Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18-55461
__________________________________________________________________
BILLY Z. EARLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Defendants-Appellees,
Billy Z. Earley
Appearing in Propria Persona
2144 Wembley Lane, Corona CA 92881
Telephone: (714) 615-4956
E-mail: bze2101@aol.com
Page
JURISDICTION STATEMENT…………………………………………………...3
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………… ..............5
i
D. The Supreme Court Law Rules The Land and the Judges’
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................20
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………..……….….1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………..………………...N/A
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Bauer Schweitzer malting Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1973)
8 Cal.3d 942, 946)……………………………………………………...…15
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)………………………………...…8
Brady v. United States,
397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969)………..10
City of San Mateo v. Hardy, 64 Cal. App. 2d 794, 797 [149 P.2d 307]....18
County of L.A. v. Dept. of Social Welfare,
41 Cal. 2d 455, 457, [260 P.2d 41]……………………………………….12
CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Comm.,
43 Cal. App. 3d 306, 329 [118 Cal. Rptr. 315]………………………..…18
Crosstalk Productions Inc. v. Jacobson (1998)
65 Cal. App. 4th 631, 644……………………………………………...…17
Drummey v. State Bd. of Funeral Directors, 13 Cal. 2d 75, 80-81
[87 P.2d 848]……………………………………………………………..18
Endler v. Schutzbank,
68 Cal. 2d 162, 168 [65 Cal. Rptr. 297, 436 P.2d 297]…………………..12
Greenblatt v. Munro, 161 Cal. App. 2d 596, 605-607 [326 P.2d 929]…...12
In re Brown, 17 Cal.4th 873, 879-880 (1998)………………………….….7
In re Chadsey, 141 App. Div. 458, 126 N.Y.S. 456 (1910),
aff'd, 201 N.Y. 572, 95 N.E. 1124 (1911)…………………………………8
In re Luce, 83 Cal. 303, 23 P. 350 (1890)…………………………………8
Katzberg v. Regents of University, California, 29 Cal. 4th 300 (2002)….14
iii
Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist.
(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1454………………………………..……15
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962)…………………….13
Mosk v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 474, 493…………………....15
Morton v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.App.3d at p. 984.)…………….18
Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton (1886) 69 Cal. 479, 484……………...…15
Ogo Associates v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 830, 834
[112 Cal. Rptr. 761]………………………………………………….….12
People v. Sims, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 484………………………….……8
Phillips/May Corp. v. United States,
524 F .3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008)…………………………………..10
Rich & Whillock, Inc., supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 1158…………….…17
Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 8………………………...…15
Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1995)…………….....….8
Stout v. Department of Employment (1959, Cal App 2d Dist)
172 Cal App 2d 666, 342 P2d 918, 1959 Cal App LEXIS 2004………..9
Sullins v. State Bar. 15 Cal. 3d 609, 542 P.2d 631, (1975),
cert. denied 125 Cal. Rptr. 471 425 U.S. 937 (1976)……………………..9
Tate v. Wood, 963 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1992)…………………………….…..8
Wilson v. Civil Service 1475.Com. (1964, 2nd Dist)
224 Cal App 2d 340, 36 Cal Rptr 559, 1964 Cal App LEXIS.……….….10
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976)……………………..…..8
iv
OTHER AUTHORITIES
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
v
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Supreme Court and the United States of America’s Constitution has
ruled that you cannot convict anybody based on False Testimony, Tainted
This case provides clear established evidence that the very nature of the
Constitution is at stake. Appellant requested the oaths for all the judges after they
made knowledgeable decisions not consistent with the US Constitution and they all
did not have oaths or Bonds registered with the Secretary of State. The Department
of Justice (“DOJ”) has a BLANKET written policy that they cannot investigate
their own officials including known crooked police officers because of their
America has more doctors locked-up in Jail than any other country in our
civilized world for treating its injured people. The Drug Distributors pays-off
Congress and controls US organizations like the DEA, a fact established and seen
Nationally with the Tom Marino Bill. The DEA allows China to ship illegal drugs
like Fentanyl, responsible for 90% of the overdose deaths, yet the CDC and other
controlled agencies lie and blame innocent doctors, a fact that is well established.
