Archive for the ‘crimes’ Category

“neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who they think actually pose a threat to them”

August 25, 2015
“neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who they think actually pose a threat to them. So the fact that you are here and not gitmo, some yukon cell, or six feet under ALONE should tell you that they jut don’t give a damn about what you think.” This is what I received when I was posting on Yahoo message board about my story of being racially persecuted by Canada and US governments. He further goes on to tell me that those Defendants of my human rights case would rather “get rid of you” in stead of “having to face your endless lawsuits”. The poster stated he is an American. He spoke in such a certainty and such an open and blatant way, that I am sure he must be a government insider. The US government never denied my allegation the poster is a US government agent.
All law enforcement agencies in the US refuse to investigate this death threat against me. So, while I became a criminal only for being coerced by the Canadian government to testify my thoughts that “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too”, the agent goes scot free for threatening to kill me and disappear me by the US government, blatantly in public. And while my testimony at the human rights tribunal was guaranteed immunity from prosecution under the Constitution, there is nothing at the US laws that can allow the poster to evade prosecution for his death threats. I sued the US law enforcement authorities. The court ruled the application of criminal laws in US is an absolute free choice/discretion of government agents, so it is LEGAL for the US law enforcement authorities to deny protection of criminal justice to colored persons like me. This is the so called “legal discrimination”.
Yet the UN’s human rights bodies endorses such a discrimination for US and Canada, literally  offering them the “impunity of human rights violations”. Because the UN refuses to even acknowledge the receipt of my human rights complaint against Canada and the US.

Criminalized for the Concept of Beauty P4

March 6, 2015

Part 4: Criminalized for the concept of beauty.

 

This part maybe particularly interesting to those Asians/Chinese who fantasize about marrying into the Whites to gain memberships of the privileged class. Probably the biggest mistake I ever made in my case is that I, from my Chinese cultural perspective, believed that marriage means acceptance and respect of the spouse including her/his ethnic background, so that I trusted a White professor James Cahill of UC Berkeley, who married a Chinese woman and chose him as an “expert” for the academic dispute involved in my human rights case. But the outcome proves that an inter-racially married White person may not be free of racism, and even worse, may harbor even more racial bias and contempt on the Asian/Chinese than the ordinary American Whites, like this White professor Cahill who willfully took a part in the conspiracy to persecute me a Chinese student.

I wish that I had never worked in Royal Ontario Museum, because it was in there I learned about Cahill’s marriage to a Chinese woman when those Whites there made this old man marring a Chinese woman of 27 years’ his junior a laughing stock in my presence. My story is a wake up call to all Chinese/Asians: we have to rely on our own struggle to advance ourselves.

At the time, my term paper for Waterhouse’s course was also in dispute because I claimed that the grade (B) Waterhouse gave to my paper did not fairly reflect the academic merits of my paper, but was caused by Waterhouse’s retaliation and his prejudice that “poor Chinese still want to claim historical inventions.” According to the university’s policy, any such dispute shall be resolved by an “external rereading” by experts in the field, but the university was unable to reach an agreement with me, for I disagreed with the way the university proposed everything, believing the method would enable them to choose candidates not objective to me.

The OHRC then took over the re-evaluation of my paper on the terms of U of T’s policy, and asked me to designate two experts and university professors in Chinese art history to reread my paper.

I chose two professors, one was Professor Sullivan from the UK, and the other was James Cahill, in the Chinese Art History Department at the University of California, Berkeley. They both are renowned professors, and also, both were married to Chinese women, which I believed, would make them not racist. Professor Sullivan got married to a Chinese woman decades ago. At first, I had little hesitation on Cahill, since Cahill had only recently married his current wife, a student of his from mainland China, 27 years’ his junior, and since once in the class, Waterhouse told us that James Cahill, although famous, “not all his works were done by himself”, implying that his students should take the credit. Nevertheless, I thought even if that meant that his morals might be in issue, but one thing is certain that Cahill would not have some kind of personal connection with Waterhouse. Little did I know…

The Commission sent a clean copy of my term paper to these two experts along with the course evaluation criteria that Waterhouse pre-set for the course. It was made very clear to the experts that the re-reading must be independent, objective and confidential as the U of T’s external re-reading policy requires.

On November 22, 1994, Cahill called the OHRC officer in charge of my case, Alan Strojin, and commented that my paper was “Quit good”, as quoted by Strojin in his telephone message to me. When I called back, Strojin told me that although Cahill gave an oral evaluation of my paper as “Quite good”, he was reluctant to give a written grade as he was supposed to do, and said he would not get involved in an unknown situation, as he himself had problems with some of his Chinese students before as well. I was not surprised by that since Waterhouse already told us in class that Cahill exploited the intellectual products of his Chinese students to get his fame.

Cahill then inquired about the situation surrounding my paper at the OHRC. Strojin told me that he “briefly informed” Cahill about my human rights complaint against Waterhouse at the OHRC. This was in violation of the U of T’s re-reading confidential rule that for external re-reading of student works, the circumstances surrounding the paper can not be disclosed to the re-reader. Cahill then requested to get a copy of waterhouse’s article in dispute from the OHRC, and said it would be the most interesting thing that he would do at his retirement, (months after, he retired from the UC Berkeley.)

 

The OHRC decided to send Waterhouse’s article to Cahill, despite of my objection for reason of the University policy. I then requested that I make a written submission to be sent out together with Waterhouse’s article to describe my dispute with Waterhouse in the class on the concept of beauty. Although little alarmed about Cahill’s admitted problems with his Chinese students, I still trusted Cahill’s ethics as a scholar and his compassion for me because of his marriage formed bond to the Chinese. I also did not have other choices since Strojin told me that he had never heard back from the other expert Professor Sullivan of UK.

 

In April of 1995, Cahill faxed his written Opinion to Strojin, and then Strojin called me from Hamilton to tell me about it. When Strojin read it to me, I was totally shocked because Cahill’s oral assessment of my paper “Quit good” now became a low B grade, and at the first beginning of his opinion, Cahill himself already openly acknowledged the change and its cause that “At the beginning, when I thought it was simply a matter of assessing the paper and saying what I thought a fair grade would be, the matter seemed fairly straight forward. Of course the basic issue is still that. But some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the paper and the grade certainly complicates the matter.” This is a confession of the change of his assessment – political consideration upon my human rights Complaint.

 

Cahill further deliberately disclosed in this Opinion that he had acquired even very detailed knowledge and supposedly confidential information on the disputes on my paper, clearly implying that behind my back, in violation of the university’s re-reading rules, he had already made intimate exchange of information with U of Toronto or even Waterhouse himself.

 

For example, Cahill himself clearly indicated in the Opinion his detailed knowledge about Waterhouse’s viewpoints on my paper: “from P’s viewpoint…”, (“P” denoted Waterhouse, “S” for the student, as Cahill made clear in the Opinion); “from the instructor’s point of view…”. Obviously there was an intimate exchange of information between the U of T and Cahill. And, not only was the grade B that he gave to my paper consistent with that of Waterhouse, so were his reasons for giving the grade – mainly for my “poor English”. This violated the University’s grading policy that evaluation of student works should be based on the assessment criteria pre-set for the course, but English fluency level was not required by the criteria pre-set by the course instructor Waterhouse.

 

At the same time, in his opinion Cahill also commented on Waterhouse’s article and my dispute with Waterhouse. In the face of Waterhouse’s own written admission to me at the end of our dispute on the concept of beauty “Here I have to agree with your findings”, Cahill found that I “misunderstood” Waterhouse’s theory because of my poor English, without giving any explanation as to how I actually misunderstood it; and contrary to what I misunderstood, what Waterhouse really meant in English when he described in his article that the concept of beauty is one “we can safely identify as a European concept”.

 

In finding that I misunderstood Waterhouse, Cahill could only give out the reason as that I “quotes P as saying things I can’t imagine he did, since they also don’t make sense”, although in fact, what I quoted is black and white in Waterhouse’s paper.

 

As if a well tailored design, on basically every issue that he concluded against me in his Opinion, Cahill would at the same time acknowledge that he was in fact fully aware of the truth contrary to his conclusion.

 

For instance, for my paper, while blaming my “poor English”, Cahill also says: “in spite of having attained an admirable degree of proficiency for a non-native user”; while blaming my citation problems etc., Cahill says “As for S’s paper: it is a very ambitious piece of work, with notable strengths; a good mind is clearly at work here. Good points are made, and valuable insights expressed.”

 

This was an admission of a deliberate wrong doing by Cahill that he did the wrong thing despite he actually knew it was contrary to the truth, and that he did it for a political/racial purpose. It appears that Cahill had close connections with the Chinese, but that doesn’t mean he treats the Chinese people as his equals. Using his Chinese students’ works to get ahead in the Chinese art history field, marrying a Chinese woman a 27 years’ of his junior, having 2 half Chinese blooded young twin kids…means not only nothing to him, but perhaps even giving him more contempt on the Chinese since he could so easily exploit the Chinese, using the power of his position and as a White man. When it comes to a conflict between the Chinese and the Whites that he identifies himself with, he can do anything to ambush the Chinese, perhaps even including his own Chinese spouse. Yet I made a mistake to assume from my Chinese cultural perspective that a marriage is based on at least the respect to the ethnic background of one’s own spouse.

 

Further, this admission by Cahill was to serve a purpose – to provoke my rage using such flagrant disregard of any decency as a scholar and such blatant racism, in order to set me up for criminal prosecution. As the evidence shows that, Cahill, U of T and the OHRC had already planned the outcome of this re-reading and dismissal of my case together, and particularly prepared for my devastated reaction together, for they already knew I had already been very devastated and might get emotional.

 

16 days before Cahill’s opinion was completed, the lawyer for U of T Margot Blight wrote a letter to OHRC, in expecting the devastating shock that I could feel, asked the Commission to take precaution to give U of T advanced notice before the release of Cahill’s Opinion, for Liao “might react negatively to the release of your report and/or the release of her mark for the course”, and she “urged Alan STROJIN to take steps to have a physician available when the final result is made to her”.

 

Indeed, their plan worked. When I was informed by the OHRC officer Strojin over the phone about Cahill’s opinion and that this Opinion would “stand at the Commission” so that my case would be dismissed, I was overwhelmed with rage and disbelief, so that I began to panic and cry. When Strojin asked me at this point “what are you going to do now?” I burst out: “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them too…”.

 

One hour later after this conversation, I called back Strojin to apologize for my emotional break down, and claimed that I would have to challenge Cahill’s Opinion as it was apparently biased. Strojin encouraged me, suggesting I could use the fact that Cahill had problems with his own Chinese students. Following that I made further move to send Strojin faxed letter, and made phone calls to assert my objection to Cahill’s Opinion on the grounds that it was apparently biased.

 

I received no response from OHRC to my objection. The only thing happened to me next was that I was arrested by the police for Uttering Death Threats against Waterhouse on May 10th, since Strojin behind my back informed the U of T on April 26 that I had made death threats to Waterhouse. Immediately at my arrest, a bail condition was imposed on me that I “can not initiate any contact with any member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission”.

 

Since the alleged target of my threats was not any one of the Commission, and since I had made similar angry expressions previously to Strojin but never got even a warning, this bail condition and the criminal prosecution itself clearly had an immediate political purpose: to forbid me to pursue my challenge to Cahill’s Opinion at the OHRC and to insist that the OHRC obtain the other expert’s opinion, so that the conspirators can assure the standing of Cahill’s Opinion at the OHRC.

