 and Misconduct Rule 4(c), but only in defiance of the intent of the US Congress, Article III of the US Constitution and this chief judge�fs responsibility to abide by the Misconduct Rules to discipline judges who violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.  These actions by these three-panel judges and sanctioned by the chief judge of this court are clear and intentional violations of the rule of law and due process.  These are blatant acts where judges reject as non-jurisdictional a petition illegally and under false pretenses and refuse to judge the petition on its merits.  The merits in my case that gave overwhelming evidence that a federal judge fabricated evidence and usurped my cases in acts of judicial misconduct to obstruct justice in my exposure of corruption at a federal agency.

From this stonewalling of my legitimate rights to petition for writ and gross violations of due process, I concluded that this was a deliberate sabotage of my first amendment right to petition the government to redress a grievance.  This basic civil right that has precedence back to the Magna Carta and in its denial provoked an American Revolution was quashed by these three-panel judges and then confirmed by the Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit.  As a final indignity, this extremely obvious miscarriage of justice was upheld by ten other federal judges when I petitioned the Judicial Council for review.  See Excerpt:

This controlling authority referred to here must be the Ninth Circuit chief judge herself.  Consequently, the notion that we are a nation of laws and not men (and women) is fatally discredited.

This Ninth circuit chief judge had joined the fracas with other judges where they tar and feather the meaning and letter of congressional laws to deprive a pro per litigant his 1^st amendment rights.  This dramatically demonstrates a systematic and insidious cabal among these federal judges where any pretensions of judicial independence are forsaken.  This is where at least with certain litigants, judges subvert the rule of law and due process of law with total impunity from their peers.  These kinds of rulings destroy the public trust in the courts and shows extreme prejudices towards targeted litigants.  I believe these are impeachable acts when judges butcher the laws to protect each other and federal agencies. 

 

Chapter XIII: The Ninth Circuit Appetite for Five-Week-Old Unrefrigerated Dead Fish Act II: Denial of My Due Process Rights AFFIRMED

            Much to his credit, Ninth Circuit Commissioner Peter Shaw ruled against the EEOC Appellees�f summary judgment motion to my Ninth Circuit Appeal.  See excerpt:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 Nevertheless, despite this commissioner�fs ruling, the Ninth Circuit in their decision on my Appeal could not help but rehash another federal judge�fs lies.  This is the complete ruling:                    

    

In this summary judgment affirmance, the three-panel Ninth Circuit judges mechanically repeated the district court judge�fs gross and obvious misstatements as fact.  This was done despite their own Ninth Circuit Commissioner�fs earlier ruling against the Appellees�f summary judgment (affirmance) motion where the Ninth Circuit Commissioner ruled that the �gopening brief are sufficiently substantial to warrant further argument�h.  In fact, the Appellees�f summary judgment motion and the three-panel judges�f summary judgment affirmance in point to point argument are carbon copies of each other. 

Instead of the email and other correspondences, which I legitimately requested under the FOIA, on page two of this ruling the three-panel judges referred to this district judge�fs order to examine in camera this EEOC investigator�fs Certified Employment Group memorandum that I had not specifically requested under the FOIA or in my complaints.  They concluded that this judge �gdid not clearly err�h on this fictitious request.  In fact, as stated in the Appellate Brief, I had received Bingham�fs memorandum by the EEOC investigator through EEOC Garner�fs declaration, doc. #10, see excerpts:

 

