White Supremacy and the Black Docket in the U.S. Supreme Court:
How the Supreme Court Can Be Impeached and Indicted for Corruption in Violation of White Supremacy Laws
By Paul Viriyapanthu, B.A. Stanford, J.D. UCLA
My name is Paul Viriyapanthu and I’m an attorney. I’m creating this website to ask the public contact whoever represents them in Congress to request that the U.S. Supreme Court be investigated for Corruption and violation of laws on white Supremacy. An email, facebook post on the page of your congressional representative, etc. with a link to this and the message “Please look into this” will suffice.
If you actually check the cases what you will see is that ALL race discrimination suits brought by nonwhites (under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits race discrimination in federal funded programs) and all disability discrimination suits to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a condition of receiving funding (under such statutes as 42 USC 608(d) or 7 U.S.C. §2020(c)(2)(C)) have been dismissed at a rate of 100%. No one is actually being allowed to enforce; the federal courts have been rubber stamp dismissing them. Why is this important? Because Congress has been debating protecting abortion rights and gay marriage by using the same mechanism—requiring compliance as a condition of receiving federal funding—as Title VI. The problem is that Congress never checked the courts to see if they were falsifying cases brought by people of color and the disabled. The purpose of me creating this is to get someone to investigate the U.S. Supreme Court for corruption and violation of white supremacy laws.
The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court can be criminally prosecuted under Reconstruction Era Civil Rights acts because they were concealing this from the public. The situation is analogous to a police department where instead of giving out traffic tickets, officers are raping female motorists. When complaints are made to the police chief, the police chief hides the complaint in his desk. The U.S. Supreme Court is that police chief. What I am trying to do is put out the evidence to show that there is enough probable cause to investigate the Supreme Court for corruption.
After the civil war in what is known as the “Reconstruction Era”, Congress made violation of civil rights by judges a crime; this was a result of white judges stripping newly freed slaves of their civil rights. These laws are still in effect. You have already seen these same civil rights statutes in action used against Derek Chauvin. As the United States Justice Dept. explains on its website https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law):
“Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers…as well as judges…
The Supreme Court does not have immunity for violating these laws.
Ordinarily whenever someone files an injunction or asks for a stay with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court publishes the order on its weekly orders list. For example this is a link to an attorney discipline case—Dubin vs. Disciplinary Counsel—which WAS published on the Supreme Court’s weekly orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120720zor_6jg7.pdf Dubin did NOT involve race discrimination allegations.
In contrast, my suit DID allege race discrimination and had made motions for stay/injunction, but my motions did NOT appear on the weekly orders list. Instead, the rulings were sent by mail, without any reference to them on the weekly orders list. I am calling cases which aren’t published on the weekly orders list, the “Black Docket” cases. If you examine the weekly orders list, discrimination suits are conspicuously absent from the cases on the motions portion of the weekly orders list. The reason is: the Supreme Court is pulling them to conceal corruption.
Cases seeking injunctions are reviewed every week (there are not many of them) as lawyers often write law review articles, blogs, etc. about these cases. For example see here:
The cases involving discrimination are being kept off the public weekly orders list to avoid drawing attention to them. What I am asking for is for these cases to be checked because they contain falsifications. What I am asking for is for Congress to audit the cases the U.S. Supreme Court issued orders for that were not placed on the public weekly orders list to see whether they contain false statements or the law was applied differently to a nonwhite because if they do this was a violation of reconstruction era criminal statutes and the U.S. Supreme Court's act of concealing them from the public is an act in furtherance of the commissioning of federal crimes. If you need an example of what will be found in those cases go to part III.
I am one of the people who filed suit for discrimination, and my motions for injunction/stay were not on the weekly orders list. For reference, this is the link to the order denying my petition for certiorari https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.pdf but if you check the weekly orders list for the weeks prior to the certiorari petition being decided, there are no entries for the injunction/stay motions I filed, as there is in Dubin. If you examine the cases that are on the injunctions/motions portion of the calendar, none of them are for race discrimination. Those cases the federal courts falsified in order to dismiss.
There is a very real problem of white supremacy in the federal courts. In order to overturn abortion, conservative white males were being appointed as federal judge; the problem is that these white males were themselves white supremacists. As Rep. (D) Ted Lieu has pointed out, 73% of federal judges are white males (https://cnsmaryland.org/2021/03/25/judges-and-experts-say-judiciary-needs-greater-racial-and-gender-diversity/). Under Donald Trump, 85% of his federal judicial appointments were white male. (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-judicial-nominees-mostly-white-men-1482638.
Those same 73-85% white federal judges were also violating federal race discrimination law in a different way by giving racial preferences to whites for judicial clerkship positions. The National Association of Legal Placement (NALP) has already been studying the percentages of nonwhite law students hired for clerkships and has determined that racial preferences to white law students were given. https://www.nalp.org/1017research The preference for hiring whites for judicial clerkship positions also carries over into the U.S. Supreme Court. This is an article on the U.S. Supreme Court’s clerks which are 70% white. https://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-clerks-diversity-supreme-court-2022-7 This is an article from 2018 examining the over representation of white males as Supreme Court clerks for the past 20 years. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/08/supreme-court-clerks-overwhelmingly-white-male-just-like-20-years-ago-tony-mauro-column/965945001/
Nonwhites account for 40% of the U.S. population and 70% white clerks shouldn’t be happening without racial preferences..
There are companies like Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, etc. which lawyers use to do legal research that compiles the cases in which statutes were cited. If you check under the statute for Title VI—42 USC 2000d--(which prohibits race discrimination in federally funded programs) there are 5,000 entries; however, looking closer at those entries all of the cases were eventually dismissed. No person of color has actually been able to enforce the law.
Without the ability to enforce race discrimination laws, nonwhite doctors, lawyers and other professionals lose their licenses at much higher rates than whites. Lawyers of color lose their license at rates 4 times higher than whites. https://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000025090.pdf Per the same report, if you are a Black lawyer you have a 50% chance of discipline, and the allegations don't need to be true for you to lose your license. The same is true of doctors of color. https://doctorsofcourage.org/california-medical-foundation-report-blacks-and-mexicans-are-targeted-by-medical-boards/ https://www.library.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/MedicalBoardDemographicsJan17.pd
The only people who were allowed to enforce race discrimination were WHITES. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ((https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199 ) the U.S. Supreme held under Title VI that Harvard’s affirmative action policies violated Title VI. However for all nonwhites who had tried to bring suit under Title VI, their claims of race discrimination were unenforceable. This is an example of the racism at play. The reason Title VI exists is because the nonwhite 40% of the U.S. population pay federal taxes that are the source of the funding…they can’t use the services they paid for.
This is also an example of the U.S. Supreme Court becoming the shadow head of government. Under the Constitution, the people elect Congress to pass laws. White federal judges do not believe that people of color should have the same rights as whites, so they falsified and dismissed the race discrimination suits brought by nonwhites and only acted in the interests of whites to overturn affirmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court is only taking cases to support its own political agenda, and nullifying the laws passed by Congress that they don’t support by simply refusing to enforce them. Those cases are buried so the public is unaware of what has been occurring.
An illustration that the courts were falsifying cases is that every lawsuit against a State Bar was dismissed--at a rate of 100%, with the state bar winning every suit filed. Every state bar that is integrated (that serves attorney admissions and discipline on behalf of the courts) is a federal funding recipient. Not all of suits were for race discrimination, but by virtue of the fact that all suits were dismissed means that all race discrimination claims were among those dismissed. And in these cases the plaintiff presented evidence that the State Bars had received federal funding and requested enforcement under Title VI-- the courts dismissed in violation of 18 USC 242.
All state court systems and state bars receive funding under Title IV of the Social Security Act which pays for family law matters such as child support, juvenile dependency, adoptions, etc., and all recipients are required to comply with both Title VI (race discrimination) and the ADA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 608(d). All of the people who had sued the State Bars were lawyers, who knew the law, and no doubt brought it to the court’s attention (as I did in my case) that federal funding was received. I am showing you the documents I filed in my case which showed the California State Bar received federal funding; All of the cases were dismissed without the decision referencing federal money was involved.
This is an excerpt of the 240 or so cases filed against the California State Bar, which were all dismissed by the courts with no one being able to enforce the law.
If you want to check whether a State Bar receives federal funding, go here: https://www.usaspending.gov/search . For the California State Bar search for grants under “California Judicial Council”. The Judicial Council of California handles funds on behalf of the entire judicial branch of California, of which the State Bar is a subunit. Under federal law if one subunit (here the Judicial Council) receives federal funds then all subunits (the State Bar) must comply with Title VI and the ADA. In other words, the receipt of federal money by any subunit means the entire department must comply with federal anti discrimination law. See 42 U.S. Code § 2000d–4a (““Program or activity” and “program” defined”) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000d-4a ) .
This is an excerpt of the records I filed in my case (with the file stamp on top to show that it was presented) of the records for receipt of federal grant payments. This is an excerpt showing receipt by the Judicial Council.
This is an excerpt of the 2019-2020 California Judicial Branch Budget (filed by the State Bar in my case). The first sentence of the first page of the budget states:
“The Judicial Branch consists of the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, trial courts, and the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council is responsible for managing the resources of the Judicial Branch.”’
This is an excerpt of a pleading that the State Bar filed acknowledging that the State Bar is the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court within the judicial branch.