Appellant was suing CVS, the leader in passing the Tom Marino Bill, and in 2013,
1
The record is “undisputed” that when appellees concluded their
they investigate the appellees for Corruption, Racism, and Abuse of Power.
The 75-page complaint sketched-out six DOJ and MBC employees including
a prosecutor who laughed during a recorded interview and said plaintiff’s pain
patients were all “NAACP” members, a fact that was not true and racist.
The appellees would love to fool this court into believing that appellant
overprescribed and walked out of the court hearings with the benefit of counsel, a
made-up theory designed to further mislead the Courts and cover-up misconduct.
The appellees have intentionally withheld key facts leading up to the hearing
Complaint against Appellant, but since they are Exculpatory findings in Nature;
exposing corrupt law enforcement and overzealous crooked prosecutors. The entire
case was covered-up and the Administrative Court which is actually led by
Zackery Morazzini, a top DOJ official: The DOJ’s Blanket Policy of not
investigating valid misconduct against law enforcement, now applies to the Office
the OAH has adopted policies and procedures not consistent with the United States
2
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The United States District Court for the Central District of California has
jurisdiction of this complaint since it involves federal and civil rights violations
under color of law. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Venue is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Appellees are state government officials and
Appellant lives within this district. Respectfully, Appellant is hereby appealing the
following Court orders; ECF 57 entered on May 10, 2017, ECF 85 entered on
November 29, 2017, and ECF 96 and Appellant is appealing the Court Judgement
3
STATEMENT OF PRESENTED ISSUES
1. Did the Court properly evaluate the Stipulated Agreement that Earley
signed while under Duress and Menace by the prosecutor John McKenna by
threatening to charge $20,000 dollars for each day to fight the case, removing
Earley’s legal defense and concealing confidential informant and video evidence?
2. With respect to the Res Judicata, did the Court properly evaluate the
evidence Earley submitted to the Court showing the hearing was unsupported, the
evidence contrary to the law, forensic, video, retaliation, duress, and concealing
Authority which is not consistent with the United States Supreme Court? Do
Judges who violate their oath of office, not registering their oath properly and
timely, and not having Surety or Bribery Bonds, are these offices considered
vacant and can their authority be challenged for violating the Constitution?
officers from obtaining convictions using false statements and evidence? Did the
Court properly deny Earley’s request to amend complaint, recuse judge, request for
4
I. ARGUMENT
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE VITAL EVIDENCE
B. The DOJ Prosecutors and Lawyers Concealed Police and DOJ Misconduct
From State and Federal Courts
The law, with respect to a prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence
to a defendant is very clear. The United States Supreme Court made this obligation
officers. The wrongdoing in suppression of evidence does not come until there is
intent to keep relevant evidence from being available for trial. See In re Luce, 83
Cal. 303, 23 P. 350 (1890); In re Chadsey, 141 App. Div. 458, 126 N.Y.S. 456
The evidence is clear that appellant walked into the Administrative Hearing
with a plethora of factual and valid charges against the appellees for misconduct,
including but not limited to: (i). A certified letter asking the Governor to
complaint sent to the DCA demanding them to investigate and punish defendants
5
In addition, a prosecutor’s failure to disclose material exculpatory
invalid. Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Brown, 17
Cal.4th 873, 879-880 (1998); see also Tate v. Wood, 963 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1992).
however; there was absolutely no disclosures made about their own unlawful
misconduct, some included felonies and other violations of the law. In addition,
they also failed to mention that their prosecutor, John McKenna, harassed appellant
by threatening and charging $20,000 dollars a day, for each day that he decided to
stay and fight the bogus charges. [(ABE – 06/21/17) pg.3 ln.5].