 

My pursuit of my human rights case at OHRC was successfully cut off by this prosecution, so that the OHRC never needed to respond to the problem that I raised for Cahill’s Opinion, and to obtain the other expert’s opinion as the all parties agreed re-reading condition required. The OHRC then conveniently dismissed my complaint based on Cahill’s Opinion in 1997.

The “Expert Opinion” by James Cahill, Chinese art history professor, University of California

Criminalized after disputing “beauty is a European concept” Part III

January 22, 2015

Until today when I’m posting my story online, I still get some Whites to tell me by email or message: Mind you, beauty is a European concept.

Don’t get fooled by their “free speech” talking. This is not about free speech, it’s about racism, & White supremacy. In the West, you may need to be White to tell a White professor that his theory “beauty is a European concept” is incorrect. Unfortunately me, not White but did so, and got criminalized.

After I was fired by U of T from my cafeteria position, I applied for unemployment insurance, but it was running out and I was unable to locate a job, because of lack of “Canadian experience” as my Canadian experience had only been as a student, and I was not skilled for the job market, I could not find even a cleaning or baby sitting job though I had registered with many domestic employment agencies (keep in mind, this was during the peak of the serious economic recession in Canada with a 17% unemployment rate). At one point, there was only a double digit balance in my back account; at one time there were only $27 dollars. I panicked.

At the same time, the Commission appeared very positive, I was advised that they accepted my filing of a formal complaint even before I had exhausted the University’s internal appeal channels, as an exception to their regular practice. In July of 1994, I was advised that the Commission made a decision that my case be sent to the Commission’s Hamilton/Niagara Office for “expedite handling” since there was no “back logged cases.” It gave me great hope and confidence about my case at the Commission, since I had never requested an “expedite handling,” and had not even contacted the Commission for quite a while.

So I began to view the OHRC as my only hope to survival, and began to pursue my case vigorously.

Initially, when I filed the complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), I was cautious at the OHRC. In its Toronto office, an officer drafted my Complaint for me, and asked me for something about my supervisor professor, I declined to answer. The officer then told me about the Commission’s “confidentiality rule,” and that I had the duty to tell the Commission everything true – “everything you tell the Commission is only between you and the Commission.” When I came out, I took an OHRC’s pamphlet and did find that in it. I later telephone consulted a legal practitioner, and learned that I must answer a legal tribunal’s questioning as a witness by law, and that my testimony could not be used against me in anyway, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights. So I began to answer all the Commission’s questions freely.

In the OHRC’s Hamilton Office, my case was assigned to an investigator, Allan Strojin. In our first conversation over the phone on October 21, 1994, he asked me what I lived on, I told him my situation and said I probably would not be able to survive, and cried. He then asked, “what are you going to do if your case can’t be resolved at the Commission?” I answered: “then I’m going to die.”

Strojin comforted me and advised me that I should be eligible for social assistance, which I never knew about as a foreign student. I immediately investigated and confirmed that, and later after the UI I did receive social assistance. I felt the Commission rescued me during a time of extreme devastation and panic, and was particularly grateful to Strojin for that.

What I said was only an honest answer to the question of the Commission’s officer. It was only out of temporary agitation. I only knew that everything I said to the Commission was “confidential,” which was also confirmed to me by Strojin, so I could not have formed any intent to “threaten” Waterhouse. Such agitated expressions were not uncommon, as Strojin later testified at trial that he had regularly witnessed the human rights complainants before the OHRC saying similar things.

Then Strojin, as if out of sympathy, befriended me by sharing with me his background and family matters, etc. He told me that he, as a mix of being Native Indian and White, resented the racist brutality encountered by his people in history, and in his own family history. He educated me about racism in Canada which I as a foreign student barely had any knowledge of. When I said I was going to write a book entitled “The Concept of Beauty” about my experience to reveal this hypocritical Western democracy, Strojin gave me positive comment and added he would write a “Preface” to my book to tell the immigrant-wannabes not to feel like the grass is always greener on the otherside”. At one point, when the U of T offered to settle with me with $5,000 for compensation and I hesitated, Strojin encouraged me to go on with my case at the OHRC, saying that they thought your life was only worth $5,000. I therefore decided to reject the offer and continue with my case.

Part II. Criminalized for Disputing the theory that “beauty is a European concept” by Canada and USA

December 29, 2014

Part II

As a result of Waterhouse’s retaliation, my application to the Ph.D program was rejected by the Department. Under the University’s policy, such intentional violation of grading policy and regulations would subject Waterhouse to serious sanctions. But since I was a racial minority student, and Waterhouse a member of the White privileged class, the University of Toronto, later joined by the whole justice system and another White American professor, geared up to cover up for Waterhouse and persecute me for complaining against Waterhouse.

After I lost my Ph.D application, I began to complain against Waterhouse’ racist reprisal to the University and requested the wrongs to be corrected and apology from Waterhouse. In this process I discovered from the Department the basic facts of Waterhouse’s fraud over my grade, etc., as mentioned above . When I questioned Waterhouse in a meeting with him, he admitted: “Yes I did.” But later he asserted it was an “innocent mistake”, and denied that he retaliated against me saying I misunderstood his theory. In covering up for Waterhouse, the university administration denied my right to access to my student file to find out what Waterhouse exactly did to me, which was my right under university policy.

In the department, all Asian professors eventually withdrew from sitting at the departmental appeal committee to hear my appeal, so finally it was the only one White professor who signed the decision to reject my appeal. Then an all White professors’ University’s Appeal Committee heard my appeal. They listened to my story so tentatively, and all of them so vigorously blamed Waterhouse who also attended the meeting. Waterhouse was grossly outraged and argued with them very angrily to defend himself, saying another Asian student also alleged he was racist, and that “we” are too tolerant for “them” to play race card. So it was totally to my astonishment when I received their decision to reject my appeal.

At the time, I was a part time student, since I was also part time working to support myself and pay the tuition fees. I worked on a full time well paid summer job in the East Asian department of the Royal Ontario Museum, which is affiliated with the East Asian Studies Dept. of the U of T. Because of my well appreciated work, I had been notified that I would be the only student to be hired back for next summer. Then during my appeal process, one day Waterhouse as if very casually asked me if I had worked in the Museum. I confirmed that. Soon I received a letter from the Museum that informed me that I would not be hired back. This was obviously a reprisal from Waterhouse. I was very upset, and brought a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in 1993.

In the meantime I had been working for years on a part counter help time job in a university cafeteria on campus. As my complaint continued at the OHRC, I was fired by the university from this job without any explanation or notice. I lost all my income sources all together and could not find another job, since it was in a time of the most serious economic recession in Canada in its recent history. Without income I had to drop out of the school, and faced with question of survival.

I then rushed back to the OHRC to continue my Complaint, which I had already basically stopped pursuing after filing it with the Commission. The Commission then became the only hope of survival to me, and initially it did give me a lot of help and support.

However, in my back the Commission already began to conspire with the U of T to suppress my Complaint.

As I later discovered, the U of T and the Commission were already exchanging drafts of an agreement regarding “the final result” of my case in my back. During the investigation process, the OHRC obtained my academic file at the U of T, but declined to disclose to me the info in my file regarding what had transpired at U of T about the grade etc. Also, although the OHRC had conducted a series of investigative interviews with key witnesses of the fake grade at the university – the then department Chair, Graduate Coordinator, etc., it refused to disclose to me any interview results.

So until now, what Waterhouse did to me in his reprisal is still a secret, only partially known to me based on the materials available to me.

How I was criminalized for thought by the racist justice system

November 30, 2014

I believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully shot, because I know from my own experience that the criminal justice system is racist and brutal. How many racial minorities have been the victims of the American and Canadian justice systems? So many of the innocent minorities have been shot dead or turned into criminals.

I, for one, was criminalized when I was a graduate student at University of Toronto. My alleged crime of threats to a White professor was my words: “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too.” which was my testimony before the Ontario Human Right Commission. To my argument that this was conditional and my right to self-defence, judge Knazan who convicted me said conditional threat was still a threat. I argued I never mentioned the U of T White professor David Waterhouse’s name, Knazan said he could “guess” that I “meant” Waterhouse in my mind. So I became a criminal just for my thoughts in my mind, and on basis of a judge’s guess. I further contested that my testimony was at the Commission, in reply to its questioning, and the Commission forced me to testify initially when I rejected, so under Canadian Charter of Rights, I have the right against self-incrimination, not to be prosecuted for my testimony. But Knazan said that law could not apply to my case, no reason provided as to why.

All of these happened to me only because I had academically proved to the White professor Waterhouse that the concept of beauty was not only a “European concept” in history as in his view point, but Asians and other people of colors all had it, and complained to a human rights tribunal against the professor’s unlawful retaliations.

Black men been mass incarcerated in US? Because law enforcement in US is discretion/choice based on race

April 19, 2012

Why are Black men been mass incarcerated in US? It’s because, as the US court just told me, the law enforcement in US is discretion/choice based, not merely violation-of-law based as the ordinary people believe. The court did not tell me what forms the basis for law enforcement agencies’ discretion, but my extensive experiences with the US and Canadian criminal justice system as a Chinese immigrant tell you this choice or discretion is based on race of the alleged crime perpetrators.

 In my case, the crime perpetrators are Whites or their non-Whites compliances. So the US court now told me I have no right to require the FBI etc. law enforcement agencies to investigate my criminal allegations, because it is their choice, discretion, not their mandatory duty, to decide whether to investigate a criminal allegation. Apparently, when the alleged perpetrators are Blacks (not in compliances with Whites), the agencies decide to the opposite – to investigate and prosecute.

So the statistics of Blacks’ out of proportion incarcerate rate cannot simply prove Blacks really commit so much more crimes than Whites, since it might only be a result of the law enforcement agencies’ choice. This race based discretion/choice naturally is at least as one of the major contributing factors for Blacks’ mass incarceration. I totally agree with The New Jim Crow, the best contemporary book by Black author. Search for my name Wanxia Liao, my case # in US federal court: 11-2494.

The following is an excerpt of the federal judge’s order dismissing my case:

The Court concludes that Liao fails to state a claim for mandamus relief, because she has not alleged facts demonstrating that the alleged duty to act is “ministerial” in nature. See, e.g., Wrightman-Cervantes v. Mueller, 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80-81 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (dismissing claims for mandamus relief on basis that FBI’s decision to investigate crimes is a discretionary act); Terrell v. Attorney General of State of California, 1998 WL 574387, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 1998), aff’d 188 F.3d 515 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissing claims based on alleged failure by FBI to investigate allegations of civil rights violations, and noting that “[t]he court can find no binding authority requiring the FBI to investigate every complaint that it receives. To the contrary, courts have consistently described the FBI’s mandate as a ‘discretionary rather than mandatory authority.’”) (quoting Agunbiade v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 160, 163 (E.D.N.Y.1995)).

US government is sued for threats of death and forced disappearance by a Chinese immigrant

May 29, 2011

Wanxia Liao

Plaintiff

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WANXIA LIAO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;

ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of United States;

Stephanie Douglas, Special Agent in Charge for FBI San Francisco;

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, US Attorney for California;

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, US District Court judge;

PHYLLIS HAMILTON, US District Court judge;

KAY YU, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for State of California;

“JLM”, clerk to Defendant judge Armstrong;

QUELITA BOURGEOIS, Financial Technician for US District Court;

MOLLY DWYER, Clerk of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal;

MACON PHILLIPS, White House Director of New Media;

CNN;

WASHINGTON POST;

WALL STREET JOURNAL;

TOPIX.COM

Defendants

Case No.:

 

 

 

 

PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MADUMS;

 

COMPLAINT FOR

CONSTITUTIONL VIOLATIONS;

INDEPENDENT ACTION

FOR RELIEF FROM FRAUD

UPON THE COURT

 

 

 

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1.         [1 ] This is a Petition for Wright of Madams to compel the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and its criminal justice enforcement agency officials to perform their mandatory duty owed to me to investigate my criminal allegations against the criminal fraud and conspiracy against me in my civil rights case # 08-cv-02776, committed by the judicial officers in court and California State officials, namely, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, Judge Phyllis Hamilton, court clerk “jlm”, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for State of California, Kay Yu, and to investigate my criminal allegations against James Cahill, former professor of University of California for perjury and John Doe, the US government agent who posted death threat and threat of forced disappearance against me on Internet, etc.