Since the Judicial Branch receives federal funding through the Judicial Council, the State Bar as a subunit is also subject to Title VI and the ADA. This is a link to the US DOJ Title VI manual https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6manual5 which states under Subpart E. “Program or Activity”, 2. “State and Local Governments”:
“The legislative history confirms Congress intended a broad application to state and local governments:
[W]hen any part of a state or local government department or agency is extended federal financial assistance, the entire agency or department is covered. If a unit of a state or local government is extended federal aid and distributes such aid to another governmental entity, all of the operations of the entity which distributes the funds and all of the operations of the department or agency to which the funds are distributed are covered. S. Rep. No. 100-64, at 16 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 18. As such, when an office or operation is part of a larger department or entity, the relevant “program or activity” is the larger entity.
In Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation & Parole, 551 F.3d 193, 199–203 (3d Cir. 2008), the plaintiff alleged that Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole Department (LCAPPD) engaged in unlawful employment discrimination practices that Section 504 prohibits. Id. at 196–97. While LCAPPD did not receive federal funds, “the Domestic Relations Section (DRS) of the Fifty–Third Judicial District did receive federal funds under Title IV–D of the Social Security Act.”
In addition the State Bar also directly distributes the federal funds obtained by the Judicial council through the State Bar’s “Equal Access fund”. This is a pleading from the State Bar budget filed in my case by the State bar which states “State Bar staff, together with the California Commission on Access to Justice and the LAAC (Legal Aid Association of California), also worked to unlock new federal funding sources for legal aid.”
The Budget states later that the “funds are in the budget of the State Judicial Council for grants to be administered by the State Bar’s Legal Services Trust Fund Commission through the Equal Access fund. The judicial Council contracts with the State Bar for administration of these funds, which currently consist of grants to approximately 100 nonprofit legal aid organizations….”
The Judicial Council does not have its own staff attorneys, and distribution of the federal funds is through the State Bar (using State Bar staff attorneys) and the State Bar’s “Equal Access Fund”. https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Access-to-Justice/Legal-Services-Trust-Fund-Program/Equal-Access-Fund
By distributing federal funds the State Bar meets the definition of a direct “sub-recipient” of federal funding. This is a link to the US DOJ Manual (https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6manual5) which states under Subpart D. “What/Who is a Recipient?, Subheading 4. Primary/Subrecipient Programs:
“Many programs have two or more recipients. The primary recipient directly receives the federal financial assistance. The primary recipient then distributes the federal assistance to a subrecipient to carry out a program. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 42.102(g). The primary recipient and all the subrecipients are covered by and must conform their actions to Title VI."
The State Bar of California meets the definition of “subreceipient” because it distributes federal funds for LAAC (Legal Aid Association of California) on behalf of the Judicial Council of California, the branch of the courts which manages finances and resources for the entire court system as a department as a whole.
As I stated earlier, and as illustrated in Haybarger that the “Fifty–Third Judicial District did receive federal funds under Title IV–D of the Social Security Act”, EVERY single court system in the nation receives funding under Title IV of the Social Security Act. Title IV of the Social Security Act provides grant funding for social service programs and public welfare, including family and juvenile law services. This is from page 2 of the State Judicial Branch budget (of which the California State Bar is a Subunit):
“Additionally, the recent federal Families First Prevention Services Act expanded the list of eligible Title IV-E reimbursable activities to include court-appointed dependency counsel costs. The Budget includes $1.5 million ongoing General Fund for the Judicial Council to administer these federal reimbursements, which are estimated to be $34 million annually.”
Title IV-E, refer to Title IV of the Social Security Act. This is significant because funding under Title IV of the Social Security Act carries special conditions, and 42 USC 608 applies to those funds which specifically requires complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Supreme Court has prevented the Disabled from Enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act Resulting in Approximately 1,000 Wrongfully Dismissed Cases.
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was the first time that Congress used its authority under Section 5 to enforce the bill of rights. The U.S. Supreme Court gutted the ADA under Section 5 in two cases. In Tennessee v. Lane 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZO.html) a wheelchair bound Plaintiff sued a state court for access. The Supreme Court in Lane held that the ADA was constitutional in that case because it protected a fundamental right of access to the courts. In U.S. v. Georgia 546 U.S. 151 a paraplegic inmate sued under the ADA due to the prison conditions forced him to lie in his own feces. The Supreme Court held the ADA constitutional to protect a specific constitutional right, in this case the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.
Following these decisions, the majority of the lower federal courts were using these two cases to hold that the ADA was constitutional only to enforce either a “fundamental right” (such as in Lane and the right to access the court) or to enforce a specific constitutional right (such in Georgia and the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment). What is NOT a “Constitutional violation” or a “fundamental right” according to the Federal courts? The right to work, practice a chosen profession, the right to obtain an education, the right to receive public benefits, etc.—these are all things that ARE NOT fundamental or Constitutional rights, and ARE NOT enforceable. The problem is vast majority of the ADA cases are brought to vindicate exactly these situations. There are over 1600 cases citing to U.S. v. Georgia, with 95% of them being dismissed.
The criminal aspect with all of this is that in addition to enacting the ADA under Section 5, Congress also used the same mechanism as Title VI and also passed laws requiring any recipient to comply with the Americans with Disabilities as a condition of receiving funding, such as under 42 USC 608(d) (as well as other statutes). If the defendants in these 1600 cases citing to Georgia are looked at, the defendants (by virtue of who they are) in these dismissed cases were defendants who would have received funding covered under these statutes, and I estimate roughly 1000 ADA cases were wrongfully dismissed.
42 USC 242 makes it a crime to deny a right provided under federal law, and the ADA is such a right that is being denied. A petition for stay/injunction is made to the Justice in charge of the circuit, who then forwards it to the court. In my petition I explained the law that the ADA had a spending provision that the disabled could not enforce and that cases were being wrongfully dismissed and cited to the applicable law. I also explained that the disabled were having their cases wrongfully dismissed. In response, the Supreme Court placed my motions on the black docket.
I now explain the law to the public to ask that Congress intervene to protect the disabled. Being disabled does not exempt you from paying taxes, and the disabled are paying for services that they cannot receive. I will explain the law, that no one has actually been able to enforce.
42 U.S.C. §2000D-7(a)(1) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000d-7 ) holds that acceptance of federal grant money waives sovereign immunity for discrimination claims, and states:
“A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
The “provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance” is 42 U.S.C. §608(d)(3) which states:
“(d)Nondiscrimination provisions: The following provisions of law shall apply to any program or activity which receives funds provided under this part:
(3) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).”
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 42 USC 12202 in turn states https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12202 :
“A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in [1] Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State.”
In order to even receive federal funds a recipient must agree and sign a “statement of assurances” which identifies the laws that they must comply with and specifically include the Americans with Disabilities Act. My cased was dismissed before discovery, but I filed a sample “Statement of Assurances” from the California DOT, which I am attaching below. The one agreed to by the State Bar/Judicial Council would be identical as they are all based upon the same statutes a recipient must comply with.
The statute I cited to in my case was 42 USC 608(d)(3) which applies to funding under Title IV. However there are other similar statutes that apply to other sources of federal funding such as 7 U.S.C. §2020(c)(2)(C), 49 U.S.C. §322, 42 CFR §§ 482–485, “Medicare Conditions of Participation” (requires compliance with the ADA as a condition of participation in Medicare/Medicaid), etc. None of these statutes have citations to them.
The reason that there are no ADA cases citing these statutes is whenever someone would cite to the statute, the statute would be ignored and the court would omit any reference to the statute in the decision. Hence, none of the statutes have cases citing to them. The case is appealed to the Supreme Court, and a motion is filed explaining that a large number of ADA cases are being dismissed wrongfully. The Supreme Court buries the case,, and pulls it from the weekly orders list. This is why there is no citation to these statutes.
I will provide a real world demonstration of this happening. This is an excerpt of the motion for rehearing and en banc petition that I filed specifically addressing this law which states,
“The State Judicial Branch and the State Bar both receive federal funding, thus 11th Sovereign Immunity does not pose a bar under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race discrimination), and Petitioner argues under Title II of the ADA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §608(d)(3) (which applies to Title-IV funding at issue here)":
This is the response I received. The Ninth Circuit and appellate panel simply dismissed the case without referencing the statutes. That is why there are no cases citing to those statutes. This was an En Banc petition that had been sent to all the judges of the Ninth Circuit informing them of the law.
These are the cases which cite to U.S. v. Georgia:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5079223862968251341&as_sdt=805&sciodt=806&hl=en
There are over 1600 cases cited.
Courts, state bars, universities, hospitals, DMV’s, state prisons, state social service agencies, are all federal funding recipients which are required to comply with the ADA; if you review the 1600 cases there are a large number of cases that should not have been dismissed based upon who the defendant is. I did not go through ALL of the 1600 cases, just enough to demonstrate it affects a large number of disabled. I also did not go through all the statutes which require the ADA as a condition of funding.
For example, in Shaikh v. Texas A&M University College of Medicine, 739 Fed. Appx. 213 (CA5 2018) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6996035765286655947&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
the Plaintiff was a 3rd year medical student who developed a pituitary tumor preventing him from passing a licensing exam. In dismissing the case, the 10th Circuit explained:
“Shaikh maintains that the College's conduct violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but his citation to Lane, a case
involving "the fundamental right of access to the courts," 541 U.S. at 533-34, is not directly applicable here. Shaikh also argues that he had a
property interest in his education, but even if that is assumed to be true, he fails to demonstrate that the College's actions ran afoul of the
Due Process Clause.”