accused, however; discovery request were properly made. United States v. Agurs,
427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). The Attorneys Duty to the Court against Concealment,
to allow fraud to be committed upon the Court. The amount of evidence withheld
advise the court of matters which were relevant to a proper decision was seen in
Sullins v. State Bar. 15 Cal. 3d 609, 542 P.2d 631, 125 Cal. Rptr. 471 (1975), cert.
denied, 425 U.S. 937 (1976). The appellees conduct is contrary to Sullins v. State
6
II. ARGUMENT
THE RES JUDICATA IS SIMPLY NOT VALID
The appellees argument with respect to the res judicata is without merit and
with respect to Zackery Morazzini; California Courts have ruled that only an initial
action may be precluded from the second proceeding under the collateral estoppel
Zackery Morazzini had no “initial action” and therefore his defense must be
“Affidavits” and competent testimony affirming that Morazzini got one of his
workers out of the Government section of the DOJ, where he was a Supervisor,
along with his co-worker at the Office of Administrative Hearings, and they all
committed perjury and made intentional false statements to a federal judicial body.
assess a penalty to procure a plea under duress, in direct violation of the law and he
7
also failed to impose the Court’s Administrative penalty that is legislatively
prescribed to him and not McKenna. See In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 412, 415.)
The Courts have upheld that decisions of an administrative agency will not
continue and spread inside of the Administrative Court. Eliana, Betty, Arcelia, and
the clinic manager Evelyn made valid complaints of false statements and
cops [(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.56-59]. These acts are clearly contrary to the law.
The Judge disallowed appellant’s Motion in Limine that he knew was full of
tainted evidence and forensics [(RJN – 08/18/2017) – pg.9-17)]. The Judge also
removed appellants representative with less than 3 weeks before trial. Morazzini is
the boss and he committed perjury, clearly reflective of the OAH’s vision and trust.
8
III. ARGUMENT
AN EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
EXCEPTION EXISTS
and allowing police officers to violate federal laws is one of them. Ogo Associates
v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 830, 834 [112 Cal. Rptr. 761].
The exhaustion doctrine provides this exception; that when the subject of the
OAH and all the administrative judges, a supposed neutral body that the DOJ
because he got the complaint letter from the Governor and instructed his office to
retaliate. Exceptions also exist when an agency cannot grant an adequate remedy.
Endler v. Schutzbank, 68 Cal. 2d 162, 168 [65 Cal. Rptr. 297, 436 P.2d 297].
9
The appellees were accused of violating a myriad of State and Federal
statutes prior to the Administrative Hearings held in April of 2016. Some of these
documented violations included, but were not limited to: [ See (ABE – 06/21/17) ]
unlawful violations of the law, 518 PC, and then the prosecutor and judge,
attorney that had 3 weeks to evaluate over 3,000 documents, and he said, “If we
keep bringing-up the ‘Police Corruption’ the judge is not going to like it!”
Appellant was faced with a very difficult position due to police and
prosecutorial criminal violations of the law being integrated with the OAH. There
was also death threats and just a lot of negative stuff going on. Billy Earley
realized that the OAH was not the “Platform” to identify or to complain about
Police Corruption. Appellant also feared for his family safety and the law states
would result in irreparable harm. Greenblatt v. Munro, 161 Cal. App. 2d 596, 605-
10
For this reason, the guilty plea was obtained through “coercion, terror,
due process. See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S.
487 (1962); Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1454 (9th Cir. 1995). “[P]leas
[cannot stand].” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472,
Appellant wrote the appellees a certified letter right after the hearings and
informed them that he was under duress. [(OC – 10/31/16) pg.43-44]. The OAH
states that it is a fair hearing process but in actuality, it is under the control of the
DOJ and headed by one of its top officials, Morazzini, who also engaged in
The People of the United States of America have very little confidence in the
Department of Justice and many of their top officials have been fired or demoted.