2.         [2] This is an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant the United State of America (the US) has threatened me through its agent and is still continuing to threaten me with death and forced disappearance for my effort to publicize my human rights case against the US government on Internet, in violation of my right to security of life guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which the US has ratified.

3.         [3] This is an action for declaratory judgment that the US, through its agencies DOJ, FBI, US Attorneys, has deprived and still continue to deprive my constitutional right to equal protection by US criminal justice Laws for my human rights cases against the US for racial persecution, in that these criminal law enforcement agencies have refused and still continue to refuse to investigate felony crimes committed against me. The security of my life and liberty is at stake due to their racist suppression within the criminal justice system.

4.         [4] This is an action for damages brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed.2d 619 (1971) in which the DOJ officials, the US Attorney General Eric Holder, Stephanie Douglas, Special Agent in Charge for FBI San Francisco; And Joseph P. Russoniello, US Attorney for California are sued in their individual capacities for damages for violations of my constitutional rights to equal protection by US criminal justice laws as said in the preceding paragraph.

5.         [ 5 ]  This is an independent action pursuant to Rule 60 (b) of FRCP for relief from judgment entered in Case # 08-cv-02776 in US District Court for Northern District of California on basis of criminal fraud upon the Court committed by judges Armstrong, Hamilton, clerks of the federal courts “jlm”, and California State official Yu to create “procedural defects” through forgery of court documents, perjured evidences, etc. and dismiss my civil rights case on grounds of such fraudulent grounds.

6.         [ 6  ]This is an Independent Action pursuant to Rule 60 (b) of FRCP seeking relief for my case # 08-cv-02776 on ground of fraud upon the court against Quelita Bourgeois, Financial Technician of US District Court for Northern California for refusal to file my Independent Action for Relief from Fraud on May 11, 2010 on fraudulent basis.

7.         [ 7 ] This is an Independent Action pursuant to Rule 60 (b) of FRCP seeking relief on ground of fraud upon the court against Clerk Molly Dwyer of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal who dismissed my appeal for my case # 08-cv-02776 on a fraudulent ground regarding the payment of the appeal.

8.         [ 8 ] This is an action for damages brought pursuant to § 1983 US against Defendant Armstrong, Hamilton, Yu, “jlm”, Bourgeois, Dwyer, in their personal capacities for their conspiracy to commit criminal fraud and fraud upon the court in case # 08-cv-02776, in violation of § 1985 – interfere with my civil rights to due process and access to court.

9.         [9 ]  This action seeks a declaratory claim that the US government conspired with media Defendants CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Topix.com for an ongoing cover up against my Internet free speech to reveal the human rights violations against me by the US and Canadian governments, in violations of § 1985, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and First Amendment free speech right.

10.     [10 ] This action seeks monetary relief under § 1983 for damages resulted in from the § 1985 conspiracy as said in the preceding paragraph against the media Defendants to this action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11.     I am a citizen of Canada, the Defendants are citizens of US. The original jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1332. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), etc.

12.     Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to my claims occurred in this District.

JURY DEMAND

13.     I demand trial by jury in this action on each and every one of my claims.

PARTIES

Plaintiff:

14.     I, plaintiff of this case, WANXIA LIAO, am a citizen of Canada, immigrant from China. Currently reside in Toronto, Canada.

Defendants:

15.     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is named as Defendant in this action pursuant to Section 5 U.S.C. § 702;

US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE is an agency of the United States;

ERIC HOLDER is Attorney General of United States. He is sued in his official and individual capacities.

STEPHANIE DOUGLAS is the Special Agent in Charge for FBI San Francisco. He is sued in his official and individual capacities.

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO is US Attorney for Northern California. He is sued in his official and individual capacities.

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG is a judge of US District Court for Northern District of California. She is sued in her official and individual capacities.

PHYLLIS HAMILTON is a judge of US District Court for Northern District of California. She is sued in her official and individual capacities.

KAY YU is Deputy Assistant Attorney General for State of California. She is sued in her official and individual capacities.

“JLM” is clerk to Defendant judge Armstrong. He is sued in his official and individual capacities.

QUELITA BOURGEOIS is a Financial Technician for US District Court Northern California. S/he is sued in her official and individual capacities.

MOLLY DWYER is Clerk of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. She is sued in her official and individual capacities.

MACON PHILLIPS is White House Director of New Media. He is sued in his official and individual capacities.

CNN is a US media corporation.

WASHINGTON POST is a US media corporation.

WALL STREET JOURNAL is a US media corporation;

TOPIX.COM is a US Website.

FACTS

General Background

16.     In 1991, When I was a Master student, I challenged a White professor Waterhouse’s White supremacy theory that beauty is a European concept and Asians did not have the concept in history. He lost and retaliated against me through a series of fraud and violations of the university rules. I complained to the University but was retaliated with a wrongful dismissal from my cafeteria position, causing me the loss of life’s means. I complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC).

17.     The OHRC organized a conspiracy joined by the U of T and an American government employee, UC professor James Cahill to prosecute me. When at first I declined to answer some of the Commission’s questions, the OHRC compelled me to testify “everything true” under a Canadian law that compels witnesses to testify, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty. Then the OHRC kept soliciting my replies as to what I was going to do if my case at the OHRC could be resolved. When I was fired by the U of T, I was devastated and vented my anger such as “if I die, not only me, die”.

18.     The prosecution was directly initiated in April of 1995 by Cahill’s Opinion on my paper in issue as “expert”. In it, while backing up Waterhouse, Cahill deliberately disclosed the conspiracy between the OHRC and him to dismiss my human rights Complaint by confessing his detailed exchange of information with U of T about my paper and human rights complaint background, and acknowledged his political consideration in the re-reading of my paper, etc.  Such a confession of conspiracy against my human rights case was purposed to provoke my anticipated rage as it did. Then the OHRC officer, when informing me about Cahill’s Opinion over the phone and told me my complaint would dismissed on the basis of Cahill’s Opinion and asked me: “What are you gonna do now?” Then he passed my angry crying “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too” to U of T party, charging me with a criminal offence of “Uttering Death Threat to Waterhouse”. I was convicted by a judge.

My Initial Criminal Complaint to DOJ

19.     In April of 2002, I filed a civil rights case against Cahill with the San Francisco Superior Court. In order to protect Cahill, the whole California state court system was organized by the government to suppress my Complaint to cover up for him. This even include the officers of the justice system committing crimes against me - the forgery of court summons by a California Superior Court Supervisor Maura Ramirez, that caused me to be accused of a “vexatious litigant” and barred from filing new actions in court and I had to dismiss my action voluntarily to maintain the possibility to re-file; the unlawful law practice of deceit and fraud by “Deputy Assistant Attorney General” of California, Kay Yu, etc., and even the judges of the courts, including the Court of Appeal, would commit unlawful conduct such as to fraud California laws. After voluntarily dismissing my action in the state court, I re-filed it in June of 2003 with US District Court for the Northern District of California.

20.     In the processes of my civil rights cases against him in federal court, on May 1, 2005, Cahill made a declaration under penalty of perjury for a question in issue – his absence periods from California in his residential history. This was the most crucial question decisively material to my case for reason of the tolling statute of limitations under s. 351 of California Code of Civil Procedures. Under penalty of perjury, Cahill made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements that concealed the most crucial material facts of he and his wife’s separate residential and employment histories, and falsified their residential and employment histories. The federal District Court dismissed my civil rights case against him based on these falsified facts in this Declaration.

21.     In the meanwhile, my another civil rights case in the same federal court against California courts judges and government officers was also dismissed by Judge Claudia Wilken by unlawful means – without even adjudicating most of my claims, etc.

22.     During the course of my civil rights cases, in order to break the US media publication ban on my case, I tried to publicize my story on Internet news groups. On December 19, 2005, while I was posting on Yahoo’s Message Board to reveal my case, I received a death threat that told me: “neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who they think actually pose a threat to them. So the fact that you are here and not gitmo, some yukon cell, or six feet under ALONE should tell you that they jut don’t give a damn about what you think. Your lawsuit isn’t some global conspiracy.” This poster was undoubtedly speaking for the US and Canadian governments and did so as a knowledgeable insider of the governments.

23.     Despite that all these crimes are all recorded on written documents, and all the facts so accurately match the descriptions of these offenses by the criminal laws of the US and Canada, the FBI and the US Department of Justice, the California San Francisco Police Department, the California District Attorney, all refused to investigate my complaints. In California, even the Grand Jury is in the tight control of the government, in that the Foreman was picked by the court, and the foreman controls what the other Grand Jurors would know, (in violation of California and US constitutions that provide a grand jury can only decide on a complaint as a whole by votes), and so the Foreman just simply made a personal decision not to investigate my complaint.

24.     From November 10, 2005, I began to file criminal complaints with the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, alleging criminal acts of US officials against my civil rights, that included California state judges’ fraudulent conducts, including the forgery committed by the court clerk in California courts. On November 28, 2005 the DOJ wrote to me to decline to investigate my Complaint.  It stated that “your complaint doe not involve a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes.”

25.     On June 20, 2006, I sent the Criminal Section a criminal complaint about threats to my security of life that I received on a Yahoo’s Message Board. However and I alleged that this poster must be a government insider.  I received a letter dated August 28, 2006 from DOJ, that again refused to investigate my complaint, for the same reason in the same sentence: “your complaint doe not involve a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes.”

26.     On June 22, 2006, I sent a complaint to the Office of US Attorney General, complained against the James Cahill, California state court clerk Maura Ramirez, California Deputy Attorney General Kay Yu, the poster threatening me on Yahoo’s Message Board, etc.

27.     On November 28, 2006, the Criminal Section wrote to me, informing me that my complaint to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dated on June 22, 2006 had been referred to the Criminal Section, and again, refused to investigate my complaint for the same conclusion in the same sentence: “your complaint doe not involve a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes.”

28.     On September 27, 2005, I filed a criminal complaint with the San Francisco FBI, alleging the same criminal acts as those I complained to the DOJ. I received no response.

29.     On June 14, 2006, I again sent a Complaint to FBI San Francisco, requesting investigation on  crimes committed by Cahill, and John Do (Yahoo ID: cpetr13) for federal crimes: (1) Perjury, in violation of Title 18, Section 1621 of USC; (2) False declarations before grand jury or court, in violation of Title 18, Section 1623 of USC;  John Doe (Yahoo ID: cpetr13) committed federal crime, in violation of Section 245 of the USC: Federally protected activities;  Michael Laurenson committed federal crimes: Subornation of perjury, in violation of in violation Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1622.

30.     On June 26, 2006, the then Acting Special Agent in Charge of FBI San Francisco, Arthur Balizan replied to my complaint and stated in his letter: “This is to acknowledge receipt of your letters dated February 9, 2006 and June 14, 2006, concerning a possible violation of your civil rights. The facts set forth in you letter do not constitute a federal civil rights violation, therefore, no investigation will be conducted.”