A University would inherently receive federal money for research grants and for grants/loans for student tuition. See Students for Fair Admission vs Harvard, which was a Title VI case because Harvard received federal funding. In addition Title IV of the Social Security Act also covers medical care for children in foster care (IV-E) or adoption. (See 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(15)(a) et seq.. 42 U.S.C. 36. §675(5)(h)). Medicare and Medicaid both require ADA compliance. 42 CFR §§ 482–485, “Medicare Conditions of Participation”, requires participants to “comply with state and federal law” (which includes the ADA) in order to participate in Medicare, and required to also sign a “statement of assurances” to that effect. Thus state hospitals and, in turn, state universities which they are a part of that receive Title IV funding for child medical care or participates in Medicaid/Medicare are also recipients who must comply. For example this would include the UCLA medical center, and the University of California or Texas A&M Medical Center and its university. This is one of the cases that should not have been dismissed, and any case involving a University out of the 1600 is a case that should not have been dismissed.
Social service agencies are bound to the ADA because they receive federal funding under the SNAP program and pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §2020(c)(2)(C)) are required to comply with the ADA. And as I have explained, all courts receive funding under Title IV of the Social Security act. These are some of the cases that shouldn’t have been dismissed.
Levy v. Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services 789 F.3d 1164 (CA 10 2015), Nichols v. Alabama State Bar 2:15-cv-179-WMA, April 15, 2015, (N.D. Alabama), Richter v. Connecticut Judicial Branch, March 27, 2014. (D. Connecticut), Draper v. State of Maine Dept. of Health and Human Services 2:13-cv-00028-JAW, August 27, 2013 (D. Maine) and Brooks v. Onondaga County Dept. of Children & Family Services 5:17-CV- 1186 (GLS/TWD), April 9, 2018, (N.D. NY).
Any case out of the 1600 involving a state court or social service agency is a case that should not have been dismissed.
49 U.S.C. §322 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to implement regulations and 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38 require ADA compliance. Any grant provided by USDOT or its subunits is required to agree to the exact USDOT standard statement of assurances referenced previously which identifies the ADA. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is a subunit of the USDOT, and provides grants to the States’ DMVs under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), Commercial Driver License (CDL) Program Implementation Grant, and High Priority (HP) Grant programs. All DMV’s receive federal grant money under these programs, and the ADA applies as well. So any dismissed ADA cases of the 1600 where a Defendant is a DMV was a wrongful dismissal. For example Klingler v. Director of Revenue Missouri 455 F.3d 888, 892 (CA8 2006). Any case involving a DMV or state Dept of Transportation should not have been dismissed.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is within the USDOJ and provides grant funding to state prisons for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT) program which required the prisons to comply with the ADA per the terms of the statement of assurances that was agreed to. All dismissed ADA cases where the defendant was a prison, was a wrongful dismissal because they had already agreed to comply with the ADA. For example Hale v. King 624 F. 3d 178, 180 (CA5 2010) found the “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, does not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity with respect to the claims of disabled inmates who were denied access to prison educational and work programs.” Any AD prison inmate suit is one that should not have been dismissed.
This is only a small portion of the 1600 cases which I am just using to give an example to demonstrate that a large number of disabled have been harmed.
PART II: Crimes the United States Supreme Court Should be Investigated for
Given the sheer number of people filing suit which resulted in dismissal as a result of discrimination in the courts, I believe the Supreme Court created special handling procedures for such cases to prevent the public from being aware of what had been occurring; that is why such cases are never on the public orders list. The Supreme Court knew that discrimination claims were being falsified and dismissed. If the Supreme Court is hiding things from the public, they have a reason which is why the cases need to be examined.
One of the most respected federal judges, Richard Posner, has already publicly acknowledged that cases were being wrongfully dismissed. This is an interview with Judge Posner. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170914/NEWS04/170919949/federal-judge-posner-tells-why-he-abruptly-retired
The article is behind a paywall, but Judge Posner states:
The district judge, however, throws it out. The parents appeal, and I was on the panel with two other judges. They agreed with the district
judge and voted to affirm, and I dissented. This is ridiculous. (The guard and warden) were aware of a serious danger; their own medical
staff that told them this.
I thought that was a shocking result.
I began looking more closely at the pro se cases. I just noticed that they tended to get very casual treatment by the staff attorneys who prepare a memo recommending a disposition of the appeal by the judges. The more I got into it, the more bothered I was by it. The recommendation goes to a panel of judges, and they usually rubber stamp the staff attorney's memo, which is usually to dismiss the appeal.
I will go through the federal criminal laws that have been violated, and illustrate with specific examples from my case as well as other cases to show how the law was violated. If the cases on the black docket (i.e. cases for which the Supreme Court issued orders for outside of the published weekly orders list) the cases will have the same things in common: discrimination suits where the court used false statement and applied the law differently to dismiss the case.
I will explain more with documents in the next section where I explain the race discrimination that professionals of color face, but will provide a brief synopsis of what occurred in my case so you can understand how the law was violated.
This is a report from the California State Bar itself which investigated complaints from nonwhite attorneys of race discrimination. https://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000025090.pdf
Per the report nonwhite attorneys face discipline/loss of licensure at rates of 4 times that of white attorneys. In California, if you are a nonwhite attorney you can lose your license without having done anything wrong, or the allegations being true as I shall explain. I will now explain WHY nonwhite lawyers have much higher rates of license loss than white attorneys:
Under California’s Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), all attorneys are required to participate in arbitration of the attorney’s fees they charged conducted by the local county bar association. Participation is mandatory, and enforced through loss of license until the award is paid, plus attorneys fees are awarded to the prevailing side. Also, under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Moncharsh v. Heile & Blasé (1992) 3 cal.4th 1 (1992) https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/3/1.html , mistakes of fact or law or not grounds to vacate an arbitration award. What that means that if the arbitrators don’t follow the law or the facts are untrue, the award is still enforceable. The MFAA has no rules preventing the members of the bar association, here the Orange County Bar Association, from having the members who operated the program (i.e. acted as arbitrators) also arguing cases before the same people who they had previously worked.
What ultimately is happening isthat white attorneys were using the MFAA program to revoke the licenses of nonwhite attorneys competing against them by initiating arbitrations against nonwhites and then falsifying the arbitration awards so that nonwhites would have to pay white attorneys or lose their license.
In my case I had never been paid. The client hired another attorney in 2007 to perform an immigration application. The original application did not include proof of wages, so in 2009 I assumed handing of the case to file an appeal at NO CHARGE to the client. The client was given a BLANK, unsigned copy of my standard retainer agreement for reference. I was then ordered to refund $5,000 that was paid to the other attorney plus $12,000 in attorney’s fees. This was one of multiple arbitrations by the same OCBA of which I had to pay an award despite never receiving any payment. I then developed Brugada syndrome, which is a heart condition which causes loss of consciousness and thymus cancer, which limited my ability to work. I made a request under the ADA not to lose my license while in treatment, which was denied, which caused me to lose my house.
In addition to giving local county bar associations authority to conduct MFAA arbitrations, the bar associations were also delegated authority to select and make recommendations for judicial appointments. White OCBA attorneys on the committee were giving racial preferences to white OCBA members. California is a majority nonwhite state (i.e. nonwhites are a majority of the population) with nonwhites being half the state’s law school graduates. Orange County is 51% nonwhite and home to one of the largest populations of Asians in the nation.
As a result of racial preferences given to whites for judicial appointment, the Orange County Appellate bench is 100% white, and 92% of the 133 trial judges are white. In other California counties (Los Angeles and San Francisco) with similar racial demographics the percentage of nonwhite judges is significantly higher than Orange County.
With that background I will go through the laws that have been broken
18 USC § 1001—False Statements
18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes false statements in conjunction with a federal proceeding a crime. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years…
The leading case on it is Brogan v. United States 528 U.S. 322 (1998) where simply saying “no” when asked if the defendant had ever received cash or gifts was sufficient for a conviction. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/522/398/
“By its terms, 18 U. S. C. § 1001 covers "any" false statement-that is, a false statement "of whatever kind," United States v. Gonzales, 520 U. S. 1, 5 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The word "no" in response to a question assuredly makes a "statement," see, e. g., Webster's New International Dictionary 2461 (2d ed. 1950)”
“False statements” also applies to judges. Of all the federal judges who have been impeached in U.S. history, “false statements” was actually the most often used grounds for impeachment. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer
This is the decision affirming dismissal from the Ninth Circuit which states at the bottom of pg 3:
“Viriyapanthu’s assertion that the OCBA discriminated against him in judicial nominations was not raised before the district court and is therefore waived. See Bolker v. Comm’r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042”.
One of the claims that I had made in my suit was that the OCBA had discriminated against me and other nonwhites when we attempted to obtain positions as judges. For those without a legal background, what is essentially being claimed is that I did not complain about the racial preference in judicial appointments to the trial court, and am raising the issue the first time on appeal. That was the reason that this particular claim was dismissed.
This is paragraph 7 from my complaint which explains that racial preferences were being given to whites over qualified minorities for judicial appointments.
“The OCBA had been given authority by the State of California to make nominations/recommendations for judicial appointments, and maintains a judiciary committee for that purpose. The OCBA had been nominating less qualified white applicants over more qualified minority applicants seeking judicial appointment. In addition, the Orange County Bar Association had been opposing minority candidates running for election to judicial positions by rating them less qualified than white applicants, and supporting white candidates in elections over more qualified minorities. The result is that the racial composition of the Orange County judicial bench is not representative of the actual racial makeup of the Orange County area.”
