Select Page

Contempt of court charges recommended against Medical Board and their Attorneys

Los Angeles Federal Civil Lawsuit Case 5:16-CV-02274 AB(SK) – Plaintiff Billy Z. Earley (“Plaintiff”), is a National Adviser for Black Doctors Matter (BDM), American Pain Institute (APM), and Advocates for the World Sickle Cell Federation (WSCF). Plaintiff has firm beliefs that this Court is not granting fair access and unbiased attention towards his complaint. Defendants have violated a handful of Federal and Constitutional Laws and this Court has not addressed these serious crimes. Plaintiff hereby provides his written response to the Supplemental Briefing of the doctrine of res judicata and how it applies to this complaint; however, Plaintiff will raise several valid objections for the record.

I.   ABUSE OF DISCRETION

For the record, the defense, in which Defendants claim to challenge Plaintiff’s complaint was predicated on the following grounds: Subject matter jurisdiction, Failure to state a claim, Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and Plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts entitling him to relief under U.S.C. § 1983 statute, even though, there is substantial proof submitted in the form of forensic evidence which is comparable to DNA evidence. The record shows the Doctrine of Res Judicata was not a defense and the Court ordered both Plaintiff and Defendants to submit a 10 page Supplemental Brief based on how the res judicata applies to this case. The Court has abused its discretion, in violation of Plaintiff’s civil / due process rights; objection is called.  28 U.S. Code § 454 – Practice of law by justices and judges. Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 373 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 258, 36 Stat. 1161).

II.   JUDICIARY COLLUSION

For the record, in order for Plaintiff to defend his case the law requires discovery. The Defendants have testimony memorializing that they will not engage in discovery unless ordered by this Court. Plaintiff has motioned the Court and inquired by virtue of Sworn Affidavit that this violates discovery and initial discovery laws, which Defendants have not contested. Discovery is required to prove ones case but denied for over 13 months. The Court has denied Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and the Defendants have verbally (written) informed the Judge not to allow leave to amend.

Rosemary Luzon stated that she and her colleagues “know” the judges, which is a flagrant statement. Shortly after, the original Judge assigned to the case was subbed out with no explanation given to Plaintiff. The fact that the Court calls for a Supplemental Briefings on a statute that cannot and will not benefit Plaintiff in anyway what’s-so-ever, draws heavy concern. A request for a supplemental brief that benefits one party and not the other, by a neutral body (Judge), is the definition of collusion and this shows collaboration between the Judge and Defendants / Attorneys. The Attorneys can be sued as state actors and charged, See: Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2005).

III.   PRECLUSIVE EFFECT

There was no res judicata because the final judgement involved due process limitations prescribed by State and Federal Laws that were improperly substituted for unlawful misconduct and unconstitutional actions on behalf of the Defendants. Therefore, by not providing due process rights and violating criminal statutes of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, the Federal res judicata principles must govern this complaint. A Federal court judgment in favor of Defendants should consider preclusive effect only if the following is present, which is not possible based on the procedural history and the alleged criminal acts committed by Defendants:

1. There must be a final, valid judgment;

2. That has been rendered on the merits;

3. Between the same parties or those in privity with them;  and,

4. The judgment must have been rendered upon the same claim or demand.

IV.   FRAUD UPON THE COURT

  1. The Defendants and their attorneys have committed numerous acts of fraud upon this court. The doctrine of res judicata is prejudicial and Defendants Supplemental Brief should be dismissed and the case dismissed in its entirety, in favor of Plaintiff’s prayer for relief. Zackery Morazzini (“Morazinni”) conspired with his employee Alicia Boomer to provide false statements to a Federal Judicial body with the intent to use falsified documents and statements to set aside a Lawful Judgement. The record shows that Morazzini was also the supervisor of the same department where his counsel John Echeverria presently works. The record shows that the Defendants collaborated their testimony and violated additional Federal Laws before a Federal Judicial body.
  2. The res judicata is not applicable to this case because Defendants have engaged in the commission of fraud and numerous violations of Federal Laws have been committed. California Assemblywoman Patty Lopez recently introduced bill (AB 1909), passed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016, that makes it a felony for falsifying evidence and concealing evidence. If prosecutors “intentionally and in bad faith alter, modify, or withhold” any information “knowing that it is relevant and material to the outcome of the case,” they could be punished by 16 months, two or three years in prison, depending on the severity of the violation. Morazzini supervised the Office of the Attorney General (Prosecutor/Lawyer) and now appointed to be in charge of the Administrative Law Judges. I believe that AB 1909 applies to Morazzini, and any other Prosecutor/Lawyer including those engaged in the aforementioned misconduct. The doctrine of the res judicata cannot be used to cover-up corruption allegedly committed by the Defendants, including by not limited to:
  • Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against plaintiff rights,
  • Violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law,
  • Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Obstruction of justice with special intent,
  • Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 1623 – Perjury with material intent,
  • Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 – False statements to any jurisdiction,
  • Violation of Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying / Concealing evidence,
  • Violation of Penal Code 141 PC – Tampering / Planting evidence,
  • Violation of Penal Code 518 PC – Administrative / Prosecutorial extortion, and
  • Violations of procedural due process rights, constitutional rights, civil rights, and Plaintiff rights to free speech and whistleblowing on corrupt officials and crooked law enforcement employees.