31.     I subsequently sent a number of inquiries to the FBI to ask for reconsideration but nothing was changed and no further reason was offered. I then complained to the Head of FBI Robert Mueller, but never received any response.

32.     In April, 2007, I sent Administrative Appeals to the US Attorney General, Civil and Criminal Division of the DOJ to appeal against their conduct on my complaints.

33.     In January 2008, I received a letter from the DOJ that rejected my appeal, stating:

(I)                “This is in response to your letter to the Department of Justice requesting an investigation of failure to investigate your complaints.

(II)             The Department of Justice, after reviewing your correspondence, has determined that the issues as presented do not warrant action by this office. From the information that you have provided, it appears that your concerns have already been submitted to the proper authorities. Consequently, we are unable to assist you at this time.”

34.     In February 2008, I wrote to DOJ again to ask for clarification on this letter, but never received a reply.

My Action Against the DOJ and the Crimes in District Court

 

35.     On Jun 4, 2008, I filed a civil action with US District Court for Northern District of California. (Case # 08-cv-02776) This is a constitutional, civil, and human rights case challenging the racially motivated refusals by United States government officials and California state officials to investigate my criminal complaints, and the conspiracy by federal justice administrative officials with the US major media to place a secret prior restraint on my Internet free speech about my human rights case without due process of law in purpose to cover up my human rights cases against the US, etc. By these unlawful acts, the Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated my rights to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, to free speech under the First Amendment, violated §1985 of USC for Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights, etc. The action seeks damages and declaratory relieves under Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code and other federal and California State statutes, etc. Defendants include the former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI and San Francisco Police Department officials, former Foreperson of SF Indictment Grand Jury, Deputy Attorney General of California Kay Yu, federal court judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, judge Claudia Wilken, County of San Francisco, CNN, youtube, etc.

36.     However, this case was dismissed by Hamilton, judgment entered on May 15, 2009. this was a fraudulently procured judgment, based on criminal frauds: the Defendants judges and clerk conspired to create a “failure to serve” Defendant Ashcroft through a series of violation of federal criminal laws. And based on this “procedural defect” Hamilton dismissed my Complaint with prejudice as against Ashcroft. Hamilton also dismissed my action with prejudice as against other Defendants merely for a fraudulent reason that I did not serve them by way of “first class mail with a signed return receipt” as indicated in California’s service rule, but in stead by way of registered mail.

37.     The case was assigned to US Magistrate Judge Edward Chen initially. On September 17, 2008, Kay Yu, Deputy Attorney General of California, who is also a Defendant to this case, filed a “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by John Ashcroft (Kay Yu)”. Also, on the “Attorney” info page of the docket, it was clearly indicated that Yu was attorney for Defendant Ashcroft.

38.     As an official court filing all this gave me the knowledge that Defendant John Ashcroft had appeared before the court, represented by Yu. This was vital information, since when a party appears before a court voluntarily, no service of process is needed to be done on him, so in this case, if Ashcroft had appeared before court voluntarily, I would not need to serve him with the process any more.

39.     Yet since Yu put a “Defendant”, not “Pro Se” below her signature in this Declination, and since Yu herself was also a Defendant party to this case, I did have doubt as to if she was actually representing Ashcroft or herself. My confusion was clearly shown in my Motion For Relief From Case Management Schedule And For Leave For Efiling filed on October 30, 2009:

a.       And so far it appears only Defendant John Ashcroft and Kay Yu have appeared in court. I have to serve the summons on the other Defendants, unless the court orders the otherwise.

40.     I was prepared to clarify the matter when I was to conduct the service of process on Defendants, yet on December 19, 2008, the then Presiding Judge Armstrong issued an Order, and made a factual statement:

a.       On September 17, defendant Ashcroft declined to proceed before a magistrate judge. See Docket No. 8.

41.     She then recounted this on her ruling on footnote 4:

a.       Liao also attempts to withdraw her declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Mot. At 3. Defendant Ashcroft, however, has declined to so proceed and Defendant CNN has not consented to so proceed.

42.     I then discarded my doubt and accepted that Defendant Ashcroft had filed the Declination, for I understood that nothing is more authoritative and binding than a court’s fact finding in a case to any party.

43.     On February 27, 2009, when I arranged the service of process to be conducted, I did not attempt to serve Ashcroft with the Summons and Complaint based on this knowledge of his appearance in court.

44.     On March 1, 2009, when I was drafting my Urgent Motion for Telephone Appearance, in order to “describe the procedural history of the case” as required by urgent motion rules, I printed out the most recent docket record to do the description, and to my astonishment I found the #8 docket entry had changed from previous “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by John Ashcroft (Kay Yu)” to “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by Kay Yu”.

45.     A comparison of the current docket record with the print out copy of the original docket record as I that I printed out on October 28, 2008 shows a difference: the old docket recorded that document #8 was filed on September 17, 2008 by John Ashcroft: “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by John Ashcroft”, yet the current docket records that document #8 was filed on September 17, 2008 by Kay Yu: “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by Kay Yu” (emphasis added). Apparently the current docket entry was altered and the alteration took place possibly on December 31, 2008, by court clerk “jlm” who was in charge of the docket at the time as clerk to the then presiding judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, since there was a note indicating “modified on 12/31/2009, jlm COURT STAFF”. This alteration was done while Armstrong was still presiding to my case, so apparently Armstrong was involved and “jlm” as her clerk, must have acted under her direction. Further, on the “Attorney” info page of the docket, the attorney for Defendant Ashcroft was also altered from Kay Yu as attorney for Defendant Ashcroft to Kay Yu as pro se, counsel for herself.

46.     However, all of these were changed without my knowledge since I was never served with the information by email or any other way; and apparently the ECF Help Desk was also not notified as there is no notice of correction made by the Help Desk in the docket regarding this change.

47.     On March 6, 2009, in my Urgent Motion for Telephone Appearance, I requested investigation on the transactions in the docket, and protested that I was not served with the alteration of the docket entry.

48.     On March 11, 2009, the then presiding judge Phyllis Hamilton (who was assigned to the case after Armstrong recused herself when I listed her as a Defendant to the action) issued 3 orders dismissing my Complaint “with prejudice” against most of the Defendants for “lack of service”, including Ashcroft for that I failed to make the service of process on him.

49.     In these three orders, Hamilton did not formally respond to the issues raised in my motion regarding the docket alteration, but only stated in a footnote as:

a.       Plaintiff asserted, in a request for default against John Ashcroft filed March 6, 2009, that Mr. Ashcroft appeared in this action on September 17, 2009, through California Deputy Attorney General Kay Yu, who filed a Declination to Proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge(Docket No. 8). It is true that Ms. Yu mistakenly indicated in the entry for Docket No. 8 that the declination was filed by Mr. Ashcroft. However, that error was corrected by the clerk’s office on December 31, 2008, ten days prior to the original deadline imposed on plaintiff by Judge Armstrong regarding the filing of the proof of service of the summons and complaint on all defendants. Moreover, the document filed at Docket No. 8 clearly indicates that it is the declination of Ms. Yu, and does not mention John Ashcroft.

50.     However, Hamilton failed to provide any material evidence here for her fact finding, such as witness testimonies, affidavits from the persons involved, description of the transaction process, etc.

51.     On April 10, 2009, I filed a Second Motion For Investigation On Changes In Docket Record, requesting:

a.       Judge Hamilton never formally addressed my Motion for Investigation as if I never filed one. She only briefly mentioned this change of the docket in a footnote of her Order on March 11, 2009, putting it off as a mistake by Kay Yu, and it was “corrected” by the Clerk’s Office of the Court. However, she totally failed to answer the following questions that I raised in this motion which are not related to whether the change of the docket record was a “mistake” or not. To disregard the issues raised by a litigant is a violation of her constitutional rights to raise issues to be resolved by the court. Therefore, this is my Second Motion for Investigation and for discovery. I request this court answer these unanswered questions:

52.     Which law permits the court to alter the document filing record of a party to a case on its own initiative?

53.     Even if this change was what Ashcroft and Yu intended, how did the court know their intention and would act on their behalf to do so for her?

a.       Does that mean the court is in fact an agent of the Defendants to this case?

54.     On April 16, Hamilton issued an order dismissing my Second Motion for Investigation:

a.       Plaintiff’s motion for investigation of changes in the docket is DENIED. As the court explained in its Order of Dismissal, filed March 11, 2009, the notation on the docket that California Deputy Attorney General Kay Yu had filed a declination on behalf of John Ashcroft was a clerical error. In addition, it is the filed document that controls, not the docket entry, and the filed document makes no mention of John Ashcroft.

b.

c.       The court notes further that plaintiff named Ms. Yu as a defendant in the present action, asserting claims based on Ms. Yu’s representation (as a Deputy California Attorney General) of California defendants in a prior lawsuit filed by plaintiff; and also named former Attorney General of the United States John Ashcroft as a defendant. Plaintiff is chargeable with the knowledge that Ms. Yu is a Deputy Attorney General of the State of California, who could not at any time have been representing a former United States Attorney General in an action based on actions taken while he held that position.

55.     On May 15, 2009, Hamilton entered Judgment in favor of all Defendants, including John Ashcroft.

56.     Felony federal crimes have been committed here:

a.       Defendant Saundra B Armstrong

57.     Saundra B Armstrong used her status as US District Court judge to falsify a material fact that Defendant Former US Attorney General John Ashcroft had filed a Declination to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge, in violation of USC §1001(a)(1) – False Statements.

58.     She did so knowingly and willfully because first, as a judge of the District Court, she could not have had no knowledge that, as Judge Hamilton indicated in her Order:

a.       Plaintiff is chargeable with the knowledge that Ms. Yu is a Deputy Attorney General of the State of California, who could not at any time have been representing a former United States Attorney General in an action based on actions taken while he held that position. (Hamilton Order on April 16, 2009)

59.     While as a foreign lay person, I could not have been “chargeable” with this knowledge (it is why I got confused about the filer of the Declination), Armstrong is certainly chargeable with such knowledge just like Hamilton, as she is also a District Court judge. Yet she consciously stated as a fact in her Order that Ashcroft had filed a Declination, making the impossible appear a fact, and a binding fact that was found by a judge.

60.     She could not have been confused by Yu’s mistaken docket entry and not aware of that, as Hamilton states in her Order: “it is the filed document that controls, not the docket entry, and the filed document makes no mention of John Ashcroft”.  I was confused only because I am a foreign lay person, yet Armstrong is a US District Court judge, who could not have been unaware of the knowledge as Hamilton indicated here.

61.     Only 12 days after Armstrong made the fact statement that Ashcroft had filed a Declination, did she cause her clerk “jlm” to alter Yu’s docket entry to change it to Declination filed by Yu, and did so without any notice to me. Armstrong could not have had no knowledge that the altered information contradicted the fact statement given by her as Presiding judge only 12 days earlier. So if it were merely an innocent mistake for her to make the fact statement in her Order, Armstrong would have corrected it by advising me about the correction. Yet she did not. That can only mean that this fact statement was a purposed falsification, designed to deceive me. Therefore it could only be that Armstrong made up the false material fact knowingly and willfully.

62.     When I was confused about the filer identity of the Declination over Yu’s filing, her statement of fact on Ashcroft’s filing Declination came as a binding fact finding made by the court to clarify the matter for me. I righteously relied on this binding fact and acted accordingly, just to find out this fact was false, and the real fact is that the Declination was filed by Yu for herself as pro se, as Judge Hamilton found. Without Armstrong’s falsification of the fact, I could not have been misled into a firm belief that Ashcroft had filed the Declination and then skipped service of process on him but would act to clarify the matter before I made the service as I planed.