This meets the definition of “false statement”—the federal courts stated it had not been raised to the trial court in order to have grounds to dismiss; in actuality it was in the second page of the complaint. It is also contained in other parts of the complaint and in various motions (which aren’t being shown here simply due to size). This is the problem that plaintiffs are having; when they identify specific facts supporting race discrimination it still gets dismissed on grounds that aren’t actually true.
It should also be noted that if the OCBA’s appellate pleadings had never made a complaint about me not raising the issue to the trial court below. The reason is because I did raise it below. If it wasn’t raised by the OCBA, then the court would have to have sifted through literally thousands of pages of filings to come to the conclusion that it wasn’t brought to the trial court’s attention. That would have taken a great deal of time, and simply didn’t happen. The appellate courts are simply making up false statements in order to dismiss the discrimination cases.
If the cases that the Supreme Court issued orders for outside of the published weekly orders list are examined there will be similar false statements, such as claiming it wasn’t complained of, that can easily be disproven—such as comparing it to the complaint.
As another example, this is the decision dismissing the Kohn v. State Bar Case, which was an ADA and Section 504 Rehabilitation Act disability claim by disabled Bar exam takers who were especially susceptible to COVID and requested accommodations.
The order of dismissal: https://casetext.com/case/kohn-v-state-bar
“Defendants have established that the State Bar does not receive federal financial assistance and is therefore not subject to the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff has not rebutted this evidence. For the reasons stated, defendants’ motion to dismiss any purported Rehabilitation Act claim is GRANTED and the claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
The first problem is that this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is supposed to only test the allegations in the complaint. A factual issue of whether the State Bar received federal funding is properly decided on a summary judgment motion, after discovery has taken place. A lawyer will not find evidence until after discovery takes place, and you can’t “rebut evidence” (the phrase used by the District Court) if you’re not allowed to obtain evidence in the first place. This is an example of the federal courts intentionally violating rules of procedure to prevent a civil rights plaintiff from enforcing the law.
The second problem is that it is a false statement that the State Bar of California does not receive federal funding—and I have already shown the sources of funding earlier. The federal courts are making false statements to dismiss discrimination claims, which is the reason why in all of the 240+ cases, the State Bar has always won, with no one actually being able to enforce the anti-discrimination law that must be complied with in order to receive federal money.
18 U.S.C. § 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1513
(b)Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for—
(1)the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or
(2)any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings given by a person to a law enforcement officer;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
For all the plaintiffs that were nonetheless dismissed by judges falsifying the cases, the courts them ordered them to pay costs to the other side for losing the case. That means that a person who was legitimately victimized and had a legal right under the law, now ends up paying the perpetrators the costs of the court filing fees, the deposition costs, etc., which amounts to thousands of dollars. In addition, the courts were writing the decisions—not only to falsify and dismiss the case—but also to paint the victim in the most negative light possible. This has happened literally thousands of times, and under the statute it is up to 20 years in prison for each occurrence.
18 USC § 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights” and 18 USC § 242 “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”
18 USC §241 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 states:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or
District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section… they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 U.S. Code § 242 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section…shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I am addressing these two statutes together. The conspiracy aspect is that the Supreme Court knew that the lower courts were violating federal laws by making false statements, refusing to allow enforcement of civil rights law, and applying the law differently to nonwhites. The Supreme Court knew because plaintiffs were alerting the Court in their petitions and motions and the Court responded by not placing these cases on the public weekly orders list. In my case I had petitioned for motions for stays/injunction and specifically stated the statutes which made the ADA applicable due to federal funding, informing the Supreme Court that the law applied to a large number of dismissed cases.
The evidence that 242 was violated can simply be seen by reviewing the cases. There are over 1600 ADA cases citing to U.S. v. Georgia, yet all of the statutes which require compliance with the ADA in exchange for receiving federal money have been cited to. I know I did, and would like to review the Supreme Court’s cases to see how many others also did. The violation of 242 can be seen by the fact that all suits against the California State Bar as well as every other State Bar in the nation have been dismissed.
As for my case, this is potentially a death penalty case because it resulted in the deaths of children in Orange County. The OCBA arbitrator who authored the award against me, Sheri Honer, was subsequently appointed a judge in the family law/juvenile dependency department of the Orange County Court. Honer had absolutely no prior experience with family law and was subsequently transferred to another department as a result of complaints that she had caused the deaths of children.
18 USC § 242 SUBJECTING NONWHITES TO “DIFFERENT PAINS PENALTIES AND PUNISHMENTS BASED UPON RACE”
Section 242 has another provision against subjecting nonwhites to “different pains penalties and punishments based upon race”:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to….different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.
The federal courts have been applying the law differently to nonwhites than what is ordinarily applied (to whites) in order to dismiss the cases of minorities. The case is then decided as an “unpublished” case, which means that it is not precedent, not binding on subsequent cases, and cannot be cited to as precedent. Thus nonwhites are getting the law “uniquely” applied to them, different from the way it would be normally applied to whites, and in violation of 18 USC 242. If the cases on the Black Docket are reviewed, applying the law different to nonwhites will be found. I will point to the decision in my case to show this happening.
In the Ninth Circuit the law technically is that an ADA plaintiff does not need to plead a constitutional violation or violation of a fundamental right because the Ninth Circuit decided its ADA cases (Dare/Clark, discussed below) before the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Georgia.
So what ends up happening (in my case and in Kohn) is that plaintiffs file suit under the ADA based upon the controlling law of the circuit, that no constitutional violation needs to be plead, then while the game is in play the court moves the goal posts and requires a constitutional violation, dismisses the case, and makes it an unpublished case—so the law of the circuit is not changed. So there are now two sets of laws: one for whites, and one for minorities.
This is the portion of the decision dismissing the State Bar/State of California for the ADA claims:
"The district court properly dismissed Viriyapanthu’s damages claims made under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The State of California, State Bar of California, and Kenneth Bacon (in his official capacity) are each entitled to sovereign immunity. Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Ct. of State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995). Viriyapanthu’s theory of a Fourteenth Amendment violation does not Justify the abrogation of such immunity. The conduct allegedly in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (racial discrimination and bias) is not made actionable by Title II, which only prohibits discrimination “by reason of [a] disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132; see United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159 (2006) (recognizing Title II’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity when the same conduct violates both Title II and the Fourteenth Amendment).
As discussed previously, the Ninth Circuit’s precedent under Dare and Clark is controlling law unless it is overturned by an en banc decision (all active judges on the circuit voting for it). O’Scannlain (who was one of the judges that decided MY case) noted this himself in his dissent in Pfiffer. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1235599.html :
“In the absence of en banc review, however, I acknowledge that these decisions remain binding on this panel and thus join in the per curiam opinion. Because Dare and Clark upheld the entirety of Title II without engaging in the nuanced, case-by-case analysis demanded by Lane, their continued vitality is uncertain.”
There has been no PUBLISHED Ninth Circuit case overruling Dare or Clark, and those cases technically remain the law in the Ninth Circuit. This was recognized by another federal court in Olson v. Allen, Case No. 3:18-cv-001208-SB (D. Or. Mar. 15, 2019) which was decided after my case. https://casetext.com/case/olson-v-allen
“Following both Lane and Georgia, the Ninth Circuit continues to reaffirm its decision in Phiffer. See Okwu v. McKim, 682 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Title II abrogates a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.") (citing Phiffer, 384 F.3d at 792); Daniel v. Levin, 172 F. App'x 147, 149 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar ADA or [Rehabilitation Act] suits against state officials in their official capacities for injunctive relief or damages.") (citing Phiffer). So do a majority of district courts within the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Karam v. Univ. of Ariz., No. 18-cv-00455- RCC, 2019 WL 588151, at 4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2019) (finding that "[t]he Ninth Circuit has clearly determined that Congress validly abrogated state's immunity under Title II of the ADA") (citing Phiffer); Fernandez v. Rice, No. 15-cv-00487-LEK, 2017 WL 988103, at 4 (D. Haw. Mar. 14, 2017) (citing Phiffer to hold that "Congress has abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims under Title II of the ADA"); Miller v. Ceres Unified Sch. Dist., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1038, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (declining to determine whether the plaintiff's Title II claim implicated a fundamental right because "the Ninth Circuit has not expressly called for this 'nuanced, case-by-case analysis' to occur") (citing Phiffer)
Thus, there are two sets of law: one applied to whites, and one applied to nonwhites.
This is the portion of the order dismissing Defendants Richard Green and John Nelson, the OCBA attorneys who represented Viveros. I had sued them for restraining trade by revoking the licenses of nonwhite attorneys competing against them.
"The district court correctly dismissed Viriyapanthu’s claim that John Nelson and Richard Green conspired in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. The substance of his claim is fraudulent conduct. However, Viriyapanthu’s “averments of fraud” failed to meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s particularity requirement. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103–06 (9th Cir. 2003). All that remains are conclusory accusations of conspiracy, which fail to state a claim. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556–57 (2007).