  The EEOC investigator stated, �g[Humbarger�fs] assignment ended early due to his behavior during a meeting on May 23, 2002.�h  Again, a reference to the 26th floor management/ Humbarger meeting that Bingham claimed was the triggering event of my termination.  If in the Certified memorandum, referred to in this part of the Ninth Circuit Appeal ruling, which was withheld by the EEOC, consistent with the alleged Certified Answer, the EEOC investigator concluded that the triggering event was this screaming at the 18th floor Conflict Department employees and Certified had made me DNU, do not use, before going to the California Labor Commission then this would be evidence that the EEOC investigator closed these cases under false pretenses.  Consequently, this evidence would support my claim of this investigator�fs direct participation in acts of fraud and conspiracy, especially with the prima facie fraud evidence of index 32 in Certified�fs Answer.  This is why I alleged that the EEOC individuals did not include this memorandum.  This was not because it was �gpredecisional and part of the agency�fs deliberative process�h as the three-panel appellate judges and the district judge concluded, but because this evidence supported my fraud and conspiracy allegations.  This document should have been released to me under the FOIA by this district judge.  The withholding of this memo was only �gdeliberative�h by the EEOC and this compromised district judge and now these appellate judges in their mutual attempt to suppress the fraud and conspiracy evidence and therefore not a legitimate exemption under 5 USC�˜522(b)(5) as part of a policy-making process.  The FOIA was enacted to expose government corruption and not to be debased by judges�f and EEOC lawyers�f deliberate malfeasance in abusing its provisions.  For the first time, I specifically requested this Certified memorandum as an item for relief in the Appellate Brief for the reasons stated. 

These judges then cited the same authority as the district judge, Ward v. EEOC 719 F.2d 311, 313-14 (9th Cir. 1983), which is case law that rejects a Cause of Action under Title VII, which is strictly defined as an employer/employee relationship, against the EEOC for the normal processing of a complaint at the EEOC.  If taken to their logical conclusions, based on the actual evidence I produced, apparently committing acts of fraud and conspiracy and not complying with the FOIA requests are the normal processes of the EEOC.  In fact, citing Ward v. EEOC has no relationship to the facts of this case because there is no evidence of �gnormal processing�h of my complaints at the EEOC as the fraud and conspiracy evidence and my allegations against the EEOC individuals substantiate.  These appellate judges also failed to note that in my amended complaint this was a Bivens Action under the Cause of Action of the Fifth Amendment where Ward vs. EEOC is not applicable case law.  These judges parroted the district judge�fs misstatements and would only acknowledge my Bivens amended complaint as a Title VII suit and misstated that I only claimed allegations in the defendants�f �gofficial capacities�h.  They would not address my Causes of Action where I stated that these individual defendants committed fraud and conspiracy under the �gcolor of legal authority�h, which directly applies to Bivens Actions requirement of �gindividual capacities�h.  Whether I also stated that the defendants were also in their official capacities per legal protocol literally, which I deny, is irrelevant.  People sue government officials all the time in their individual and in their official capacities with state and federal government and these cases are sustained on that bases and should have been done so here if the fix wasn�ft in because I was a pro se litigant exposing government corruption.

With the amended complaint Bivens claim, the judges stated that there was no right of action because I �gwas unhappy with the [EEOC�fs] processing of his complaint�h.  These appellate judges, like the district court judge, would not acknowledge the prima facie evidence of fraud and conspiracy at the EEOC or the EEOC individuals�f admitted violations of the FOIA at the EEOC that supported my district court Bivens complaint. 

The three-panel judges affirmed that the Bivens Action Fifth Amendment claim of back pay would not have standing because the EEOC had not �gproduced two additional memoranda�h.  This is again a reference to this fictitious request for this Certified and Bingham memoranda and according to this district judge and these appellate judges were the only documents requested.  My stated request for injunctive relief to compel correspondences fell on deaf ears.

Also note that the three-panel judges on page two affirm that the district judge �gproperly dismissed the claims under 42 USC�˜1983 against the EEOC and individual EEOC employees�h.  This was what the Appellees contended in their Brief, when in fact as stated in the #31 orders, see excerpt above, the district judge �ggranted�h my alleged unopposed dismissal of the defendants at the same time this judge had my proposed amended complaint with the individual EEOC defendants named in hand.  The amended Bivens complaint made no 42 USC�˜1983 claims.