63.     (II) After I had been misled into the belief that Ashcroft had appeared before court by Armstrong’s falsifications, Armstrong, her clerk “jlm”, and Yu secretly altered court records, changing the docket entries from Declination by Ashcroft to Declination by Yu, and the Attorney information from Yu as counsel for Ashcroft to Yu representing herself, in violations of USC §1512 (b)(2)(B) –  Knowingly altering objects for use in an official proceeding, USC § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations;  and USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court.

64.     It appears that it was on December 31, 2008, Armstrong’s clerk “jlm” conducted the alteration. As superior to “jlm”, as a federal judge, Armstrong could not have had no knowledge about what “jlm”’s alteration, and possibly is the one responsible for this falsification.

65.     As a judge of the court, Armstrong could not have had no knowledge that this “correction of docket entry by court for Defendant Yu” was not lawfully permitted but a crime of altering court records, because:

66.     This case was an e-filing case. According to the court’s Electronic Case Filing Rules, if a party makes a filing error, no matter what error it is, except acquiring a court order to correct it, the mistake can only be corrected by this filing party through re-fling of the document, no any modification of that transaction is allowed by the ECF system. The re-filing must repeat all steps of the filing process, the filer then must notify the ECF Helpdesk of the change via email, and the ECF Help Desk will in turn make an official note of the correction on the docket as “*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # ***”.  (ECF Guide). Upon re-filing the ECF system will serve on all the parties registered with ECF in the case by automatic instant email just like any filing.

67.     However, I have never received any email of Notice of Electronic Filing about a re-filing to “correct” Yu’s “mistake”, neither did the Help Desk of the ECF.

68.     Clearly what Armstrong and her clerk did was not a “correction” permitted by rules, but to knowingly and willfully commit a crime of altering court records, in violations of USC §1512 (b)(2)(B), USC § 1519 ;  and USC § 1506.

69.     (III) Armstrong committed the above said crimes through means of a conspiracy with co-conspirators Yu, “jlm” and Hamilton, purposed to create “procedural defects” as grounds for the court to dismiss my case, in violation of USC § 371- Conspiracy to commit offens, USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights, and § 1985 USC – conspiracy to interfere with rights.

b. Defendant Phyllis Hamilton

70.     Hamilton dismissed my Complaint as against Ashcroft with prejudice on basis that the Declination was actually filed by Yu, not by Ashcroft, and Yu was not Ashcroft’s attorney, knowing the same to be fraudulently concealed facts, in violation of USC §1001(a)(3) – Using False Statements.

71.     After Hamilton dismissed my Complaint as against Defendant Ashcroft on March 11, 2009, I brought a motion for relief, in that I alleged that my failure to serve Ashcroft was caused by that I was not served with the alteration information, and Judge Armstrong’s statement that Ashcroft had declined to proceed before a magistrate judge. So at least by that time, Hamilton already knew that the alteration of the docket entry was not served on me, and that Judge Armstrong confirmed Ashcroft’s appearance before the court in an order, so that her fact finding that Declination was filed by Yu, not Ashcroft, was a fact concealed to me, and it was a fraudulent concealing, because it deprived me the right to know the real fact, the right that is legally guaranteed – by law, if a party files a court document, she must serve it on every party to the case for the document to take effect on them, otherwise a party not served cannot be bound by that document.

72.     Yet despite knowing that Declination was filed by Yu was a fraudulently concealed fact, Hamilton still used it as basis to dismiss my Complaint as against Ashcroft with prejudice.

73.     By doing so Hamilton knowingly and willfully used the fraudulently concealed facts to dismiss my case knowing the same to contain materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent entry, in violation of USC §1001- Using False Statements.

74.     Hamilton committed the above said crimes through means of a conspiracy with co-conspirators Yu, “jlm” and Armstrong, purposed to create “procedural defects” as grounds for the court to dismiss my case, in violation of USC § 371- Conspiracy to commit offense and USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights.

c. Defendant Kay Yu

75.     Defendant Kay Yu is hereby sued in her individual and official capacity, under § 1983. Yu’s intentional forgeries, altering court records etc. were crimes, for which Defendant Yu has no qualified immunity. She is sued for fraud, forgery, and violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. She is also sued for damages for violation of §6128 of California Business and Profession Code.

76.     (I). Kay Yu used her status as a California lawyer, knowingly and willfully falsified the docket entry to indicate that she filed a “Declination to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge by John Ashcroft” and recorded as Attorney Information that she was attorney for Ashcroft.

77.     Yu entered these docket information in purpose to mislead me into skipping service of process on Ashcroft, causing the dismissal of my case against Ashcroft with prejudice for lack of service. It could not have been an innocent “mistake” as Hamilton explained.  Because:

78.     Yu herself never testified that it was a “mistake”, nor did she offer any evidence as to how the “clerical error” was committed;

79.     if it were an innocent “mistake”, she could not have made same mistake (typo?) twice, in different context, one for the filing of the Declination, the other for “Attorney Information”;

and the most important: if it was an innocent mistake, when Yu discovered it and “corrected” it, she would not have made effort to hid the “correction” from me by asking Judge Armstrong and her clerk to correct it for her to bypass the service on me about this correction. Because the only difference between correction by Yu and by court is that if Yu did so, the ECF system would automatically serve the “correction” filing on me; yet if the court did so with its internal privilege to access and manage the court’s ECF system, the court could chose not to serve me with the “correction”, and that would in turn continue to keep me unaware of the falsity of the “Declination by Ashcroft” while Yu’s  mistake was corrected so that the court would have evidence that it was not Ashcroft but Yu appeared in court and then dismiss my Complaint against Ashcroft for failure to serve him.

80.     In order to make the “Declination by Yu” appear more legitimate for the court to use as evidence against me, on January 30, 2009, Yu filed a “Case Management Statement”, in it she wrote that “Defendant Kay Yu has declined appointment assignment of the case to a Magistrate judge”. Here Yu did not specify a filing of a court document, or the date of her declination. I was served with this statement, but thought that Yu only indicated her intention to decline, or she would join Ashcroft to decline to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. Because I could not have ever expected or even suspected that it was only Yu, not including Ashcroft, to have filed that Declination, since I had the knowledge that I would have been notified by email from ECF if Yu had filed a Declination, and except an email notification on Ashcroft’s filing of a Declination, I never received any other such notice. Needless to say would I ever have linked that with Ashcroft’s Declination, and doubt if Ashcroft really filed the Declination because the court, judge Armstrong, already recognized his appearance as a fact before the court in an order.

81.     By knowingly and willfully falsifying the docket entry and participating in the criminal alteration of court records, Defendant Yu caused the dismissal of my case against Ashcroft with prejudice for lack of service, in violation of USC § 1519- falsification of records in Federal investigations, USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court; USC § 371- Conspiracy to commit offense and USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights. and in violation of §6128 of California Business and Profession Code.

d. Defendant “jlm”

82.     It appears that it was on December 31, 2008, “jlm” physically conducted the alteration. By doing so, “jlm” directly participated in the conspiracy to deny my due process rights and committed crime of altering court records. He therefore has legal liabilities for fraud, forgery, and violating my due process rights.

The Fraud In The Appeal Process Of The Case

83.     After my 2008 case was dismissed, I timely filed an appeal with the 9th circuit court of appeal with a Form 4 – Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis on June 3, 2009. I was prepared to appeal after my motion for relief for fraud upon court hearing, since the allegation of fraud upon court is an issue of facts that can not be resolved by appeal but must be resolved in a trial court for finding of facts. However, while the time for filing such a motion was not due yet, Defendant Molly Dwyer, Clerk of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal sent me an Order, dismissing my appeal for “failure to pay the docketing/filing fees”.

84.     It is a court rule that a party upon appeal can either pay the appeal filing fee or file an Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis if he/she is not able to afford the appeal fees. Upon the filing of such an Affidavit, the court cannot dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee until the court rules on the Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. It is clear that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal knew that it would have no any reason at law to dismiss my appeal, and then, just like what happened in the District Court, created fraudulent “procedural defect” – the failure to pay the filing fee, to dismiss my appeal.

85.     Obviously the Court of Appeal had joined the conspiracy with the District Court to sabotage my 2008 civil rights case so to defeat my pursuit of equal protection of the criminal justice and maintain the violations of my Constitutional rights by the DOJ.  The clerk of the court Molly Dwyer is directly responsible for such a fraudulent conduct.

86.     On May 10, 2010, I sent an Independent Action for Relief by overnight delivery mail to the District Court with a money order of the filing fee $350. However, on May 11, 2010, a “Financial Technician” of the District Court, Quelita Bourgeois sent my Complaint back with a notice saying that the return of my money order was because “We are unable to process your paperwork as is. Too many boxes checked in the ‘Nature of Suit’ area.” Which I understood means that on the Cover Page for my Complaint, I checked more than one box in the Nature of Suit area.

87.     This was a fraud. Because, first, the clerks in Office of the Clerk in a court are the only ones to have the jurisdiction to file a complaint, and a “financial technician” of the court has no any authority at law to conduct the act to accept or reject filing of a complaint. Second, this rejection of filing my Complaint is against law, as the FRCP Rule 5. Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers stipulates:

a.       5.(d)(4) Acceptance by the Clerk.

b.      The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice.

88.     Although the Cover Page does require that only one box be checked regarding the nature of the suit, as I found out later, it was only a minor mistake, and under this Rule, the clerk of the court cannot rejected the filing of my Complaint “solely because it is not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice.” For this reason, I had made the same mistake in the past for my filing of complaints, but I had never been rejected for filing before.

89.     What this rejection for filing caused to me was that the re-filing of the Complaint would exceed a one year time line for filing motions for relief under Rule 60(b), because Hamilton entered the judgment in my case on May 15, 2009. Although what I attempted to file was an independent action which is not subject to the one year time limit as motions, the court then might have an excuse to pick on the time issue to create another “procedural defect” to dismiss my action.

90.     Obviously the District Court knew that there was no any legal ground to dismiss my action on merits, and so again adopted their persistent practice of fraud to defeat my effort to have the fraud upon the court by Armstrong etc. reviewed by the court.

91.     Obviously the District Court continued its unlawful fraudulent practice to sabotage my 2008 civil rights case so to defeat my pursuit of equal protection of the criminal justice and maintain the violations of my Constitutional rights by the DOJ.  The financial technician Quelita Bourgeois is directly responsible for such a fraudulent conduct.

My criminal Complaint against the judicial officers in DOJ

92.     On June 19, 2009, I sent criminal Complaint to the DOJ Defendants, requesting investigation on crimes committed in my civil rights case #08-02776 by Defendant Armstrong, Hamilton, Yu and “jlm”, as stated previously in this Complaint. However, I have never received any response from any of these Defendants. I waited until this year, and believed that perhaps the DOJ jus neglected to pay attention to my Complaint. I  made a negligence administrative claim to the DOJ on February 10, against the DOJ Defendants. However, I received a response from the DOJ that my claim was rejected.

93.     Now it is clear that the DOJ’s total disregard to my criminal Complaint is not caused by negligence, but a deliberate and intentional violation of my rights to equal protection of laws. Despite the crimes alleged are conclusively proven in black and white on paper documents, they refuse to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

94.     This is a total disregard of my most fundamental Constitutional rights to be protected by law against crimes. The only reason for this denial of my right can only be because of my race, that I am a person of ethnic Chinese, fighting against the racial persecution on me by this system.

