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.

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

December 9, 2014

Criminalized After Disputing ‘Beauty Is A European Concept’

I was criminalized and lost everything in life, only because I disagreed with a White professor’s theory that beauty is a European concept, and complained against his retaliation. My alleged crime was that I “meant” to threaten the professor, as a judge admittedly “guessed”.

I came to Canada in 1989 from China on a student visa. Previously I had university education and was a teacher in China. In 1991, I was registered in a Master program in the East Asia Studies Department of the University of Toronto (U of T), and took a Chinese art history course with an Asian art history professor David Waterhouse.

In February 1991, Waterhouse instructed us to study his recent research paper about his theory on “the concept of beauty”. His theory was based on Asian-European cross-cultural comparative studies. He told us that, Adam and Eve in the Genesis story of The Bible appreciated “Every tree is pleasant to sight”, “it was the first aesthetic response in history “, but Asians did not have the concept of beauty in history, for that “beautiful” this word in Indian and Japanese languages did not originally mean the same as Adam and Eve’s appreciation of “pleasant to sight”, but meant something else such as good taste of food, etc. He then concluded: “We can safely identify ‘beautiful’ this shopworn epithet is a European concept.”

I asked out of curiosity: “So what’s the origin of the English word ‘beautiful’?” Waterhouse could not answer, but continued to read that, if the concept of beauty is applied to Asian art, “we may be extending the meaning of this concept and possibly creating confusions about it.”

Waterhouse’s paper also openly calls to revive a 1930’s German art history theory called Style, a theory of aesthetic analysis based upon the concept of biological or racial characteristics that was criticized by famous American art historian Meyer Schapiro for “played a significant role in promoting national consciousness and race feeling.”

In the following class, Waterhouse said that he had checked out that the English word “beautiful” was borrowed from Latin language originally. I said: “The Chinese word ‘beautiful’ is one of the earliest Chinese characters inscribed on oracle bones, dated from 16-11 B.C., and it originally meant ‘pleasant to sight’.” Waterhouse said he would consider my opinion.

Two months later, Waterhouse read an article in the class which he wrote about a Chinese contemporary artist/art historian C.C. Wong in US. He read:”…Despite the well-known fact that China has been far left behind history, some Chinese people are still very keen to claim historical inventions and achievements… … despite C.C. Wong he himself now lives in Washington D.C….” I felt it was hinting at my dispute with him on the concept of beauty and was very upset.

I later assumed that maybe because I’d only offered the evidences on the concept of beauty from Chinese sources, Waterhouse misunderstood that I was trying to rival with him to claim the concept of beauty as a “Chinese invention”. So when I wrote my middle term essay and had to come across the topic of aesthetics in Chinese art history, I thought it might be a good chance for me to clear up the “misunderstanding”. So while I cited briefly about Chinese people’s appreciation of beauty in history, I cited to a large extent of that from other sources such as Australia Natives, Africans, etc. to prove that the concept of “beautiful” is universal to all human beings in history since it was rooted in human being’s biological instinct.

Waterhouse then wrote in his comments to my paper: “The best part of this paper is in the last section where you have collected early Chinese passages which show appreciation of ‘beautiful’. I have to agree with your findings here.” I was disappointed that Waterhouse would only single out the Chinese sources in my paper to respond. His sensitivity toward the Chinese source later was extended to the university. In a decision to deny my Complaint, the U of T characterized the dispute as: “In considering the concept of ‘beauty’, Prof. Waterhouse was said to conclude that concept was European in origin. Ms. Liao, in her paper, was concerned to demonstrate that ‘beauty’ was a very old Chinese concept.”

After the dispute, Waterhouse retaliated against me in purpose to interfere with my Ph.D application by a series of fraud, in violation of the university’s grading systems and academic regulations: a). Faking a B as final grade of the course for me while I was still taking the course with him and submitted it to the Graduate School and the department admission committee;  b). Lied to the school clerk in reply to the clerk’s inquiry about the course designation error on the grade submission form to get the grade entered; c). Bypassing the department chair for grade approving as required by the university’s grading policy, the Chair was Asian (Korean); d). Providing a reference letter to the Committee for my Ph.D application in that he falsified a capacity for himself as my program supervisor to object my application; etc.

(To be continued).

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.

UN hears Michael Brown complaint, & my experience with UN

November 13, 2014

It is a great news that Michael Brown’s parents Today are speaking at the UN.

Well, at least the victimized Black people would have a chance to speak at UN on the US’ human rights violations. The other “silent minorities” with no political power will have no chance to have their voice heard at UN.