The Appeal ruling was so obviously compromised and one-sided that there is literally no evidence that these appellate judges read the Appellate Brief at all.  In my motion for panel rehearing I was even more blunt:

�gIf this court wants to be fair to this Petitioner in his petition for rehearing, this court can read these referred to documents in the Appendix and come to the same conclusions as the Petitioner.  If this court does not want to be fair to this Petitioner in his petition for rehearing then obviously this court will not bother to read these referred to Appendix documents and will act as if they are not there.  The truths of these issues are so obvious and simple that the Petitioner believes a 10th grade high school student would know which set of facts are true.  The Petitioner�fs question is: Is this court capable of reading a few documents and in effect exercising their responsibilities as federal judges under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges?�h  Obviously not. 

These rulings are completely void of any notion of due process for the simple reason that the decisions are not based on the facts of the case and therefore are floundering in their own out and out misstatements, fabricated evidence, and consequent misapplied case law.  This ruling is a total miscarriage of justice and makes a mockery of the appellate process.

Chapter XIV: Thoughts on Lawyers with or without Black Robes

As demonstrated in my cases, these lawyers in black robes uphold the practices of other lawyers who are caught red-handed committing blatant acts of fraud and conspiracy at a federal agency.  In these judges�f shady rulings are gross acts in violation of due process and civil rights in general.  The courts then defend these judges up the appellate court ladder.  With acts like these, the federal judiciary appears senseless in their acceptance of these obvious violations of the rule of law.  The condoning nature of these judges I have concluded is fundamentally sociopathic behavior steeped in elitist cronyism.

I believe that these lawyers in black robes are unconscious of their victims�f awareness of how obviously they betray their trust by judicial dishonesty.  I have had a closer than average scrutiny of the mindset of lawyers in general because I have directly worked with them at the California State Bar.  Most lawyers in general are insufferably prone to blindness of what people other than lawyers think of them by this conviction of their own sense of class and pretensions of superior intelligence. In general there is nothing subtle in their boldface arrogance.  At least for me anyway, they seemed to act with each other like they are a secret sect of Freemasons but they are unaware that they are in your face broadcasting the accompanying secret words, winks, nods and handshakes.  I�fll give you an example of this arrogance and oblivious attitude at the California State Bar.

The California State Bar lawyers all had their own private offices but routinely they did not close their doors so they could hear the business of other workers around them.  I had a co-worker, whom was a public notary, do my Proofs of Services with my cases.  So the lawyers I believe knew of my cases as a pro per litigant and probably knew that the substance of one of my cases was against this law firm, Bingham McCutchen.  At one point I decided to make a formal complaint against the lawyer with the California State Bar who had most blatantly committed this fraud in my case with Certified and see what fallout would result from this.  Now our State Bar was at the prosecutorial end of this business, so I sent my complaint through the normal channels to our Los Angeles branch.  A few weeks later, they informed me that unless a judge submitted this prima facie evidence of fraud this case was not going to be investigated.  To say the least I was flustered with this decision that I know now was nothing more than fraternal back scratching.  So I decided to appeal directly to these prosecuting lawyers�f sense of vanity.  What I did was put prominently on my desk a folder containing the essence of my fraud evidence with a caveat written in bold black ink, �gdo not open this case of Karl�fs unless you are an exceptionally able lawyer!�h or words to that effect, hoping to hook one of them to my cause.  What I got the next day was a wild cackle of whistles of lawyers in unison when I walked the halls that continued for days, which imitated one of the racial harassment antics I described of the people that were harassing me that led to the job retaliation charges of my previous employers and then defendants.  I guess in these State Bar lawyers�f craw this gesture exemplified to them the height of their witticism, which for most people would only be an obvious exposure of their crass meanness.  Never mind that the essence of my cases was not the racial harassment per se but the fact that I was fired for complaining about it.  Like Judge Walker, this part flew way over their heads.  All they saw was another reason to show their contempt for what they understood as some no-account plebe way over his head in a lawsuit.  The fraud perpetrated by another lawyer at a federal agency these State Bar lawyers could care less about.