The Cover Up Conspiracy in Media

95.     This oppression by government was joined by the US media that successfully covered up my story against the US and Canada so far. Since 2006, I found that all the purportedly un-moderated forums on major US media’s web sites have set up automatic filters to filter out any post that would contain my name and the Web page addresses where I publicize my cases: http://www.wliao.150m.com/, and https://wanxialiao.wordpress.com/, etc.

96.     On October 22, 2006, I began to post my story to iReport section on CNN’s web site that was claimed by CNN as an un-moderated forum. However, whenever I submitted a message to be posted that contained my name, certain key words of my story, or URL of my Web pages, a page would come up with a message “You are not authorized to view this page!” and my message just simply vanished and never showed up on iReport. Finally I had to play a little trick to get my story submitted – using a nick name, writing up a simple message without my real name and URL of my Web page, but in stead a link to my post on a forum in China (http://www14.tianya.cn/publicforum/Content/worldlook/1/126501.shtml ), and only then it was successfully submitted. Although from the link people on iReport at that moment could only see mostly Chinese, but there is some English writing about my story there and the URL of my English Web page is there. This filter was tested and confirmed by some other Chinese net users in China.

97.     This was the first time I tried to publish my story with CNN. I had never contacted the CNN in anyway. It is incredible that CNN would already have the knowledge about my case, already anticipate my attempt to publish my story on its iReport and already set up an automatic filter to prevent the publishing of my story on its site.

98.     Similarly, in March of 2008, I tried to post my story to Youtube.com in my comments made to the video stories about Tibet riots in China. All messages that contained my Web page addresses would simply never show up, while my other messages without my web page address and without certain key words of my case could show up right away, even though later got removed by the site administrator if any specific info provided on my cases. Same as for CNN, I had never contacted youtube, never even attempted to publish my story on Youtube. Apparently, just like CNN, youtube already had knowledge about my case, my attempt to publish my case, and was programmed to filter out my web pages and my story automatically.

99.     After I made my 2008 civil rights Complaint against CNN AND Youtube, their cover up conduct are still ongoing, although the way of the operation has been changed from straight forward filtering to a more selective filtering and deleting.

100. At CNN’s site, although the auto-filtering has become more limited, but it is still ongoing. Even weeks ago, I found that my name was automatically filtered by CNN again.  And CNN’s now changed from straight filtering to selectively deleting my posts. For instance, in November of 2010, on CNN’s news report for Oscar Grant’s case “Oakland Police Chief: Protesters’ tearing up the city”, my following posts were deleted:

I am a Chinese. While I’m most sympathetic to see the outcome of Oscar Grant’s case, I think this is a good lesson for Blacks in general, because Blacks when in power, would practice the same racism on other minorities like the Chinese. Look at the Black judges in federal court in Oakland and SF, like Phyllis Hamilton, Saundra B. Armstrong, how they suppressed my human rights suits against the White Defendants, they did that even by committing criminal fraud, forgeries of court documents, etc

101. But the following one was left on the site:

…and how Black A.G. Holder ignored my criminal Complaint against these Black judges. If you as a people would do racism to other people yourself, why would you have the right to complain about other people do the same racism to you? To see my case, see wliao 150m com, or google my name wanxia liao

102. Youtube since my 2008 Complaint appears now more restraint in filtering my posts. Yet more media joined the cover up. In particular, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Topix. They are conducting in the same fashion like the CNN does.

103. For instance, Wall Street Journal’s China Real Time Report Forum has set up an auto-filter to filter out my posts and it existed prior to my attempt to post there. Washington Post regularly deleting and filtering my posts. Topix, a so called “un-moderated forum” regularly conducts deleting and editing my posts, etc.

104. Yet the most important development is that the US government itself directly joined the media cover up conspiracy. In July of 2009, on Youtube’s White House’s Channel, the White House deleted my following post:

I am Wanxia Liao, a Chinese in Canada.  I could have been more sympathetic about that Obama was forced to retract his comment on Prof. Gates false arrest by the White police officer, short of a formal apology. But I truly believe that the President and those Black elites in high positions, got what they deserve. For they, although black in color, have already made themselves part of the White racism towards other people of color like me.

In my case in US district court, two Black judges tyrannized me for challenging the White racism in the US criminal justice system in my case, even conspired to commit crimes of forgery, false statements, etc., to set up my case for dismissal on “procedural defects” to save the White racist authorities from my civil rights challenge. They acted even more viciously, fiercely, and shamelessly than the White judges towards me, without any concern of any sort of decency.

Perhaps they know that is what the White elites need them for: to act out the most indecent and most vicious tyrannizing acts, including crimes, towards other not-their-own-kind of people of color for the White racism as its pawns, puppets, so that the White racism can get disguised under their Black colors.

For the same reason, all the most overt tyrannizing acts including crimes against me by officials within the justice systems, no matter in US or Canada, have been all committed by the racial minorities – Blacks, Jews, Native Indians, Chinese, Latinos, etc. That makes one wonder if this is a meaningful explanation for their “racial minorities” status and their past and present fate.

So as far as my concern, these Black elites like Obama are already not Blacks, but “House Servants” of the White elites, who willfully and intentionally conduct themselves as part of the White racism. It is only ironic for me to see that the House Servants got a slap on wrist by their masters. And since they play by the racial line themselves, they have no justifiable reason to cry racism for the Whites acting on their own racial lines.

105. Further, the White House’s Channel used a trick to hide this post of mine on January 15, and 26, 2010, when discussing Obama’s criticism on China’s breach of people’s rights to free speech:

It is amazing that the US government has the gall to attack other countries like

China for Internet political censorship, because the US itself is doing the same

thing and even bolder. In my case, all the US media, including Google, CNN,

youtube, yahoo, etc. imposed political censorship on my posts for these posts

reveal the racial persecution on me by the US and Canadian governments.

106. Followed this message I posted few messages describing my human rights case and the cover up by US media. After finding these posts of mine, the White House’ Channel immediately hide the discussion altogether, showed none of the more than hundred messages. Only after about a week or two later, after the passing of the hot discussion time, these messages, together with mine were shown again.

107. This new evidence shows that the media cover up of my free speech is a US government organized and directly participated conspiracy. And this conspiracy is still ongoing.

108. I claim that the auto-filtering of my posts by CNN, etc. Defendants is a prior restraint on my free speech and this is a insider operation that they conspired with the US government. Because:

109. CNN and Youtube voluntarily waived their rights to censor the content of any one’s input on in their free speech zones. CNN claimed at the time that in its iReport, every one can post stories that she/he considers a news, and all users at iReport could share each other’s news stories even though the CNN does not pick up these stories as news and report them. It literally meant that, the iReport was a free speech zone, an “un-moderated forum”, that does not censor the content of any user’s news report, no editing and no filtering, as long as the rules written in CNN’s Web site user guidelines are abided by the user.  And Youtube has the similar free expression claim for the videos and comments posted by people on its Web site.   Yet I was not allowed free speech in their free speech zones. This restraint on me cannot be explained that I violated any rules of CNN and Youtube’s Web sites, since I had never spoke there previously, so could not have broken any of their rules. It could only be about the content of my post – my human rights case against the US and Canadian governments for racial persecution. Therefore this restraint is a political censorship.

110. And this political censorship came as a prior restraint – it was pre-set, prior to my first ever attempt to speak on CNN and Youtube’s Web sites, specifically designed to prevent the exposure of my human rights case.

111. This prior restraint could only be set up through a way of government organized conspiracy.  Apparently this is a government operation. Without government organization, it is impossible that CNN and Youtube would have acquired the same knowledge about my story and set up same kind of automatic filters to prevent the exposure of my case on their web sites’ un-moderated forums. And it is the US government who had the immediate interests in cover up of my human rights case since my case was directly against the government. I believe that CNN and Youtube did so to comply with the US governments’ prior restraint order on publication of my case.

112. And it was an unlawful prior restraint of my free speech, since it was not acquired through lawful means but through a secret underground plot. As the US Supreme Court  ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States (403 USC 713) that if the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what is illegal, get permission of a court by proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people”. In my case, however, I was never aware of any such court process against me, that means it was an illegal prior restraint of my free speech.

CAUSES OF ACTION

First Claim for Writ of Mandamus Relief

Under Fifth Amendment: Right to Equal Protection of Law

As against DOJ

113. The Attorney General’s Guidelines On General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise And Terrorism Enterprise Investigations indicates in its Preamble:

“As the primary criminal investigative agency in the federal government, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has the authority and responsibility to investigate all criminal violations of federal law that are not exclusively assigned to another federal agency.” … “Investigations by the FBI are premised upon the fundamental duty of government to protect the public against general crimes,…” (emphasis added)

114. As the federal “primary criminal investigative agency”, the FBI is bound to respond to all allegations of violations of federal general crime statute, and has investigative jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes. In fact, a review of US federal case laws shows that the FBI has conducted extensive investigations concerning federal crimes such as perjury. Such a duty is also vested in Attorney General under 28 USC 509 – Sec. 509. Functions of the Attorney General:

All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General except the functions – (1) vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 in administrative law judges employed by the Department of Justice; (2) of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.; and (3) of the Board of Directors and officers of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

115.    By way of mandamus, I here seek a court order compelling the DOJ and its agencies to perform their duty owed to me to investigate the crimes alleged in paragraph 1 of this Complaint.

Second Claim for Declaratory Relief

Under Fifth Amendment: Right Not to be Deprived of Life Without Due Process

As against the United States

116. I claim that Defendant the United State of America has threatened me through its agent and is still continuing to threaten me with death and forced disappearance. At first when the threats took place, I only suspected that it was committed by a government insider. However, new evidences emerged since then that have proven that these threats are a direct US government action, or an action backed up by the US government.

117. First, the US government never denied my contention that the perpetrator is a government insider, never clarified to me in dealing with my Complaint as to whether this person was actually speaking for the government, and never objected what this person said that “neither the US nor Canadian government is afraid of disappearing people” and they might want to “get rid of me”. The silence of the government is an admission that this person is actually a government insider, and he was speaking for the government. Or whether government insider or not, this person did express the intention of the government and the government agreed his threats against me.

118. Further more than just being silent, the government even actually took significant actions to back him up – the DOJ refusing to investigate the threats, then the District Court judges even committing criminal fraud to in order to dismiss my law suit against DOJ, and then the DOJ in turn protected these judicial officers from criminal prosecution. All these have formed a circle of protection for that threats perpetrator. As a result the crime perpetrator gets away without any sanction and the criminal threats against me maintains in tact.

119. Apparently, this perpetrator spoke for the government, and got protection from the government, these are evidences that his threats are a government action, or at least a government backed up action. Either way, the US government is responsible for these death threats and threats of forced disappearance against me. And because of the government back up actions for the threats after my Complaint, the death threat and threat of forced disappearance have been greatly enforced by government power against me.

120. The threats enforced by government power have caused increasing fear, anxiety, and distress to me. My most fundamental human right to security of life is at stake, and I am now in a constant fear for my life. I here in this action request from this court a declaration that the US government has violated my right to security of life guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which the US has ratified.

 

 

Third Claim for declaratory Relief

Under Fourteenth Amendment: Right to Equal Protection of Law

As against the US and DOJ

121. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

122. Article 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

123. I request a declaration from this court that Defendant the US and DOJ have violated my rights to equal protection of law by continuing to refuse to investigate all the crimes committed against me.

Fourth Claim For Bivens Damages Relief

Under Fifth Amendment: Right To Equal Protection Of Law

As Against Holder, Douglas, Russoniello

124. In reference to the preceding section, I claim damages pursuant to Bivens theory from Defendant Douglas, Russoniello, in their individual capacities, for their violation of my Constitutional rights to equal protection of laws. Defendant Eric Holder as Attorney General of US has ultimate responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of United States laws, and therefore is responsible for all the unlawful conducts of the DOJ officials. He is sued in his individual capacity for damages to be proven at trial.