Rule 9 is for fraud complaints, what was alleged was an anti trust allegation. This is the same as requiring that you provide a contract in order to file an automobile injury suit; there would not be one, and a contract is not necessary for a personaly injury suit. What IS HAPPENING to plaintiffs is that the courts are applying the more stringent fraud standard under Rule 9 to dismiss cases for which fraud is not an element of the cause of action. White litigants do not need to make a demonstration of fraud in order to make an antitrust claim; nonwhite litigants complaining of race discrimination do. There are two sets of law based on the race of the litigant.
A summary of what the law is on antitrust cases can be found on this blog (which is easier to point to rather than have me rehash:
All that is required is a statement of "who, what, when and where". Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014); n re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., 798 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2015); n re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1999).
Finally the Ninth Circuit had also applied the law differently to me in my attempt to amend the complaint. In addition to trying to enforce 42 USC 608(d) I had also made a request to amend the complaint to allege Title VI race discrimination against the State and State Bar based on federal funding. The court never addressed the Title VI claims at all in the decisions.
The law regarding amending to prevent dismissal is liberal under Rule 15. See J-ohnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014): "The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.”. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires," and denial of the motion without any apparent justifying reason was an abuse of discretion.”
18 U.S.C. §371 “Conspiracy to defraud the United States” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 ) states:
“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
This is the US DOJ’S Criminal Resources Manual for 18 USC § 371: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
The manual describes what constitutes “defrauding” the U.S. Government:
"In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:
To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.”
The United States was “defrauded” because its legitimate program purposes were being thwarted. Once again, the disabled and nonwhite pay federal taxes which is the source of the funding. The legitimate government function is thwarted since the people who paid money to fund the program can’t actually use the programs. This is exactly the impairment of the government’s “legitimate official action and purpose [being] defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention” that is prohibited.
18 U.S.C. § 2 (“Principals”) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2 )states:
“(a)Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”
The Supreme Court can be held responsible. 18 U.S.C. § 2 makes accomplices who render aid or assistance culpable to the same extent as principals. The Supreme Court aided, abetted, and concealed the acts of the lower courts by ignoring complaints made in petitions specifically pointing out that the courts were refusing to allow nonwhites and the disabled could not enforce the law…and placed the cases on a nonpublic docket.
There is a real problem of white supremacy among federal judges. If you need an example of what a white Supremacist federal judge looks like, this is the biography of Norman Randy (N.R.) Smith, who was one of the judges in my case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Randy_Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUKjn_L5aS8
Below is the article discussing that N.R. Smith was one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel which dissented to hold that California’s Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage shouldn’t be overturned.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html
The same federal judge who voted that there was no right to gay marriage, was the same federal judge who had been falsifying cases against nonwhites and the disabled. Norman Randy Smith is representative of the problem of white supremacist judges in the federal courts.
PART III THE RACE DISCRIMINATION PROFESSIONALS OF COLOR FACE
I will explain how licensed professionals of color are losing their licenses due to the fact that laws against race discrimination are unenforceable.
I will address the State Bar and State Medical board reports and will be using actual documents from my case so the naysayers can’t complain I am making things up. These are the state’s own reports which show that discrimination was happening.
It should also be noted that the two investigations on discrimination for doctors and lawyers of color in California is the only one that has ever been done. No other state has actually checked on the rates of discipline. In addition, these investigations were only for doctors and lawyers and did not touch other licensed professionals of color. Nurses, auto repair shops, real estate agents, etc. all require licenses, but no study was ever done to see if these professions also have higher rates of discipline for professionals of color.
What happened to me is represents the thousands of discrimination complaints dismissed every year. As I have shown every Title VI race discrimination suit, as well as every suit against a professional licensing agency (such as a state bar) has been dismissed without anyone actually being able to enforce the law. Seeing how one case was dismissed will make you understand that all of the other thousands of cases were dismissed. I am being thorough because I want to provide sufficient information to support criminal prosecution (I want to show where the incriminating documents can be found). In addition, the next generation of lawyers has been purposely kept in the dark as to the discrimination that they will be facing, and truly needs to be made aware of this.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court touched this case by doing something different with it than the other cases (e.g. private, non publicly published order) this is an “act in furtherance” which ties the U.S. Supreme Court to what happened in my case. For at least my case the U.S. Supreme Court is now linked to my case and can be criminally prosecuted for what it did in at least this instance.
Let me also take this moment to explain the problem of race discrimination in arbitrations. Because it also pertains to what happened here.
In 2019 and in 2022 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the FAIR act to end mandatory arbitration in employment. These article from Vox explains some of the problems victims face in arbitration:
https://www.vox.com/technology/2019/2/22/18236172/mandatory-forced-arbitration-google-employees
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/20/20872195/forced-mandatory-arbitration-bill-fair-act
Virtually all employers require employees to agree to resolve disputes through arbitration, including claims for race and sex discrimination, as well as sexual harassment. Most employers get to decide the arbitrators and pay for the arbitrators, per the agreement. There is such a thing as “repeat player effect” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeat-player_effect or read the first Vox article) in arbitrations where the same party uses the same arbitrator over and over (and also pays them over and over), which results in the arbitrator ruling in that party’s favor. What happens with these discrimination or sexual harassment suits is that the employer goes to the same arbitrator who either ignores or falsifies evidence and/or doesn’t follow the law. Just like in my case, there is no review for false facts or wrong law. That is how race, sex discrimination, and sexual harassment claims are unenforceable.
Despite the number of complaints (as illustrated in the Vox articles) coming from victims and the fact that it was enough of an issue that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a law on it, there is not a single case addressing race discrimination by arbitrators in any of the federal court cases. If you search through all the federal arbitration review cases for the terms “race discrimination” you won’t find any federal case that addresses discriminatory conduct by arbitrators. In my case I raised it, and it wasn’t addressed, and no doubt so did others. The problem is being concealed by the courts.
This is a report from the California State Bar on the discrepancies in attorney discipline between white and attorneys of color.
https://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000025090.pdf
The report starts off on the first page explaining “For years the State Bar has heard anecdotes regarding the over-representation of people of color in the attorney discipline system. “ The report goes on to further state at page 2 under “Discussion”:
“The analyses revealed that, without controlling for any factors potentially associated with case outcomes, there are statistically significant disparities with respect to both probation and disbarment. The largest gender/race disparities can be seen when comparing Black to White, male attorneys. The probation rate for Black, male attorneys over this time period was 3.2 percent, compared to 0.9 percent for White, male attorneys. The disbarment/resignation rate for Black, male attorneys was 3.9 percent compared to 1.0 percent for White males.”
The California State Bar goes on to explain that this correlates to Blacks being investigated/disciplined at rates 3-4 times higher and Hispanic attorneys being investigated/disciplined at rates 2-3 times higher than whites.
This is a report from the California Medical Board on the higher rates of complaints against doctors of color, to show the problem isn’t limited to lawyers of color:
https://www.library.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/MedicalBoardDemographicsJan17.pdf
The report starts off explaining at page 5:
“The Black American Political Association of California and the Golden State Medical Society have raised issue with how the Medical Board disciplines physicians—i.e. they are concerned that the Medical Board disciplines minority (in particular African-American) physicians more often and more severely compared with their White colleagues. These two groups asked for the Medical Board to review its discipline data for evidence of such disparities.”
The Medical Board report goes on to state at page 11:
“Black, Latino/a and Native American physicians were much more likely to receive a complaint than average. White physicians and physicians listing “Other” were also slightly more likely to receive a complaint. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander physicians and physicians with no response were less likely to receive a complaint. Asian physicians, and those responding with 2 or more races received complaints at approximately the same rate as physicians as a whole. If complaints for just the five overrepresented groups had been made at the overall rate, then approximately 1,273 fewer physicians would have received a complaint between 2003 and 2013, a change of slightly more than 1 percent.”
This is a website of Doctors of Courage that is trying to end discrimination in the medical profession.
The same discriminatory conduct claim I alluded to in the legal profession, is also being alleged by Doctors of Courage:
“Common Types Of Misconduct Seen Against People of Color
· Making False Police Reports,
· Tampering with Evidence,
· Manufacturing Evidence,
· Concealing Evidence,
· Perjury and False Statement,
· Retaliation and Bullying,
· Paying and Pressuring Co-workers/Employees to provide false testimony, and
· Aiding and Abetting the Judges who work and is under their authority.”
The same complaints (above) that Doctors of Courage is complaining about are the same occurrences that happened in my case, and are regularly happening to professionals of color.
On page 12 of the Medical Board report it states that “a Black physician was 1.4 times more likely to receive a complaint.” That is 40% more likely than a white physician to receive a complaint.
Similarly the State Bar also found higher rates of discipline among Blacks, with page 3 of the State Bar report stating:
"Among the variables listed above, it is notable that the total number of complaints against attorneys varied widely by group. The range varies from 46 percent of Black, male attorneys having had at least one complaint filed against them during the study period, to only 17 percent of Asian, female attorneys having had a complaint filed against them during the same period. Another measure of the difference in the number of complaints is the percentage of attorneys against whom 10 or more complaints have been filed. Only one percent of Asian, women attorneys had received 10 or more complaints. In contrast, 12 percent of Black, male attorneys had received 10 or more complaints."
If you’re a Black lawyer, you have a 50/50 chance of receiving at least one disciplinary complaint, and 120% more likely than an Asian female to receive more than 10 complaints.
