Bribery in the United States District Court of San Francisco

Lady Justice
Lady Justice
Judge ruling on a case
Judge ruling on a case
Gilbert Marosi Fighting Against Injustice
Gilbert Marosi Fighting Against Injustice

 

San Francisco Federal Court Judges Laporte , Grewal and Seeborg are bribed by 27 defendants to dismiss my summary Judgments

On 11/7/2013 I filed case #13-cv-05198-PSG in Federal Court for summary Judgments against 27 corrupt Judges and Public officials. ( See List Below). The summary Judgments were for 896 Counts of criminal violations of the California Penal Code plus four counts of Grand theft.86 motions filed in the Santa Clara Court of appeal within a two year span which were not answered by defendants nor granted by the Appeal Judges.
I Therefore filed summary Judments in the Federal Court.

Federal rule 56 allows filing summary Judgment since no issues remain to be tried . Nevertheless, On the same date ,the case was assigned by Judge LaPorte to ADR(Alternate dispute resolution),a Denial of due Process since ADR is valid only for Complaints which still have issues to be tried.

21 days after filing, defendants must respond, otherwise the Judgments must be granted by law. Before any of the defendants had been served. It is clear Judge LaPorte contacted the defendants to meet and decide the best course of action. On that same date Judge Laporte was bribed (US code 201)and became accessory to 896 Counts of criminal violations of the California Penal Code .
Also Judge LaPorte violated 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law. Any and all further orders from the Federal Court were null and void since they denied me due process . Judge Laporte unlawfully appointed Judge Grewal to oversee the ADR. He should have recused himself. —————–

None of the Defendants filed answers to my Summary Judgments within 21 days from filing Therefore the Court had to grant those Judgments by law. Yet the Court continued the ADR process. All parties had to meet and confer by 1/28/2014, file case Management Statements by Feb 11/2014 and appear in Court for an ADR conference on 2/18/2014.

None of the defendants filed answers, met and confered or file a case management statement. I complained to Judge Grewal on 1/30/2014. He did not respond. On 2/18/2014 the case was reassigned to Judge Koh. The case management conference was postponed on 2/18/2014 to 2/25/2014.

Grewal’s Order to rule and recommend dismissal of caseJudge LaPorte ordered Grewal to file On Feb 24th an order to rule and recommend the case be dismissed by a District Judge based on Federal rule 5 which states a complaint commences an action in Federal Court —————–Koh is appointed JudgeKoh was appointed as for this case without Judge Grewal recusing himself first. Koh’s appointment was therefore null and void ———-Judge Laporte assigns Judge Seeborg to this case.Seeborg has no jurisdiction since ADR was null and void. On 2.27,2014 I received notice of a Case Management Conference on April 3,2014 in San Francisco, Judge Seeborg presiding . Since the ADR order for this case is null and void, so was this notice. ——————

I file Opposition to Judge Grewal rule and recommendation

On March 11 I filed an opposition to Judge Grewal’s Motion since Federal rule 56 allows filing a summary Judgment, Judge Grewal to answer within 21 days. This motion stated that Judge Grewal had been bribed by defendants. Neither Grewal nor the defendants answed my motion within twenty one days. Judge Grewal has granted summary Judgments. Also he knew he was out of Jurisdiction and forbidden by law to file any legal briefs concerning this case.This failure to answer proved the guilt of both Grewal and the defendants to the charge of Bribery and conspiracy, obstruction of Justice, abuse of Power. On that motion I requested the Court to grant me my summary Judgments which they had to by Law. Judge LaPorte had to grant my judgments and did not therefore again implicating herself to the above charges of bribery, etc. —-

Judge LaPorte orders Judge Seeborg to dismiss my case

Judge Grewal panicked when he was served with my motions. He called up Judge LaPorte . LaPorte ordered Seeborg to dismiss my motion. LaPorte and Seeborg knew only Grewal could answer this motion, yet Seeborg ,out of jurisdiction, trespassed on the law and On March 12 issued an order dismissing my case and a Judgment granting Judgment to the defendants. This order denied due process and was a fraud on the court (see below) . There was no trial or response by defendants. Thus, he Immediately became implicated in a conspiracy and bribery.Motion to vacate Seeborg’s order filed on March 25th.This motion identified evidence that Seeborg was out of Jurisdiction and had been bribed by the defendants. He did not answer within twenty one days, therefore he pled guilty to the chargesSeeborg files order action on April 2,2014 to terminate action
Seeborg ignores the fact he is out of Jurisdiction and continuesHis criminal violations of the Federal code. It is clear it was Judge Laporte’s decision to order Seeborg to terminate and close my action . His order is a forgery, obstruction of Justice, perjury, conspiracy and abuse of power.Conclusion

Judge LaPorte, Grewal and Seeborg were bribed by the defendants, obstructed Justice, abused their power, conspired and are all accessories to 896 counts of criminal violations of the California Penal Code and 4 counts of grand theft. All of these violations are Federal felonies and punishable by jail terms bribery is the promising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage [to any public official], for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions
Federal Rule 56. Summary Judgment
(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense – or the part of each claim or defense – on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

Fraud upon the court
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th on Cir. 1985), the court stated ” is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

Defendants:
Carmel MayorJason Burnett, Carmel chief of Police Mike Calhoun,DA Robert Laughlan,Los Angeles /County sheriff Leroy Baca Monterey DA Dean Flippo,Presiding Judge Conrad Rushing, Judges Eugene Premo,Nathan Mihara Franklin D. Ellia, Miquel Marquez.Adrienne Grover Patricia Bammatre Manouikan,Lydia Villareal,Kay Kingsley, Carlos Porras, DA Jeffrey Rosen,DA John Chase, Mr. Bradley Campbell,Small Claims Commissioner James Madden, Judge Richard Loftus Chairman of Mercury News, Mac Tully ,California Commission for Judicial Performance Kamala Harris, The State Bar of California, Scott Herhold,Jeffrey Smith, California State Controller John Chiang

18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses

STATUS MESSAGE U.S. Code› Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 11 › § 201 18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses STATUS MESSAGE (b) Whoever— (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent— (A) to influence any official act; or shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. 

Judge Seeborg
Judge Seeborg

Richard Gus Seeborg is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was nominated by President Obama.

Early life and education

Judge Seeborg earned his BA from Yale College in 1978 and hisJuris Doctor degree in 1981 from the Columbia University School of Law.[1] 

Above about Judge Seeborg is well and good but does not explain why he allowed himself to be bribed by 27 corrupt public officials and accumulate a total of 896 criminal violations of the California Penal Code

Judicial rating:F 

Judge LaPorte
Judge LaPorte

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California. Appointed on April 4, 1998, Judge Laporte presides over numerous civil cases randomly assigned to her with the parties’ consent

Above about Chief Magistrate LaPorte  is well and good but does not explain why she allowed herself to be bribed by 27 corrupt public officials and accumulate a total of 896 criminal violations of the California Penal Code
Judicial rating: F  
Judge Grewal
Judge Grewal

 

Paul S. Grewal is a magistrate judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was appointed in December 2010 to succeed Patrica Trumbull.

2010 Named as a “Best Lawyer under 40,” National Asian Pacific American Bar Association[1]
Above about Judge Grewal  is well and good but does not explain why he allowed himself to be bribed by 27 corrupt public officials and accumulate a total of 896 criminal violations of the California Penal CodeJudicial rating:F