 

Fifth Claim For § 1983 Damage Relief

Under § 1985, USC: Conspiracy To Commit Criminal Fraud

As Against Armstrong, Hamilton, “Jlm”, Yu, Bourgeois, Dwyer

 

125. Defendant Armstrong, Hamilton, “jlm”, Kay Yu are sued under § 1983 in their individual capacities for damages caused by their crimes. Their conducts are extra-judicial crimes, for which they have no judicial or quasi-judicial immunity. I am entitled to civil remedies for damages caused by criminal frauds under law. I therefore seek damages from these Defendants.

126. Defendant Bourgeois and Dwyer are also sued in their individual capacities for damages for frauds that they committed against me. They acted without jurisdiction and fraudulently abused the process, so that they are not qualified for quasi-judicial immunity.

 

Sixth Claim For Relief From Judgment And Order

Under § 60(B) Of FRCP: Independent Action For Relief For Fraud Upon The Court

As Against Armstrong, Hamilton, “Jlm”, Yu, Bourgeois, Dwyer

 

 

127. I hereby bring this Independent Action for Relief for Fraud Upon the Court under Rule 60(b). I have no other available or adequate remedies because: 1), a direct attack by a motion on the fraudulently procured judgments within the action itself is completely futile, as it will be heard by the very same judge Hamilton who committed the very same judicial fraud being attacked in this independent action and who has already heard my motions to attack these exactly same fraudulent conducts of her TWICE, and denied all my motions. It will be totally futile for me to relitigate the same issues with the same judge who has known all my evidences and legal arguments and decided to stand by her criminal fraud.  Therefore, a remedy by motion to attack the fraud is unavailable or inadequate to me.  2), the remedy by an appeal is also unavailable or inadequate to me because (a), the appeal court can not conduct fact findings, yet my allegations of fraud on court involve extensive fact-findings that can only be properly dealt with in the discovery process of an action. (b), my Notice of Appeal filed in that action has been dismissed by fraudulent means in 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

128. The criminal frauds have caused irreparable damages to me, which is to be proven at trial. I have the Constitutional rights to have a fair opportunity in court to have my case heard. Therefore I request the fraudulently procured judgment be set aside and my 2008 case be re-opened.

 

129. For the same reasons stated above, I request in this independent action that the fraudulent rejection for filing of my Complaint be declared void and this independent action for relief under Rule 60(b) be deemed filed on May 11, 2010.

130. For the same reasons stated above, I request in this independent action that the fraudulent Order to dismiss my appeal by Defendant Dwyer be set aside and my appeal be reinstated.

Seventh Claim For Declaratory Relief

Under § 1985, USC: Conspiracy To Interfere With Rights To Free Speech

As Against The US, CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Topix, Youtube

131. These above named media Defendants willfully conspired with US government to cover up for the government’s gross abuse of racial minorities’ human rights. Wherefore, the US government, and these media Defendants violated §1985 of the USC: Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights. This political censorship restricting Internet free communications, by the US Congress’ definition, is also a violation of the most fundamental human rights – freedom of expression, in violations of First Amendment US Constitution. I wherefore seek a declaration here that my Constitutional rights to free speech has been violated by these Defendants.

Sixth Claim For § 1983 Damage Relief

Under § 1985, USC: Conspiracy To Interfere With Rights To Free Speech

As Against Phillips, CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Topix

132. For the same reason as stated in the preceding section, I claim damages from these Defendants. White House Director of New Media Phillips in sued in his individual capacity for directly in charge of the White House’s Channel and participated in the operation of political censorship on me.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, I, the plaintiff, pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1                    Issue the order sought in my Petition for Writ of Mandamus;

2                    Grant all the declaration judgments sought in this Complaint;

3                    An Order relieving me from the said fraud, fraud upon the Courts;

4                    An Order setting aside and vacating the fraudulently procured Judgments, Orders,;

5                    Compensatory damages;

6                    Punitive damages;

7          For equitable and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED for ALL ISSUES in this complaint.

Dated this 20th Day of May, 2011

Wanxia Liao

Plaintiff

My human rights case site has been blocked

May 24, 2010

My Web site http://www.wliao.159m.com has been blocked by the host site. This is so called American “freedom of speech”. The following is a revised version of the site summary:

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS:

In 1991, as a Master student, I challenged a White professor Waterhouse’s White supremacy theory that beauty is a European concept and Asians did not have the concept in history. He lost and retaliated against me through a series of fraud and violations of the university rules. I complained to the University but was retaliated with a wrongful dismissal from my cafeteria position, causing me the loss of life’s means. I complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC). At first I declined to answer some of the Commission’s questions, but the OHRC compelled me to testify “everything true”, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty.  Then the OHRC officer Strojin, knowing my devastation for the loss of surviving resources and later for the overt racist oppressions organized by the OHRC itself and joined  by US government agent University of California at Berkeley professor James Cahill, repeatedly asked me to testify my state of mind as to that what I would do if my case couldn’t be resolved at the Commission, and then used my devastative ranting “If I die, not only me, die” in my testimony to inform the U of T behind my back that I made  “death threats to Waterhouse”, causing a first count of criminal charge of “Uttering Death Threat to Waterhouse” laid against me. When I inquired about if the OHRC had breached its confidentiality guaranty to me, Strojin denied and lied to me that it was someone at the U of T who did something. The wrongful criminal charge and Strojin’s deception further provoked my rage and my rant. Strojin again informed the U of T, causing the second count of same charge laid against me. I was later convicted by a judge. My human rights complaint was dismissed by the OHRC during the criminal prosecution process.

This is a Fascist racial persecution because I was unlawfully prosecuted and convicted. First, if what I testified were a crime, it was not me but the Canadian government and its witness compellability laws to cause it to happen, for the alleged threats would have never occurred but for the government’s compulsion on me to testify my thoughts. As by compelling me to testify my state of mind, the government transformed my thoughts into act – spoken words. Without these words, my desperate thoughts could have never become known to others and got alleged as threats. Since no one can be punished for thinking criminal thoughts at law, and no one can be punished for lawfully complying with the government’s requirements and its witness compellability laws to testify one’s thoughts, I have no any criminal liability. Yet the government prosecuted me for the crime procured by its own self. Second, the alleged threats never actually happened since my rantings were merely radomly made in which Whaterhouse was never referred to, yet the court convicted me for a guessing that I “meant Waterhouse”. Third, I never had intention to threaten Waterhouse for because of the OHRC’s “confidentiality rule”, I never expected that Waterhouse would know my words at the OHRC and get threatened. This was a bogus criminal prosecution that has grossly deprived my basic human rights – right to security of person and freedom, and right against self-incrimination, (testimony use immunity and derivative use immunity, etc.) guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the meantime, all the American and Canadian White perpetrators and their accomplices who committed felony crimes against me got away Scot Free from their criminal liabilities. These crimes include: perjuries committed by the American government agent James Cahill; perjuries committed by the OHRC officer Alan Strojin at my criminal trial; forgery of court document and criminal fraud committed by US District Court judges Saundra Brown Armstrong and Phyllis Hamilton; death threats, threats of government forced disappearance against me made by an American government agent on Internet Yahoo newsgroups; forgery of court document committed by a California Superior Court Supervisor Maura Ramirez; etc. Despite that all these crimes are proven on written documents, the both governments and the government controlled the so-called “grand jury” have refused to prosecute them.

I filed civil suits in civil courts of Canada and US against the racial persecution. But all my cases have been dismissed and I have been unlawfully barred from access to court by court order in Canada, forbidding me to file any civil suits. The US federal court dismissed

my claims either without even any adjudication, or on basis of “procedural defects” that were created by the judges and clerks through their conspired criminal forgery, fraud, and open violation of the procedural rules in order to avoid dismissing my claims on their merits which are too indisputable to be denied without appearing outrageously unlawful. Even the US’s highest court would commit unlawful and fraudulent act to sanction the lower courts’ conducts. The same happened in California State court, and I have been partially barred from filing suits in state courts.  

All of these are done under a tight government organized cover-up. All the major American media refuse to publish my story, and some of them, such as CNN, even conspired with the US government to unlawfully set up secret automatic filters to filter out any information on my case on their web sites to ban my own publication attempts.  

Further more, those so-called “human rights groups” such as the “Human Rights Watch”, “Amnesty International”, etc. ignored my request for investigation, and the cover ups have expanded to the United Nations where the then Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. My story is the best illustration of hypocrite and racist nature of the “Western democracy and freedom”.

Criminal Complaint filed against two US District Court judges

July 26, 2009

On Jun 4, 2008, I filed a civil action with US District Court for Northern District of California. (Case # 08-cv-02776) This is a constitutional, civil, and human rights case challenging the racially motivated refusals by United States government officials and California state officials to investigate my criminal complaints, and the conspiracy by federal justice administrative officials with the US major media to place a secret prior restraint on my Internet free speech about my human rights case without due process of law in purpose to cover up my human rights cases against the US, etc. By these unlawful acts, the Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated my rights to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, to free speech under the First Amendment, violated §1985 of USC for Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights, etc. This action seeks damages and declaratory relieves under Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code and other federal and California State statutes, etc. Defendants include the former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General of California Kay Yu, federal judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, CNN, youtube.com, etc. (Federal court case # 08-02776)

 The case was assigned to US Magistrate Judge Edward Chen initially. After I filed a Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge, the case was reassigned to District Court judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. I added Armstrong as a Defendant party, she subsequently disqualified herself, and the case was reassigned to Phyllis Hamilton.

Hamilton dismissed my Complaint as against all the Defendants with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of them on May 15, 2009.

 All the dismissal, except the ones for Judge Armstrong and Yu (that can deemed as issues at law), are either based upon Judge Hamilton and Armstrong’s criminal fraud or manufactured by a conspiracy plotted by these judges and the Defendant government officials of my case against my civil rights case that was purposed to create “procedural defects” in the process of my case for purpose to avoid dismissing my case on the merits of my case.

 As a result, I have filed criminal Complaint with US Attorney General Eric Holder, the FBI, and the United State Attorney for California against judge Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong’s clerk “jlm”, and Yu. The following is my allegations:

 1). United States District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong:

[1], knowingly and willfully falsifying a material fact in her Order that “defendant Ashcroft declined to proceed before a magistrate judge”, misleading me into skipping service of process on Ashcroft, causing the dismissal with prejudice of my case against Ashcroft for lack of service, in violation of USC §1001 (a)(1) – False Statements;

 [2], causing her clerk “jlm” to alter court records, changing Defendant Yu’s court filing record from “Declination by Ashcroft” to “Declination by Yu”, in violations of USC §1512 (b)(2)(B) –  Knowingly causing another person to alter objects for use in an official proceeding,  USC § 1519 – alteration of records in Federal investigations, and USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court; 

[3], knowingly and willfully concealing the falsity of the “Declination by Ashcroft” by causing its alteration to “Declination by Yu” without service on me to keep me from knowing the truth, in violation of USC §1001 (a)(1) – False Statements;

 [4], knowingly and willfully concealing the falsity of the attorney information “Yu as counsel for Ashcroft” by causing its alteration to Yu representing herself without service on me to keep me from knowing the truth, in violation of USC §1001 (a)(1) – False Statements;

 [5], conspiring the above said crimes with co-conspirators hereinafter complained of, in violations of USC § 371- Conspiracy to commit offense and USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights.