Appellant identified 6 corrupt police officers working for appellees and factual
evidence provided to the Ninth Circuit shows that they will not investigate any
privileged relationship. Forget about the Constitution and the Peoples’ Rights!
11
IV. ARGUMENT
ALL OF THE JUDGES ARE WITHOUT OATHS OF OFFICE
INCLUDING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
D. The Supreme Court Law Rules The Land and the Judges’ Lack Authority,
otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall
take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of
office certified by the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the
time required as follows: (1) The oath of all officers whose authority is not limited
The procedural history and evidentiary fact shows that the Superior Court
Judge Andrew Birotte, the Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, the Administrative Court
Judge Adam Berg, and the California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, are all in
violation of the California Constitution and the United States Supreme Court
Constitution of America. They have no surety bonds on file and this is like a
They also are all in violation of Government Code 1770, which provides in
part, “An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events
12
before the expiration of the term: (i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her
The Appellees, in their response to this Court contend that the Oath of
Office that is required by the California Constitution and the United States
Constitution is trivial and no need to worry. This is outrageous and a slap in the
face for the Great Men that has come to the aid of this Country. In light of their
intentional crimes, perjury, corrupt evidence, bad police and crooked prosecutors
steering the system against the Constitution, all Jurisdiction must be voided
and its provisions are to be upheld against all legislation. In Katzberg v. Regents of
University, California, 29 Cal. 4th 300 (2002) the Court reminded us that “Article
13
V. ARGUMENT
BILLY EARLEY'S FATHER WAS BEATEN BY APPELLEES
E. The Defendants Threatened Appellant and they also Threated His Family at
Appellant was under extreme duress, menace, and economic duress, which
involved threatening 20,000 dollars a day by the prosecutor, a wrongful act that is
Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 631, 644; Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton
Development, Inc. (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 1154, 1158. The Administrative Judge
enabled the threats and retaliation to stand because she was informed.
The appellant had no way of getting a fair hearing; this was an environment
where lawlessness, corrupt evidence, bad cops, and the prosecutor had concealed a
Appellant’s family, wife, kids, and his father were the victims of a vicious
attack launched by the appellees. On August 21, 2016, at approximately 8:00 pm.
Three (3) armed individuals took appellant’s family hostage, one of them, beat
appellant’s 78-year-old father with a pistol, sending him to the hospital for 3
weeks, inside an intensive care unit. See Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit A.
14
Three masked individuals with guns, held them to the heads of appellant’s
wife and two small children. They told appellant’s wife, “We are here investigating
your husband Doctor Billy for selling prescription drugs!” The leader said, “We
work for the DEA and the Police Department,” and had plastic tie-downs cuffs.
Under gun-point, they took appellants wife and two small children upstairs
and made them lay face down on the bed. One of the individuals went into the
room where appellant’s father was sleeping and he beat him with his gun
repeatedly. They then forced everybody into the restroom and appellant’s wife
heard the leader say, “Why did you beat him, we were not supposed to do that!”
The appellant was suing CVS and Walgreens for slander and discrimination.
They told hundreds of patients that appellant was not licensed and he was under
DEA investigation, dating back to 2012. They were also telling patients that
appellant should be locked-up in jail. Who was saying this? The pharmacy workers
at hundreds of CVS stores, not just in California, but to doctors all over the U.S.
new Drug Czar, the evidence became clear. CVS Health paid over 60 percent of
the funding to pass the Tom Marino Bill, which Chief Administrative Judge John
Mulrooney, wrote, “The Tom Marino Bill was the best possible legislation written
to weaken the United States Controlled Substance Act harmless against the drug
distributors and Big Pharma.” The legislation was written by the DEA itself.
15
The article, “The Triumph Over The DEA” a joint investigation by 60
Minutes and the Washington Post revealed that CVS started to control the DEA in
2009 and the Tom Marino Bill was written by the Chief of the DEA, David Barber.