Attachment A of the State Bar report at page 3 explains the significance of 10 or more complaints and how it relates to imposition of discipline
“Not surprisingly, we found that those attorneys who were subject to the greatest number of complaints also averaged the highest rates of probation and disbarment/resignation. This might be due to any of the following reasons: First, other things being equal, a greater number of complaints will likely be associated with a greater number of cases investigated, which should, as an arithmetic matter and on average, increase the probability of being disciplined, including severe disciplines. Second, more complaints per case may indicate that the case is more severe, raising the probability of a severe outcome. Finally, a greater number of complaints likely implies more past complaints, which may be taken into account during a particular investigation.”
The State Bar report acknowledges at page 6 of the report under “differential complaints” that “It is unclear why the State Bar receives more complaints against Black, male attorneys than against other attorneys.” So essentially, the State Bar doesn’t have an explanation why attorneys of color receive higher complaints. The higher the number of complaints increases the likelihood for punishment and severity. In other words, if enough complaints are thrown at you some are eventually going to stick even though they aren’t true. Many of these complaints are actually being generated by other attorneys, as I will illustrate in my example.
The Ninth Circuit claimed I had not complained about the race discrimination in judicial appointments which excluded nonwhites from obtaining positions. What I am presenting in the court records, which would not be there if I had not raised the issue. This is what I am complaining about.
This is an article explaining that California is one of the states where the population is majority nonwhite, with the largest racial group in California being Latinos.
This are the racial demographics of law schools in California, which generally hover around 50% minority enrollment. I have only chosen only three schools here due to space constraints, but I included more schools in the suit.
This is the racial demographics of Orange County California. It should be noted that Orange County has one of the highest concentrations of Asians in the nation. It is also home to Little Saigon and has one of the largest populations of Vietnamese outside of Vietnam.. Whites account for 43%, Latinos 33%, Asians 18%
This is the 4th District Court of Appeal. Division 2 handles San Diego County, and it has appellate judges of color. Division 3 handles appeals for Orange County, and is 100% white.
This is the judicial roster of the Orange County Superior Court with the names of Latino or Asian judges highlighted. There are 133 trial judges. 11 are Asian or Latino. This is 8% Asian/Latino and 92% white. Appellate judges are usually chosen from the trial court, and since there are few nonwhite trial judges, there are not many nonwhites to select from for appellate positions.
In comparison, these are the racial demographics of San Francisco County. I am using SF as a reference because it has near identical racial demographics as Orange County, but with the numbers of Asians to Latinos reversed (35.9% Asian and 15.2% Latino.)
This is the judicial roster of San Francisco which has 51 judges, 13 of whom are Asian or Latino or 25%, 3 times higher than Orange County with the same demographics.
Below is the board of directors of the Orange County Bar Association, which is comprised mostly of whites.
This is the Officer list of the Bar Association of San Francisco, which has a much larger percentage of nonwhites holding key positions. (I had also placed into the records the judicial roster of Los Angeles along with their officers, but due to the fact that L.A. has 400 judges, I am not including it here due to space constraints.)
The reason the presence of nonwhites in the bar association is significant is that the state delegates authority to the bar associations, including the ability to vet and review judicial candidates. In SF, with a higher percentage of nonwhites in key positions (such as the judicial committee) resulted in more nonwhites being appointed as judges.
In contrast, at the OCBA white attorneys dominate key positions. White attorneys on the Judicial Committee were selecting unqualified white OCBA members (their friends) for positions which resulted in nonwhites being excluded. In addition, the OCBA had rated nonwhite candidates seeking judicial office as less qualified than whites. This is an example.
This is the biography of Lara Callas, who was one of the attorneys on the OCBA judicial committee, and whose biography states:
Ms. Callas served on the Orange County Bar Association’s Judiciare Committee from 2008-2011 culminating with her service as chair of that committee charged with making recommendations to the Governor’s office concerning the qualifications of judicial candidates.
One of the Judges appointed was Sheri Honer, who served as the Presiding Arbitrator of the MFAA program at the OCBA who wrote the arbitration award in my case. I point to Sheri Honer as an example of an unqualified white being appointed. This is the biography of Sheri Honer:
I point to Sheri Honer as an example of an unqualified white being appointed as judges. Honer graduated from Western State College of Law, which at the time of her graduation was a non-ABA accredited school. Western State later obtained ABA accreditation, but is currently ranked 178 out 196 U.S. law schools. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/western-state-college-of-law-at-westcliff-university-03183
Honer was appointed as a family law judge, despite the fact that she had no experience in family law. Honer worked as a research attorney in the Santa Ana court, which hears criminal and civil. All family law cases in the county are heard at the Lamoreaux Justice center in Orange, and family law is much different from criminal or civil. The first available opening was in family law and it went to her despite the fact that she had no experience. Whites are having appointment spots reserved for them, and when a judicial opening occurs they are given the spot despite not having qualification and experience for the position. There are nonwhite attorneys who went to top ranked ABA accredited schools with experience in family law who were passed up in favor of less qualified whites.
I personally went to review the court records of family law cases (due to the confidential nature of family law cases the court records are not available online and must be researched at the courthouse) and there was not a single record of her practicing a family law case prior to her appointment as a family law judge. Honer was subsequently reassigned to the Santa Ana Civil court after complaints/allegations that she had caused the death of children. Official complaints against judges are kept confidential, but as follows are the publicly available complaints made against her:
http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=18509
Because the State delegates authority to private parties without any supervision, whites such as Sheri Honer being able to give themselves positions as judges and revoke the professional licenses of nonwhites. This is why professionals of color lose their license at much higher rates than whites. All professional licensure boards--not just doctors and lawyers--such as real estate agents, contractors, automobile repair shops, etc. have boards composed of other licensed professionals.
The MFAA program here is illegal. Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Moncharsh v. Heile & Blasé 3 Cal. 4th 1 (1992) arbitration awards aren’t reviewable for whether the facts are true or whether the law was followed correctly. This now violates 1981 because arbitrators are free to apply the law differently to nonwhites than what would ordinarily be applied to whites.
Moncharsh was originally developed for private, contractual arbitrations under the California Arbitration Act, which is based upon a private contractual agreement. See Aguilar v. Lerner 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 287 at 292 (2004):https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18432907700494231443&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
“First, the obligation to arbitrate under the MFAA is based on a statutory directive and not the parties' agreement. Thus, a client may invoke the MFAA and proceed to arbitration despite the absence of any prior agreement to do so. By contrast, standard arbitration requires that both parties to a dispute agree to arbitrate.”
Moncharsh was then extended into the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act. However the MFAA is statutory, compulsory, and is a governmental action to which the equal protection clause, 18 USC 242, Title VI, and 42 USC 1981 apply.
Applying it to the MFAA results in federal laws being violated as nonwhites are being treated differently than whites.
First, if a nonwhite loses his license for performing the same acts as white attorneys, this violates the equal protection clause.
Secondly, the MFAA program now authorizes state actors to violate federal CRIMINAL STATUTES. Under the program, untrue facts or applying the law different to a nonwhite so they now have to pay money or have their license constitutes "different punishments, pains, or penalties" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 242 which states in pertinent part:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to … to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…
This also becomes a prima facie case of race discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas test (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). McDonnell Douglas is a balancing test created by a previous incarnation to determine whether there is sufficient demonstration of race discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_burden-shifting Originally it was created for discrimination in employment hiring decisions, but has been modified by the lower courts to apply to other instances of race discrimination.
Applying Moncharsh to a nonwhite, will always result in a prima facie demonstration of race discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas test. McDonnell Douglas requires a showing of 4 elements, which are met here (1) the person complaining is a racial minority (2) that the person was qualified or was performing adequately but (3) received adverse punishment (4) that whites had not received, or that whites had been treated better under similar circumstances.
Finally, this violates other specific provisions of federal applicable to recipients of federal funding under Title VI. This is from the USDOJ Title VI manual
https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6manual3
"A 1965 guidance, now codified at 28 C.F.R. § 50.3, specified that court enforcement may be obtained through the following:
(1) a suit to obtain specific enforcement of assurances, covenants running with federally provided property, statements of compliance, or desegregation plans filed pursuant to agency regulations; (2) a suit to enforce compliance with other titles of the 1964 Act, other Civil Rights Acts, or constitutional or statutory provisions requiring nondiscrimination; and (3) initiation of or intervention or other participation in, a suit for other relief designed to secure performance."
Those with a legal background will know that a C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) has the same force and effect as a statute, and it was this provision that I was seeking to enforce by amending to allege Title VI, which allows enforcement of other statutes.
The “Other constitutional and statutory provisions requiring nondiscrimination” I was seeking enforcement of is 42 USC 1981 which requires that the contracts of nonwhites be treated the same as contracts made between whites. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981The statute states:
(a)Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b)“Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c)Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
What happened in my case is illustrative of the problem. The law is no longer enforceable. The Supreme Court is no longer acting as judges impartially enforcing the law. They are now an unelected shadow government enforcing their own political will and the scales of justice now have their thumb on the it. The laws are being enforced selectively and only if it suits the Supreme Court’s political agenda. The Supreme Court used Title VI to hold affirmative action illegal because it discriminated against whites, but refused to allow nonwhites to enforce.
Earlier I referenced the State Bar report which begins with "For years the State Bar has heard anecdotes regarding the over-representation of people of color in the attorney discipline system", and the California State Medical Board report which states:
"The Black American Political Association of California and the Golden State Medical Society have raised issue with how the Medical Board disciplines physicians—i.e. they are concerned that the Medical Board disciplines minority (in particular African-American) physicians more often and more severely compared with their White colleagues. These two groups asked for the Medical Board to review its discipline data for evidence of such disparities.”