The UN #HumanRights bodies only selectively hear human rights complainants’ voice on political considerations. An example: while vigorously hearing the human rights complaints from the #Chinese against #China, these #UN bodies turn away human rights complaints from the same Chinese against the Western countries like #USA, #Canada, etc. to cover up for these countries. I know at least 3 Chinese in US and Canada who brought human rights complaints to UN against the US and #Canadian governments, but all of their complaints were turned a blank eye on by the UN.

My experience with UN probably is the most dramatic. In 2004, The Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” (HCHR) of UN, then headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s various human rights bodies, and returned them to me, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. I then brought a Complaint against this HCHR and the Secretary of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt to the President of UN General Assembly. But my Complaint was transferred back to the HCHR by Secretary of the President’s Office, Tony Gallagher of the USA, without consulting with any officials of the President’s Cabinet.

When I protested to the HCHR on grounds of conflict of interests, “Secretary” of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt called me and told me that he was “assigned” to my case by the HCHR, and “you don’t expect this Office will assist you”. Please see the letters that I wrote to the HCHR for details.

Obviously the UN’s human rights bodies are not accessible to people like me, whose human rights complaints are against the Western powers and who do not belong to a politically powerful and active ethnic groups such as the Blacks.

Will Ferguson Grand Jury be fair?

November 8, 2014

It is widely anticipated that the Ferguson Grand Jury will likely decide against an indictment in Michael Brown’s killing. Although I still have hope for justice, I would not really trust grand juries to be fair.

I can tell you from my own experience that the US so called grand jury is not really an “independent” decision maker, the real decision maker is the state prosecutor, who through the chair person of the grand jury, controls the grand jury.

Years ago, I presented my case to a grand jury in San Francisco, California, requesting indictment against a U of Berkeley White professor who committed perjury in my human rights case – James Cahill, together with a number of state and federal court officials including judges who committed felony crimes on my case including falsifying court documents etc.

The then Acting Chairperson of the Grand Jury sent me a letter stating that he made a decision, no bill, no indictment. He honestly told me that was his personal decision after consulting with “the authority”. So it was his “personal” decision, not that of the grand jurors. By law, the grand jury is supposed to make decisions by votes of ALL jurors, but the Acting Chairperson in my case made decision acting alone without other jurors’ participation. And who is the “authority”? Of course the state prosecutor.

I believe, they would not dare to do the same to Black people in #Fergusince the Black people are very politically powerful. But they certainly would “influence” the jurors.

#humanrights #law 

US gov’s attempt to put a prior restraint on media report on Ferguson

November 6, 2014

#Ferguson #humanrights

The US gov at least tried to put a prior restraint on media reporting on Ferguson, aiming at cover up on what the US gov does not want the public to know. They always perpetrate human rights violations behind closed doors. For Ferguson, the media seems not cooperating with the gov to cover up, I believe it’s only because the Black people’s political power is very strong. If not so, the media will willfully join the gov to cover up rights violations, and even by way of setting up prior restraint on those who speak out the truth.

Because I personally experienced the prior restraint of my speech by the US and Canadian major media. Years ago, I went to CNN’s Website to leave messages in the news report comments (including the so called citizen journalism – iReport), revealing the US and Canadian gov brutal racial persecutions on me. However, whenever my name or the key words of my story appeared, my messages would disappear, never show up. But without my name or the key words of my story, my messages would show up as normal. That was the very first time I ever visited CNN’s site. But they had already set up an auto filter to filter out my story. And CNN was not the only one doing so to me, so did other media. How did they know me?

That was a prior restraint. And the cover up of my voice is not only done by all the media, but by the US & Canadian governments themselves, directly. The most ironic is that my post was censored by the US Department of State, on its own official site. This is the very Dept of State that regularly teaches all other people especially the US deemed foes about “freedom of speech” “human rights”, minority equality rights….

I sued the US gov including the Dept. of State and the media in federal court. The court ruled that the private media are not “government actors” so not liable for violating my free speech rights; as for the real “government actors” like the Department of State, they are “immune” from lawsuits so can’t be held liable for the violation either. So for my right to free speech, “private sectors” are not responsible, “Government actors” are not sueable. As a legal principle, if a right is not enforceable, it is not a right. So I do not have any human rights at all in US and Canada, LEGALLY.