I believe this is why lawyers and judges alike are so corruptible.  Most of them have very elitist attitudes and suck up to people like themselves in powerful positions.  Pro per litigants without the means to afford a lawyer does not register on their radar screen as deserving of rights.  Most judges I believe think pro per litigants are infringing on lawyers�f turf, assume we are too dumb to represent ourselves, and because they think they can get away with it, contemptuously deny justice to these litigants routinely. 

Chapter XV: Aftermath

I believe this arrogance reflects itself in this self-preening manner up to the lofty chambers of our US Supreme Court.  The latter showed this propensity when they ruled down party lines to shut down the 2000 election and in effect anointed a latter-day King.  Did any of these Supreme Court judges on either side choose to recuse themselves on the grounds that when judges jettison federal elections they violate the principles of the constitution that depends on a separation of powers, the bedrock of this government�fs integrity?  I guess when you believe you are Lords of the Universe with a sense of divine immunity what is not under your jurisdiction?  Such is the creed of judges who never think in their scattershot rulings of the victims that they accidentally on purpose hit between the eyes when they interlope into the elections of US presidents and disallow a state like Florida of doing its business.  The idea that this US Supreme Court could use the protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave former slaves civil rights, to overturn this election is simply appalling.  We Americans, if cognizant of our history, should be hyper-vigilant and sensitive with black voters in particular who have faced lynch mobs to be enfranchised.  Did this court in their ruling know of the allegations of massive amounts of fraud that occurred in Florida where black people were erroneously stricken from the voter rolls as felons?  If these Supreme Court lawyers knew of these allegations, I am convinced that the implications would have had no effect on their decision at all to snuff out the Florida recount. 

From what I have been able to gather about this US Supreme Court, my petition for writ hadn�ft a prayer, because no matter the merits of my arguments these black robed Supreme Court lawyers would have judged this petition on the first typo it had.  This is how seriously they would have taken a pro per litigant�fs rights to due process.  Especially one who tried to recuse a federal district judge five times and wanted three appellate judges charged with judicial misconduct twice.

 

 

 

Chapter XVI: Twilight of the American Bill of Rights

As with my particular cases, the federal courts obvious prejudice against pro se litigants and obvious lack of judicial independence make correcting these outrages at the EEOC impossible when the courts give in effect total immunity from prosecution or penalty corrupt individuals acting as federal officers.  Thomas Jefferson warned that, �gThe germ of dissolution of our federal government is in... the federal judiciary�h.  It can be reasonably argued that when the judiciary as alleged with these district court orders, appeal and mandamus rulings goes to such extreme lengths to protect corrupt federal agents, dishonest rulings of a federal judge, and shows such contempt for its citizens, the germ has now reached the status of a plague upon this republic.

            I have no choice but to conclude that these unpublished decisions in particular, in this vacuum of accountability, have become de facto killing fields for the civil rights of its citizens who dare represent themselves.  These judges in these unpublished rulings, as evidentiary in these examples, have declared themselves dictators by proxy and the courts the exclusive domain of lawyers like themselves.

            In addition, the judiciary becomes a co-conspirator with the US Attorneys office when both defend and promulgate this manufacturing of misstatements to rationalize the EEOC�fs corruption.  It is obvious to me that if the US Attorneys office and federal judges alike won�ft prosecute fraud and corruption at a federal agency, they should at least have the decency to stand aside or recuse themselves.  Furthermore, the way one branch of the federal government in defiance of any sense of due process of law by sanctioning and, in effect, covering-up fraud, corruption, and total disregard for the FOIA for another branch of government is truly frightening and threatening for any citizen that believes in the principles of democracy and its institutions.