The State Bar report at page 6 states “It is unclear why the State Bar receives more complaints against Black, male attorneys than against other attorneys.” To answer the State Bar's query, the reason is that the complaints are being generated by other attorneys. I will now illustrate what doctors and lawyers of color have been complaining about, and demonstrate how a nonwhite can lose their license without having done anything wrong, or the reason not actually being true.
In my case the client, an individual named Cesar Viveros and his employer contracted in 2007 with ANOTHER ATTORNEY who I will simply refer to as Original Attorney for privacy (due to the defamatory allegations contained, I am redacting the names), to perform an employer sponsored PERM green card. For reference the PERM guide from the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service itself explains the process:
“…the process begins when the employer obtains an approved Application for Permanent Labor Certification from the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL)…the employer continues the process by filing Form I-140….The foreign national’s place in line… will be based on the date you file the labor
certification with DOL”
So basically once a labor certification from US Dept of Labor is obtained, an immigrant is entitled to file an I-140 to obtain a green card.
All payments from Viveros were made to the Original Attorney in 2007 who obtained a labor certificate in 2008. Also in 2008 an I-140 was filed, after the labor certification. This is an excerpt of the is the award which states pg.3¶2:
“The labor certificate was approved on 1/14/08. Thereafter the application for permanent residency (i.e., a I-140 petition for alien worker) was submitted on1/31/08. (Ultimately, on or about 4/8/09, the I-140 petition was denied for failure to submit evidence of Mr. Viveros’ employer’s ability to pay the proferred wage throughout the permanent residency application process. An appeal was filed by Immigration West Law and was still pending at the time of the arbitration hearing. Ultimately, the employer, not Mr. Viveros, was charged for the appeal)
In late 2008, the Original Attorney retired due to being terminally ill (and is now deceased) and I hired his paralegal and I assumed handling of some of his immigration cases—among them Viveros’s. In 2008 Viveros was contacted to allow me to continue representation as the Original Attorney no longer had an office to receive the notification from USCIS. Viveros was given a BLANK copy of the retainer agreement which was not signed by me or anyone from my office. Keep in mind that at this time, I wasn’t expecting to do any work or receive any payment as we had expected that the application submitted by the Original Attorney would be approved. Viveros authorized me to act on his behalf and signed a blank copy of the retainer as demonstration that I was authorized to represent him should the need arise.
This is a pleading filed in court by one of Viveros’s attorney (Richard Green) that the contract was unsigned and that the payments were made to the Original Attorney in 2007:
“In the instant matter, the petitioner demonstrated his willingness to be bound in contract by drafting the Viriyapanthu-Viveros retainer agreement and delivering the agreement to the respondent. The petitioner offered to render professional services by drafting a retainer agreement outlining the terms upon which the petitioner was willing to be bound. These terms included the acceptance of funds paid to Original Attorney on August 7, 2007 as consideration. The respondent accepted the petitioner’s offer by signing the agreement. The fact that the petitioner did not sign the retainer agreement is meaningless.”
In 2009, the I-140 that the Original Attorney submitted was denied because there was no evidence of the ability to pay wages attached to the application. My sole role was to file an appeal and attach the missing documents at no charge.
Later in 2009, the sponsoring employer filed for bankruptcy. Viveros quit his job, andrefused to return to work. An employer sponsored application is not transferable. When he quit his job, all the work that went into the application was no longer useable. See arbitration award at page 3 paragraph 3:
“In the interim, Mr. Viveros' employer filed bankruptcy. Ms. REDACTED explained to Mr. Viveros in Spanish, under Mr. Viriyapanthu's direction, that his employer's bankruptcy was not related to the immigration process or the company's ability to pay his wages in relation to the I-140 petition. She also explained that his employer was still continuing to cooperate with the immigration process. (According to testimony, the employer apparently has since withdrawn its bankruptcy filing.)”
This is the biography of John Nelson which states:
“Mr. Nelson co-founded the Immigration Law Section of the Orange County Bar Association in 1982. He served as the first chair, and has continued to chair as well as hold numerous other officer positions.”
The reason the rates of discipline are so high is because the states delegate powers to private actors who can then use their authority to revoke the licenses of nonwhites. For doctors, the state medical board is composed of doctors who may be in competition with them. For lawyers, since the state delegates power to the county bar associations, the attorneys at the bar associations can use their authority to revoke the licenses of nonwhite attorneys--who are their business competitors. Thus limiting the practice of law to white members. Since the MFAA is compulsory, white attorneys at the bar associations can force nonwhites to undergo MFAA arbitrations, falsify the basis and revoke the licenses of nonwhite competitors. Under Moncharsh, the decisions aren't reviewed to see if they are true, and under the statute attorneys are awarded, they receive money for revoking the licenses. This is why nonwhite lawyers lose their license 4 times higher than whites.
Each county bar association has a telephone referral service which puts them in contact with an attorney from the bar association. This is the OCBA's:
Often times clients will simply seek out a second opinion. The way things work is that a client will call the referral service, who puts them in touch with a bar association attorney. The OCBA attorney tells the client to file a MFAA petition (and omit any reference to the fact that they are represented by an OCBA attorney in the petition). The OCBA attorneys essentially take turns between arguing before the OCBA, and acting as arbitrators. So the "repeat player" effect is that the OCBA attorney is arguing a case in front of his friends, and the OCBA panel than falsifies the decision in the OCBA attorney's favor.
So in other words, the complaints against nonwhite attorneys are actually being generated by white attorneys trying to exclude minorities from practicing law in competition with them.
I will show you exactly how this scenario works out.
This is the Declaration of Cesar Viveros which was filed in court and states:
8. In early November 2009, I consulted with John C. Nelson, an attorney in Newport Beach, California regarding the immigration matter that I retained Misters Original Attorney and Viriyapanthu to assist me with.
9. With Mr. Nelson’s assistance, on or about November 30, 2009, I filed a Petition to Arbitrate a Fee Dispute with the Orange County Bar Association. In this petition, I sought to obtain a refund of the funds I paid to Ms. [redacted] from Paul Viriyapanthu.
Viveros and Nelson (who is really the one who initiated the proceedings) knew I had never been paid when they initiated arbitration against me. The reason they did it was because the original attorney was no longer practicing law, and I was now competing against Nelson. Which is the reason arbitration was made against me instead of the attorney and law office which did the work.
If you don't believe that it is the bar association attorneys who are generating the complaints then look at the actual petition I received.
Per the declaration of Cesar Viveros it was Nelson who helped him prepare the MFAA petition in November 2009. If you look under “Section 3 Petitioner’s Arbitration Attorney”, it is BLANK. The reason is to keep me from knowing that Viveros had an attorney that would be representing him at the hearing. Without knowing that he was represented by an attorney, I can’t do a check for conflicts of interest prior to the hearing. Such as knowing that Nelson also acted as an arbitrator, so that when he argued a case he was arguing it before his friends at the bar association. At the hearing, I specifically asked if he was a member of the OCBA, and it was denied.
This is the declaration of Cesar Viveros. Notice that at the beginning it states “my employer asked me to go to immigration layer”. This was done intentionally to make it appear that it was written by Viveros with an intentional misspelling and improper English (it appears that it was created on a word processor which also would have autocorrected the error. The rest of the declaration is written in perfect English. Viveros didn’t speak English. That’s why I needed a translator present when he came to the office. It should also be noted that while Viveros claimed to have paid $10,000 he never showed up at the hearing, and never actually provided receipts or other documents supporting this amount.
The final paragraph is an example of a false claim of misconduct the type of which is causing nonwhite doctors and lawyers to lose their licenses at rates 4 times higher than whites. The declaration of Viveros (above) states:
“[Name Redacted] promised that I was going to receive my work permit within a year or a year and a half. I always thought that [Name redacted] was the layer, but I was wrong she is just the paralegal. Since the first day I went to sign papers I have never met the layer. [Name redacted] runs the place and the layer just signs the papers.”
This is a portion of the arbitration award which states
“Mr. Viveros claims he never met with an attorney, only Ms. [redacted], who is a paralegal. Mr. Viveros claims he thought Ms.[Redacted] was the attorney, because she "runs the place." (At the hearing, Mr. Viveros' counsel, John Nelson argued that Ms. [redacted], who has a Juris Doctorate but is not a licensed attorney, is the real owner of Immigration West Law, and both Mr. Viriyapanthu and Mr. [Redacted] have assisted her in practicing law without a license.)”
The individual in question is Mexican, a law school graduate, and was working for me while studying for the bar examination. White attorneys who go to non ABA accredited schools do not like Mexicans becoming lawyers or minorities going to better law schools than them. Like Honer, Nelson also went to a non ABA school (Northrop Grumman). I went to Stanford and UCLA. This is what is happening to nonwhite doctors and lawyers, and is the reason the discipline rates are so high. If you do better than them they will falsify misconduct allegations against you.
In case you are a legal lay person or missed it, but the allegation of misconduct being alleged is “aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law”. Someone who does not have a law license is not allowed to practice law, though a lawyer may hire someone without a law license—such as a paralegal—to perform work under their supervision. What they are alleging is that the paralegal is “the real owner of Immigration West Law”.