 2). United States District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton:

 [1], using the unlawfully altered court record “Declination by Yu” in dismissing my case knowing the same to be a fraudulently concealed fact, in violation of USC §1001(a)(3) – Using False Statements;

 [2], using the unlawfully altered court record on attorney information “Yu representing herself” in dismissing my case knowing the same to be a fraudulently concealed fact, in violation of USC §1001(a)(3) – Using False Statements;

 [3], knowingly and willfully falsifying a claim for my Complaint and using it as basis to dismiss my Complaint as against Defendant CNN with prejudice, in violation of USC §1001 (a)(1) – False Statements.

 [4], conspiring the above said crimes with the co-conspirators hereinafter complained of, in violations of USC § 371- Conspiracy to commit offense and USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights.

 3). Deputy Attorney General of California Kay Yu:

 [1], knowingly and willfully falsifying a docket entry that she filed a Declination to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge for Defendant John Ashcroft as his attorney, misleading me into skipping service of process on Ashcroft, causing the dismissal of my case against Ashcroft with prejudice for lack of service, in violation of USC § 1519- falsification of records in Federal investigations, USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court; 

[2], knowingly and willfully falsifying attorney information that she was attorney for Defendant John Ashcroft, misleading me into skipping service of process on Ashcroft, causing the dismissal of my case against Ashcroft without prejudice for lack of service, in violation of USC § 1519- falsification of records in Federal investigations;

 [3], causing the alteration of court records to change the docket entry from “Declination by Ashcroft” to “Declination by Yu”, in violations of USC §1512 (b)(2)(B) –  Knowingly causing alteration of objects for use in an official proceeding,  USC § 1519 – alteration of records in Federal investigations, and USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court; 

[4] causing the alteration of court records to change the docket attorney information from Yu representing Ashcroft as counsel to Yu representing herself without service on me, in violations of USC §1512 (b)(2)(B) –  Knowingly causing alteration of objects for use in an official proceeding,  and USC § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations, and USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court; 

[5] conspiring the above said crimes with co-conspirators hereinafter complained of, in violations of USC § 371- Conspiracy to commit offense and USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights.

 4).  clerk for Judge Saundra B. Armstrong “jlm”:

 [1], knowingly and willfully altering court records, changing Defendant Yu’s court filing docket entry from “Declination by Ashcroft” to “Declination by Yu”, in violations of USC §1512 (c)(1) –  alteration of court records in an official proceeding,  and USC § 1519 – alteration of records in Federal investigations, and USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court; 

 [2], knowingly and willfully concealing the falsity of the “Declination by Ashcroft” by altering it to “Declination by Yu” without service on me to keep me from knowing the truth, in violation of USC §1001 (a)(1) – False Statements;

 [3], knowingly and willfully concealing the falsity of the attorney information “Yu as counsel for Ashcroft” by altering it to Yu representing herself without service on me to keep me from knowing the truth, in violation of USC §1001 (a)(1) – False Statements;

 [4], conspiring the above said crimes with the co-conspirators hereinafter complained of, in violations of USC § 371- Conspiracy to commit offense and USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights.

 To summarize what transpired about my Complaint:

 With regard to the dismissal of my Complaint against former Attorney General of US Ashcroft –

Yu made a docket entry to indicate that she filed a “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by John Ashcroft”, and recorded that she was attorney for Ashcroft; I expressed my confusion about the filer identity of the Declination in a motion since there was no mentioning of Ashcroft in the Declination document itself; judge Armstrong stated a fact in her Order that “defendant Ashcroft declined to proceed before a magistrate judge”; 12 days later, Armstrong’s clerk “jlm” altered Yu’s docket entry to change it from Declination by Ashcroft to Declination by Yu and altered the Attorney information from Yu representing Ashcroft to representing herself; these alterations were not served on me in any way;  unaware of the changes, I relied on Armstrong’s fact statement and skipped service of process on Ashcroft; I discovered the alteration and requested investigation; Judge Hamilton dismissed my Complaint as against Ashcroft with prejudice for failure to serve him with process, finding Ashcroft never filed the Declination, Yu made a mistake to file the Declination and the court “corrected it for Yu”; I made second request for investigation; Hamilton insisted Yu’s filing of the Declination was a “clerical error”, and further explained that “it is the filed document that controls, not the docket entry”, and Yu could have never represented US Attorney General Ashcroft because of her status as Deputy Attorney General of California.

 With regard to the dismissal of my Complaint against CNN –

 Hamilton dismissed my case against Defendant CNN on basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation of my Complaint – that I made a § 1983 claim against CNN, that CNN as a private corporation is not a “state actor” so cannot be sued under § 1983. Despite that I alleged in a motion against this dismissal that she faked this § 1983 claim and provided her the evidences about the falsity, including evidences produced by herself in that she precisely indicated in the same Order that my claim was not § 1983 claim but a 1st Amendment of the Constitution for free speech claim, Hamilton never even responded to my allegations.

With regard to the dismissal of my Complaint against Congressman Smith –

 Same as for CNN, Hamilton also dismissed my Complaint against Congressman Chris Smith on basis of a criminal fraudulent misrepresentation – that I claimed “damages” from Smith and Smith as a Congressman cannot be sued for damages. Yet I never make such a claim for damages, but only sought declaratory relief against Smith in my Complaint.

 With regard to the dismissal of my Complaint against those Defendants for “lack of service” –

 This “procedural defect” (lack of service) was actually created by Judge Armstrong and Hamilton through a conspiracy with the Defendants (please read my criminal complaint to find out details).

 I believe that this conspiracy was deployed since a denial on the merits of my complaint can only be a denial of all the most fundamental legal principles that a “democratic society” is based on so that the hypocrisy of the so called American democracy will be revealed.   Therefore it is more favorable for this “justice system” to dismiss my Complaint on “procedural defects” grounds, especially for “lack of service”, that would enable the Defendants to completely avoid addressing the issues of racism in American criminal justices system and so on raised in my Complaint, since they now do not even need to file a motion to dismiss my Complaint on merits. And the dismissal is “with prejudice”, so only with some trivial and frivolous “defects” caused solely by the conspiracy, the Defendants and the court conveniently barred me from seeking redress against the racism in American criminal justice system for my human rights.

 I have not received any response from the Obama administration on my criminal Complaints. Of course I do not expect the US criminal justice authorities, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, would ever take on my complaints, because not only my Complaint is against the White racism, but also the two judges complained of in my Complaint are Blacks, just like Holder himself and the President Obama. Although these Blacks in highest positions of US have been quick at dismissing criminal “vote intimidation” charges for Black Panthers, and condemning false arrests of Black professor Gates, they would never speak for me for I am not Black but Chinese.

 I could have more sympathetic about that Obama was forced to retract his comment on Prof. Gates false arrest by the White police officer, short of a formal apology. But I truly believe that the President and those Black elites in high positions, got what they deserve. For they, although black in color, have already made themselves part of the White racism towards other people of color like me.

In my case, these two Black judges tyrannized me for the White racism in the US criminal justice system challenged in my case, even conspired to commit crimes of forgery, false statements, etc., to set up my case for dismissal on “procedural defects” to save the White racist authorities from my civil rights challenge. They acted even more viciously, mercilessly, and shamelessly than the White judges towards me, without concern of any sort of decency. Perhaps they know that is what the White elites need them for: to act out the most indecent and most vicious tyrannizing acts, including crimes, towards other not-their-own-kind of people of color for the White racism as its pawns, puppets, so that the White racism can get disguised under their Black colors. For the same reason, all the most overt tyrannizing acts including crimes against me by officials within the justice systems, no matter in US or Canada, have been all committed by the racial minorities – Blacks, Jews, Native Indians, Chinese, Latinos, etc. That makes one wonder if this is a meaningful explanation for their “racial minorities” status and their past and present fate. 

 So as far as my concern, these Black elites like Obama are already not Blacks, but “House Servants” of the White elites, who willfully and intentionally conduct themselves as part of the White racism. It is only ironic for me to see that the House Servants got a slap on wrist by their masters. And since they play by the racial line themselves, they have no justifiable reason to cry racism for the Whites acting on their own racial lines.

Here is my criminal complaint.

Congressman Chris Smith sued for racism in his global human rights advocacy

January 16, 2009

On December 23, 2008, I filed my First Amended Complaint, in which I edited my claims against CNN, and added parties – Judge Saundra Armstrong  and US Congressman Chris Smith.  This is excerpt of my complaint against Smith:

 

In February 2006, I was very excited to learn that the Congress, the highest law making authority of the US, had launched a campaign to intervene those major US based Internet private companies’ conducts to restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet communications in China. Mr. Christopher Smith, Chairman of

 

 

 

In the Complaint I also brought in other issues such as that American government agent colluded with the former Supreme Court of Canada judge, High Commissioner for Human Rights at UN Louis Arbor to cover up for US and Canadian governments, seized all my complaints sent to the UN’s international human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint rules, and the death threat I received on Yahoo’s message board while posting my story, etc.

 

I claimed in this Complaint:

 

 

 

    “I have this standing to bring this complaint, as the Congress of United States has been known as most adamantly committed to human rights cause of the whole world, takingon the individual human rights abuse complaints from over the wold for hearing and public condemnation. Particularly notable is that numerable individual human rights complainants from China have been invited to speak before the Congress, alleging a wide range of human rights abuses in China. I am a Chinese and my human rights complaintinvolves the same and even more brutal abuses, as compared to those abuses cited for Chinese government in the 2005 Country Human Rights Practice Report (Report) issued by the US Department of State. And most crucially, my human rights complaintis not against China, but your own US government, and the government of your political ally Canada. I trust it is accepted by every person with common sense that you do nothave the right and the standing to demand other nations to do things that you yourself refuse to do. Therefore, I believe that the Congress will treat my complaint not only same as those from China and other nations, but also give it priority for investigative hearing.”However, I never received any response from Smith. Defendant Smith’s silence on my complaint can only mean that my arguments are indisputable – that the human rights abuses committed by US and Canadian governments on me are even more serious compared to those cited for Chinese government in the US 2005 Country Human Rights Practice Report.

And compared to his leading role in vigorously criticizing the Chinese and other governments for the same kind (and less serious than that in US) of human rights abuses as the Chairman of the US Congress human rights caucus, Defendant Smith had no any justifiable reason not to investigate my complaint. Therefore, the silence of Defendant Smith on my complaint can only mean that he condones and endorses the gross human rights abuses committed by his own US government and Canadian government.

Such a discrepancy in Defendant Smith’s human rights practice towards different nations reveals the hypocrisy of the “global human rights cause” that he has been advocating, and the racism nature of this “global human rights cause”. Because if Smith has no interest to support and protect me, this Chinese, for my human rights, what is his purpose to protect and support human rights for those Chinese in China? It can only mean that what he really concerned is not whether the Chinese enjoys human rights or not, but rather to claim the “moral supremacy” of the American and Western nations for purpose of maintaining their racial/political hegemony. And once a Chinese person exercises this same right but against his own and other Western nations’ governments, he supports the prosecution on this Chinese much more brutally than the Chinese government does to its people.

 

For reasons stated above, Defendant Christopher Smith is hereby sued in his official capacity, for a declaratory judgment for violations of 14th Amendment of United States Constitution – equal protection clause, and

 

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

 

 

 

the 109th Congress Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, held an investigative hearing and publicly condemned the conducts of those companies, Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc., who had helped the Chinese government restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet. Further, the Congress was in a process to make laws to regulate these companies’ conducts in China to comply with US’s values on human rights, particularly, freedom of expression, and study the possibility of bringing down the “Great Firewall of China” that censors the Chinese Internet.