Chapter XVII: Conclusions

I can understand how the federal courts have accepted the legitimacy of Guantánamo Detention Camps.  The courts in their complicity have set up their own in-house Guantánamo right here within our borders where Americans who cannot afford lawyers have their rights permanently hamstrung.  People who represent themselves in our courts are treated like illegal aliens and the summary judgment ruling almost inevitably is the deportation of their rights as citizens.  I will argue that if these lawyers in black robes routinely demolition the constitutional protections in their rulings against our poorer citizens, what restrains these same judges from attacking the rights of the rest of our citizens?  These judges have demonstrated repeatedly that they are unprincipled with the arrogance of those with imperial powers.  Where is the restraining arm to curb these abuses?

I have gained a special appreciation for the laws engendered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where the civil rights of our citizens guaranteed by our government have been extended to the workplace.  Title VII attempts to insure that discrimination based on sex, race, disability, etc. are anathema at the workplace and the correlative penalties for ignoring these basic civil rights enforces its compliance.  Will employers comply with these civil rights if agencies like the EEOC and our courts refuse to enforce the stringencies of these laws?  Employees already have the deck stacked against them because large law firms routinely represent businesses in employment suits.  I contacted many of the Bay Area law firms for their services.  None of these firms would consider my cases on a contingency basis and none offered their services on any other basis.  Most wouldn�ft even answer my correspondences.  Consequently, people in my position depend on state and federal agencies to enforce the statutes and investigate claims of civil and employment rights violations.  If the courts will not intervene when corrupt officers cynically abandon their mission because the courts are corrupt themselves, what use is having these laws on the books at all?  They only give false hope to the masses of people who have no other alternatives. 

And what is Congress�fs role if not to impeach and remove judges who act in this corrupt way?  I appreciated Congresswoman Pelosi�fs conscientiousness in helping me to get the EEOC Inspector to do her job.  But Congresswoman Pelosi reiterated that she does not involve herself in individual cases.  If this is the widespread policy of Congress, how can the Congress know of the extent of corruption in the courts?  Especially with obviously fishy cases like mine that stink to the high heavens with the fraud evidence involving corrupt federal officials and the stonewalling of the courts.  The Congress needs to be held accountable. 

I�fm enlisting the press and other organizations to help me address this rampant and systematic repression of basic civil rights like these in our federal courts and agencies.  With the federal courts, my story is unique perhaps from other pro per litigants only in how blatantly I have exposed these judges for what they are: dishonest, prejudiced lawyers in league with what I call the Lawyers Syndicate.  In this regard, I will ask that the following be taken into consideration.  The Press historically has been the last vanguard of liberty.  In the modern era, when the Powers That Be had overstepped their authority as with Nixon and Watergate, McCarthy and the Red Menace, the Press, with the likes of Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, Edward R. Morrow and many other journalists of substance, have recoiled back those in power who had become blind in their duty to adhere to the Bill of Rights and consequently had threatened fundamental liberties.  Ignoring the import of the evidence in what I allege as judges deliberate malfeasance in our courts is done only at the peril of the liberties we take for granted.  I am enlisting the Press in particular to overlook any stylistic flaws in the telling of this story and find a reason to publish the import of this account and thus fulfill the historic mission of the Press: to give the people the truth they need to know in the face of Power when fundamental civil liberties are threatened. 

July 10, 2008 UPDATE

 

In the local Bay Area journal, Tri-City Voice, I came across this item:

In their archives online, this was their "Watercooler Counsel" columns by the EEOC Supervisor, Rich Proulx, whom was the initial person I informed about the fraudulent acts I witnessed at the EEOC. In his column, he answered common questions about workplace legalities. What shocked me though was when I came across the EEOC authority he cited, EEOC investigator Linda Scanlan at their website, http://www.tricityvoice.com/articledisplay.php?a=5742.

Apparently, as evident in this news journal, this investigator was never investigated by the appropriate authorities and was sent on her merry way.

House Speaker Pelosi has yet to answer my letter of inquiry.