I will now explain why this is an example of an untrue allegation of misconduct that was fabricated. Suppose I claimed that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito possessed child pornography and crack cocaine in the desk in his chambers at the Supreme Court. The first question that should obviously be asked is what my basis of knowledge for making such a claim. For example, have I ever been inside Alito’s office or opened his desk? That’s the point. Unless a demonstration that the person making the allegation has personal knowledge to support the claim then there isn’t much to the truth of the claims.
The question to be asked is how either Cesar Viveros or John Nelson would have knowledge of the operations of my office to support their claim that the paralegal is the true owner, and the lawyer (me) just signs the paper. How many times has either Viveros or Nelson been to my office? Viveros went to my office exactly once to authorize representation.. However, Viveros never appeared to testify; Nelson testified. (“..John Nelson argued that Ms. [redacted], who has a Juris Doctorate but is not a licensed attorney, is the real owner of Immigration West Law, and both Mr. Viriyapanthu and Mr. [Redacted] have assisted her in practicing law without a license.”)
John Nelson has NEVER been to my office. Nelson has never seen my leases, my office bank account, payroll, office staff, or the employment contracts with the attorneys in my office. Without this information it is impossible to have enough information to determine whether the paralegal actually owns the business. Nelson has as much personal knowledge about my office operations as I have knowledge as to the content of cocaine and child pornography in Samuel Alito’s desk. It’s easy to make an allegation but more difficult to substantiate.
The award states also:
"As for Mr. Nelson's contention with respect to Mr. Viriyapanthu, the arbitrators note that Mr. [redacted]was the one who provided the legal services at issue, not Mr. Viriyapanthu. That being said, it was apparent to the arbitrators that Mr. Viriyapanthu relies very heavily on Ms [redacted] in helping him understand immigration law. Indeed, it is somewhat troubling that at the time Mr. Viriyapanthu acquired Mr. [redacted] full-time immigration law practice, he had relatively no experience practicing immigration law, and his lack of experience was evident from his testimony and continual deference towards Ms. [redacted] with respect to questions concerning the immigration process. One wonders how an attorney can be responsible for supervising and/or controlling the work of his paralegal when the attorney is relying on the paralegal to inform him on the law. Although Ms. [redacted] may have a Juris Doctorate, she is not a licensed attorney.)”
If what is written is read more closely, you will begin to see the “complaints” being made can’t possibly be valid. For example, apparently my “lack of experience was evident from his testimony and continual deference towards Ms. [redacted] with respect to questions concerning the immigration process.” If you recall, I don’t speak Spanish and never met Viveros in 2007 (that was another attorney at another office); the only thing that was done was to make the corrections specified in the USCIS notice. The lack of documents supporting the ability to pay wages was the only thing complained of, so it was the only thing I did—and all that was required was submitting financial records. How am I supposed to know what happened in 2007 when I wasn’t involved in the case until 2009? The person who knew about what happened in 2007 was the one who had to explain.
Page 5 of the arbitration award says:
“Although it could be argued that it is highly unlikely Mr. Viveros’ petition, even if corrected, would ever be approved, no evidence was submitted establishing that it was impossibility. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the legal services rendered were of no value”
In regards to it being “highly unlikely” that the petition would not be approved, then the USCIS should not have published a guide to the process of which everything that was done in accordance with. If it was unlikely that an employer sponsored visa application “would not work” then typing in the terms “PERM” “ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS” in google should not result in over 11,000,000 results from attorneys nationwide performing the service.
Most importantly, if employer based immigration “doesn’t work”, then WHITE ATTORNEYS at the OCBA shouldn’t be advertising performing the same services that nonwhite attorneys lose their license for. This is the biography of Richard Green, also an attorney at the OCBA who also is a part of the arbitration program, a friend of John Nelson, and the attorney who took over handling as a part of the court proceedings to revoke my license:
“Whether you are an employer or employee seeking an employment based visa for a highly skilled employee…Green puts his years of experience into play to assist his clients in an efficient and timely manner so they get what they need, when they need it.”
If you read the second page, it says:
“Arbitrator, Mandatory Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Panel 2012—Present”.
Attorneys at the OCBA were taking turns between acting as arbitrators and arguing as attorneys before other members who they served on arbitration panels with before. Most professional licensing agencies use other licensed professionals to operate, and by “volunteering” for positions, whites can now exclude nonwhites by falsifying misconduct against them. What nonwhites are doing “wrong” is providing the same services as whites. The harsh reality is that certain professions are reserved for whites and if you are not white—you will be run out of business.
In order to justify ordering me to refund fees (when I had not been paid), the basis was as follows:
“Although Mr. Viriyapanthu did not provide the legal services at issue, his retainer agreement evidences an intent to assume liability for the services rendered. Specifically, both retainer agreements cover the exact same legal services. Additionally, both agreements identify. Immigration West Law as the attorney and indicate that the attorney received a $4,500 deposit from Mr. Viveros. Most importantly, both agreements indicate that "any unused deposit at the conclusion of the Attorney's services will be refunded." Based on the above, Mr. Viriyapanthu is responsible for the reimbursement of any unused deposit to Mr. Viveros.
This is what is known in legal terms as a “disparate application of law”. In more simple terms, it means that the law was applied differently to a nonwhite. California law holds that a successor to a business (like a subsequent owner) is not liable for a previous owners acts unless they prevent recovery from the original party. See Lundell v. Sidney Mach. Tool Co. 190 Cal. App. 3d 1546, 1553 (2nd Dist. 1987):
“The successor, to be liable, must have "'played some role in curtailing or destroying the [plaintiff's] remedies.'" (Kaminski v. Western MacArthur Co.,
supra, 175 Cal.App.3d 445, 458, quoting Hall v. Armstrong Cork, Inc. (1984) 103 Wn.2d 258, 265-266 [692 P.2d 787].) In Nelson v. Tiffany Industries, Inc.
(9th Cir. 1985) 778 F.2d 533, for example, the Ninth Circuit found that if a predecessor's good faith, voluntary reorganization petition destroyed
plaintiff's remedies, a successor later purchasing predecessor's assets in a bankruptcy, court-approved sale was not liable."
This is an excerpt of the award which explains the “breakdown” for the value of services:
“As for the reasonable value of the service rendered with respect to the 1-140 petition, conflicting evidence was submitted regarding the amount of time it should take to prepare the petition. Since no billing records or requests for payment were submitted (and indeed, it appears none were prepared), the arbitrators were required to rely on the testimony of the witnesses regarding the amount of time it takes to prepare and process the 1-140 petition. Mr. Nelson testified it should take approximately 2 hours, with just over an hour-and-a-half that time being spent by a paralegal and 20 minutes by an attorney to review the paralegal's work. Ms. [redacted] testified that it takes between 4 to 5 hours for a paralegal to prepare the petition. Based on the evidence submitted, the arbitrators find that the reasonable value of services rendered was $687.50 (calculated as follows: 4.5 hours of paralegal time at $125 per hour, plus 0.5 hours of attorney time to review at $250 an hour). Since, however, the 1-140 petition was filled out incorrectly, the arbitrators find that Immigration West Law should be responsible for the application fee of $475.
This section illustrates the problem that nonwhites are having. As a nonwhite attorney, I am required to only charge $687 to perform a PERM labor certificate of which $475 is the application fee. No attorneys would only charge $212 to perform a PERM application because it is so little money. If you can find one willing to do it, hire them immediately because it is a bargain. More importantly none of the white members of the OCBA who advertised performing PERM applications would charge $212 for their services. This shows the difference in how nonwhite professionals and whites are treated. For a white attorney they are free to charge thousands, and their PERM applications would work (simply because they are white) while for nonwhites their work woudn’t work.
In regards to the comment that “no billing records or requests for payment were submitted”, this is true. The reason is because I had no such records as I never received any payment to account for, I didn’t agree or contract to perform the original PERM, the work was actually performed by a different law office which was a different business entity from me, at a time at which I was not involved. Hence I would not have any records because I didn’t charge any money.
The award was for $4,500.
Added to this amount was $13,000 in attorney’s fees, which are authorized by the MFAA statute. These fees go to the attorneys who represented Viveros. So white attorneys were revoking the licenses of nonwhite attorneys competing against them, and receiving payment out of the awards. This was one of multiple OCBA arbitration of which I had to pay award despite not being paid. This is how professionals of color get run out of business.
What I have just explained to you that occurred in my case is representative of all the other cases on the black docket. If those cases are audited, what will be found are the same things in my case. The plaintiff raised the law and provided evidence, white judges refused to allow enforcement, made false statements and applied the law differently to prevent a nonwhite from enforcing race discrimination laws. The same things that occurred in my case occurred to the other attorneys, so much so that it can be seen statistically in the higher rates of license loss for attorneys. The same higher rate in discipline of attorneys is extended to doctors and licensed medical professionals, who also have higher rates of discipline for nonwhites. As Doctors of courage noted, the same discrimination faced by doctors is also faced by nurses of color and other licensed medical professionals.
The discrimination is illegal under Title VI, and these professions are covered due to the receipt of federal funding. The state bars are federal funding recipients, and doctors/nurses would be covered under the Medicare provisions which require compliance with Title VI per the statement of assurances. But to date, no one has actually been able to enforce the laws against race discrimination. A search of the cases will not find a single professional of color that was actually allowed to enforce Title VI.
You have now seen an example from my case as to what happens when a professional of color attempts to enforce race discrimination law. If the U.S. Supreme Court’s cases are audited, it will show many more examples just like mine. This is not “accidental” or “error”. The U.S. Supreme Court is intentionally preventing nonwhites from enforcing the law.