After the bill was passed, 63 Top DEA officials switched sides with Big Pharma.
appellant’s lawsuit against CVS. The attorney, Lee Durst and is paralegal
questioned the DOJ prosecutor and the lead investigator Veronica Alva, numerous
times. See [(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.31,¶3]. DOJ and Medical Board following
lawsuit against CVS and gave it to their expert witnesses [(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.48].
Then, on November 11, 2014, appellant’s clinic was broken into by the
appellees. The attorney Lee Durst and his Paralegal came to the clinic the next day
and it was determined that the individual(s) who broke into the clinic had
knowledge of the alarm system. Nothing was taken but they searched for the chart
that the Forensic Report showed was tampered, Tosha Tomas, the undercover cop.
[(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.30,¶1] and See Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit B.
The attorney Lee Durst started connecting the dots and he knew that
appellees were engaged in corruption; a fact that is very well known today. The
attorney contacted the Corona police sergeant and they said the sergeant was
shaky. Shortly afterwards, in 2015 and 2016, the appellant received death threats
from the appellees and his former attorney also received death threats as well.
16
Billy Earley walked away from the Administrative Hearings because his
family feared for their safety. Appellant obtained a FOIA from the DOJ and it
showed his home and father was being watched by the DEA during the time
unsuspecting people with wealth, success, and color. These corrupt government
employees are controlled by special interest groups; like CVS who controls the
DEA, CDC, Congress, and the Medical Boards. Anytime a crooked police can alter
evidence in front of the camera and the judge does nothing, this signals corruption.
THE APPELLANT DID NOT JUST WALK OUT OF THE COURT WITH
DC and abroad regarding this type of callus and cruel misconduct that the DOJ is
doing to its citizens in California and other states. There is also no way to “report”
these police crimes and when a Citizen Complaint is made, they “retaliate” by
sending the Confidential Complaint to the perpetrators for the sole purpose of
inciting harm and injury. DOJ and State Police Corruption cannot be allowed to
17
VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW
unfavorable contract. The party subjected to the coercive act, and having no
reasonable alternative, can then plead ‘economic duress’ to avoid the contract.”
still requires a "wrongful" act. California courts have recognized "wrongful" acts
sufficient to find economic duress to include bad faith threats to institute civil
bargaining power and a greater willingness to not enforce agreements which were
entered into under coercive circumstances. Rich & Whillock, Inc., supra, 157
Cal.App.3d at p. 1158.
The Court has unanimously ruled that the exhaustion doctrine is inapplicable
18
"Due process does not require any particular form of notice or method of
Funeral Directors, 13 Cal. 2d 75, 80-81 [87 P.2d 848]; CEEED v. California
Coastal Zone Conservation Comm., 43 Cal. App. 3d 306, 329 [118 Cal. Rptr.
315].)
The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that
allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when
someone acting “under color of” state-level or local law has deprived a person of
that hears cases involving unemployment compensation, Medicaid and other public
benefits, public space, rent control, professional and business licenses, and
Federal laws address police misconduct including both criminal and civil
statutes. The law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to
by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. § 14141). It is a crime
for one or more persons acting under color of law to deprive or conspire to deprive
another person of any rights created by the Constitution. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).
19
CONCLUSION
proving Billy Earley was wrongfully charged, and when they were asked to
For the foregoing reasons, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should
reverse all rulings in favor of Appellant, Grant Appellant relief sought, or Remand
Billy Z. Earley
2144 Wembley Lane
Corona, California 92881
_______________________________
Billy Z. Earley
20
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 5,205 words, excluding the parts of the
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface using Microsoft Word
Billy Z. Earley
2144 Wembley Lane
Corona, California 92881
_______________________________
Billy Z. Earley
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BILLY Z. EARLEY
Appellees-Defendants,
________________________________
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.