Being racially persecuted by the US and Canada are not only Blacks, but also other racial minorities like me, a Chinese. I successfully challenged a White supremacy theory at University of Toronto, got retaliated, complained to a human rights commission, the commission forced me to testify under the testimony requirement of Canadian law. I was then charged and convicted for my testimony for “threats”, contrary to the testimony immunity provided by that law. The Commission did so in conspiracy with the U of T, and U of California. I lost everything in life for it. Then the civil courts in US and Canada joined the oppression, covered up all the true crimes against me. Google my name. If I were as powerful as the Blacks, I would do the same!

US court legalizes selective law enforcement – No Constitutional right to equal protection to minorities

May 4, 2012

Many of my poor countrymen like Chen Guangcheng, have been brain washed to imagine the US as a human rights defender.  The truth, as testified by my human rights case in US and Canada, is the US and the West will brutalize on any Chinese with Fascist racial persecution, and there is no Constitutional right to equal protection of law to persons of color, as there is another law made by court applying to them that gives the law enforcement agencies the right to selective law enforcement towards different persons – by their choice.

Their choice is on basis of race, just as the Blacks already blame it for their mass incarceration. The US law enforcement agencies the exercise this “lawful” choice, so “lawfully” refused to investigate the felony crimes committed against me by the Whites and their non-White accomplices, yet I was incriminated on a bogus charge. Even the US government is free to threaten me with death and forced disappearance without any liability. All because I challenged a professor’s White supremacy theory.

The right to free speech is also selectively enforceable in US on political basis. My Internet free speech has been censored by the US government, including Department of State, and by all the major private media. When I sued, the court ruled that the private media are not “government actors” so not liable for violating my free speech rights, as for the real “government actors” like the Department of State, the court ruled they are “immune” from lawsuits. NO free speech to challenge racism.


1991, I, Wanxia Liao, a then MA student, challenged a U of Toronto professor David Waterhouse’s theory “beauty is a European concept” and Asians didn’t have it in history, he lost and retaliated against me with a series of fraud in violation of the university’s grading rules, and further racial prejudice that poor Chinese still wanted to claim historical inventions. I complained to the University and then the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) but was retaliated until I was criminalized.

The OHRC conspired with an American government employee, UC professor James Cahill to criminalize me. When at first I declined to answer some of the Commission’s questions, the OHRC compelled me to testify “everything true”, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty. Then Cahill deliberately disclosed to me his conspiracy with the U of T and the Commission, when I was devastated, the OHRC questioned me as to what I would do now that my case would be dismissed at the Commission.

When I answered this question of the Commission on phone I cried “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them too”. This is my alleged crime of death threat to Waterhouse. Although I never spoke of anyone’s name, the judge convicted me on a “guessing” that I “meant” Waterhouse. It is a deprivation of my Constitutional immunity right against self-incrimination for government compelled testimonies and right to criminal justice for I was convicted on no factual evidence but a guessing.

Meantime, none of the felony crimes committed against me by US and Canadian government officials has been even investigated: perjuries committed by James Cahill, and by OHRC officer Alan Strojin; forgery of court document, perjury, falsifying evidences, etc. committed by US District Court judges Saundra Brown Armstrong and Phyllis Hamilton; death threats, threats of government forced disappearance against me made by an US government agent on Internet, etc.

I sued the US Department of Justice and FBI in court for violation of my right to equal protection by law. The court has dismissed my case, stating that I have no right to require the law enforcement agencies like the FBI to investigate my criminal allegations, because it is their choice, discretion, not their mandatory legal duty, to decide whether to investigate a criminal allegation, so they do not owe me a legal duty that I can sue to enforce.

This is legalized selective law enforcement. when the alleged perpetrators are Whites and their non-White accomplices like in my case, the agencies decide not to investigate; and when it is the other way around, the agencies then decide to the opposite. This is not a hidden practice, but a court made law that forms another set of laws that courts apply to nullify the Constitutional rights to equal protection towards the targeted people, those who are not their own. “legalized discrimination”.

The government organized a cover-up on all these persecutions on me. My posts on my human rights case were censored by the US Dept. of State on its Youtube site, the very Dept of State that goes around the world condemning other nations for Internet political censorship, and by the US government media such as Voice of America. The so called non-moderated free publishing sites like Wikipedia, Facebook, Topix, CNN’s iReport, etc. all are in accomplice with the government and censored my posts.

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”. All people: we have to achieve democracy on our own and not to be used by the US.

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











ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of United States;

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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, US Attorney for California;


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;






Case No.:




















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 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.


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.


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



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


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.


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.


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:, and, 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 ( ), 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 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.


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.


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