V.   INVALID ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGEMENT

  1. There was no valid judgement rendered in the administrative hearings and unconstitutional and criminal violations of State laws took place. There were four (4) Medical Assistant valid complaints about the Defendants manufacturing evidence that was ignored. The record shows the Defendants merged an audio with a video file and submitted it to their expert witnesses to revoke Plaintiff license by virtue of fraud and intent to fraud a licensed practitioner. The record shows the video was concealed until Plaintiff Lay Representative became aware of the withholding evidence, only weeks before the hearing. The record shows the Defendants photo shopped and removed the doctor’s signature from a subpoenaed chart and date stamped the page for the purpose of violating constitution and procedural due process rights. The record shows that a Forensic report, scientific, undisputable, also confirmed that the Defendants removed the signature and date stamped the page in an attempt to violate California laws.
  2. Furthermore, the evaluation of the altered video evidence submitted to this Court correlates with the video and audio files that were merged together by the Defendants and the video clips showing alterations. The innocence project utilizes DNA to overturn wrongful convictions against innocent people and Plaintiff submitted scientific Forensic proof that was absolute, and yet, the Defendants intentionally ignored it collectively. This case is a travesty of justice and the record shows that a myriad of serious Federal and State violations were committed with the intent to wrongfully convict and revoke physician assistant license of Plaintiff, in violation of California Laws and the United States Constitution.
  3. The Defendants are committing widespread fraud against Plaintiff and their licensees. Plaintiff was informed in September of 2011 that he was under investigation, however, tainted evidence was used from 2012 and 2013 to make their case. The Defendants has no case and their investigation ended-up requesting the Governor to investigate them for Corruption and Criminal Violations of State and Federal Laws. The doctrine of res judicata effects on this case is invalid because Plaintiff had no legal way of challenging a corrupt administrative enforcement hearing. Plaintiff sent a “certified” letter after the hearings to inform the Defendants that they “violated” his rights to a fair hearing and due process, for all the reasons herein stated and claimed by Plaintiff. The enforcement, investigative, and the administration engaged in very serious misconduct and unlawful procedures implemented by the Defendants that were not consistent with California Law. The evidence is undisputable, depicting a pattern of corruption and unconstitutional misconduct, including but not limited to:

(i)  Use of Plaintiff employee (Nora Almeida) to tamper with clinic charts,

(ii)  Use of Plaintiff employee (Nora Almeida) as confidential informant,

(iii)  Falsified manufactured reports of Plaintiff Medical Assistants,

(iv)  Failure to investigate 4 Medical Assistants complaints of investigative fraud and making false reports and other misconduct,

(v)  Colluding with special interests groups and monitoring lawsuits filed against special interests groups, like CVS Health. “See 60 Minutes DEA Special Report”,

(vi)  Submission of Plaintiff civil lawsuits against CVS Health to Medical Board Expert Witnesses to review the record for license revocation, showing nexus,

(vii)  Tampering with video evidence with the intent and commission to willful revoke physician assistant license of Plaintiff based on fraud and deceit,

(viii)  Tampering with an undercover police investigative subpoenaed chart with the intent to remove a valid signature for the purpose of revocation of a physician assistant license under the color of law,

(ix)  Concealing and withholding of material evidence (altered video) with the intent and commission to disallow due process rights and discovery laws,

(x)  Judicial and prosecutorial collusion to unlawfully remove Plaintiff’s Legal Assistant with the intent to thwart Plaintiff defense at the last moment,

(xi)   Unlawful bullying and threatening financial harm to Plaintiff for seeking due process rights and threatening harm to fight against bogus investigative charges,

(xii)  Extortion by virtue of the prosecutor charging Plaintiff $20,000 dollars, for each day of the hearings, with the Administrative Judge’s approval, and

(xiii) Conspiring and collaborating to revoke Plaintiff’s physician assistant license for reporting crooked, corrupt, and criminal misconduct identified within the Defendants’ agencies. The res judicata is not an application to cover-up criminal activities; committed by Appointed, State, and Government individuals.

VI.   NON-COMPLIANT BRIEF

A.   Defendant’s Brief is in violation of the Court rules, which draws support for dismissal with prejudice. Defendants exceeded the page limits by submitting a Brief with eleven (11) pages, exceeding the 10-page Court order. Defendants did not bother to submit a Motion to Exceed Page Limitations and they did not request an Ex Parte Motion for leave to Exceed Page Limitations. Defendants intentionally violated Court order. In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 396, the Third Appellate District Court required counsel to demonstrate why briefs exceeded word limits and it required that Court leave be taken if Brief was in excess. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(5).)

B.  The record speaks for itself and Defendants criminal misconduct speaks for itself. Duress is defined as a pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform, See Dixon v. United States (05-7053). Plaintiff was intentionally forced to hire a new attorney with only 4 weeks before the administrative hearings. The Judge violated and denied a properly filed Motion in Limine on his own, without opposition or response from the prosecutor. Plaintiff was threatened with financial harm and retaliated against by Defendants. Not to say, the concealing and tampering with evidence and the use of confidential paid informants employed by Plaintiff. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to this case and it was not a defense used by the Defendants, affirming its defeat.

 Conclusion

Defendant’s requisite fraud occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability to impartially to adjudicate a matter improperly influencing the trier of fact…” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989). The First Amendment sustain a platform to petition Federal Government for redress of State Laws not consistent with the Constitution, nor must Plaintiff be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, See Article [V]. State Actors and Public Servants have violated their Oath of Office by adopting policies and procedures not consistent with California’s Constitution. The Court must rule in favor of Plaintiff and reject Defendants defense in its entirety, awarding Plaintiff Judgement based on the pleadings and holding Defendants in contempt of Court, and fraud before a Federal Judicial Body with Delegated Authority by the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, plaintiff respectfully request that the Court Grant relief and prayers requested within this document.

Date: November 10, 2017

            Respectfully Submitted,

________________________________

                  Billy Z. Earley   

    Pro Se Litigant in Propria Persona    

 

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube