You are on page 1of 74

Case: 17-55404, 08/31/2017, ID: 10566393, DktEntry: 9, Page 1 of 74

No. 17-55404

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________

JEFFREY G. THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAURIE ZELON, DENNIS PERLUSS, HUGH JOHN GIBSON, HOPE
PARK LOFTS 2001-02910056 LLC, ROSARIO PERRY and NORMAN
SOLOMON

Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court
For The Central District of California, Los Angeles, California
Case No. 16-cv-06544 JAK-AJW,
The Honorable John A. Kronstadt
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
_____________________________________________________________

Jeffrey G Thomas, Esq.
201 Wilshire Blvd. Second Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (310) 650-8326

In Propria Persona

i

Case: 17-55404, 08/31/2017, ID: 10566393, DktEntry: 9, Page 2 of 74

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE AND
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

This statement is made pursuant to F. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant is an

individual and not a corporation.

The State Bar Administration of California may have an interest in the

appeal because proceedings of the State Bar Court are suspended during the

appeal.

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The issue on appeal is controlled by precedent of this circuit court of

appeals, and especially Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc. (2003) 359 F. 3d 1136.

This court of appeals must reverse the central federal district court

summarily, and Appellees will forfeit the appeal. Live argument in the

courtroom is necessary if Appellees contradict the briefs.

To avoid the appearance of impropriety, the justices (or their spouses)

assigned to the panel for this appeal should not be past associates of the

California judiciary or its state bar association or administration.

i

Case: 17-55404, 08/31/2017, ID: 10566393, DktEntry: 9, Page 3 of 74

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE …………………………………………………. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………. iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………… v

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………… 1

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………. 14

A. District Court Jurisdiction ..................................................................... 14

B. This Appellate Court ……...................................................................... 14

C. Final Order ............................................................................................. 15

D. Timeliness ............................................................................................. 15

E. Standard of Review …………………………………………………… 15

III. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES …………………… 15

IV. QUESTIONS PRESENTED ……………………………………………….. 17

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 17

VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 26

VII. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 28

A. THE ROOKER-FELDMAN AFFAIR APPLIES SOLELY TO DE FACTO

APPEALS FROM STATE COURT, AND THE DISMISSED COMPLAINT IS

NOT A DE FACTO APPEAL ………………………….……………………….. 28

ii
Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Zelon et al.
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404

Zelon et al. DktEntry: 9. ID: 10566393. Case: 17-55404.. 52 VIII. post APPENDIX (Relevant passages from S. 104-366) …………………. 08/31/2017. Page 4 of 74 B. THE ACTION IS A SUBSTANTIAL CONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS …………………………………… 43 C. Rep.S. No. APPELLANT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE APPEAL IN THE STATE COURT AND THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ROOKER AND/OR FELDMAN ……………………………………………………………………… 49 D.. U. post STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ………………………………………. OTHER ISSUES ……………………………………………………………. post iii Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………… 54 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ………………………………………….

…... (1999) 525 U. cert... aff’d... Case: 17-55404.Cir. en banc den. 2016) 2016 U.3d 1041 ……………………………………………………53 Allen v. Hunton (1878) 99 U. Rotary International v. 537 ………………………………………………………… 38... cert.. Ed. 3d 626 …………………………………... 2d 1056 . 38 Betz v. NA (11th Cir. den.. N.. Board of Psychiatric Examiners (D. U.…………… 50 Berger v.. 407] …………. 3d 895.. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.. S.S. 669 …………………………………………………………………33 Barrow v. ………………………………………………………………… 52 Carr v. Hardin (9th Cir... 44 Catz v.. 53 Arthur v. (3d Cir. JP Morgan Chase Bank... (9 Otto) 80 [25 L. reh... (2004) 540 U... den.. 2014) 569 F. 2013) 709 F.. 4th 929 ………………………………... 2000) 223 F.... ID: 10566393... Rylersdaam (9th Cir. 50 Canatella v..S.... 1998) 140 F.... Dist... Lexis 55900... ………………………… 42 i Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. App.. 35... Rotary Club of Duarte (1987) 481 U. 1103 ……………………………………………………….. 3d 1218..…. State of California (9th Cir.. 23.. 2017) 861 F. 4th 931 …………………………………… 17 Bianchi v.J. 43.. 43. S...... 34. 3d 279. 39. 2003) 334 F..... Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Zelon et al. Kamins (2007) 151 Cal... S. reh. den.. App. 3d 843. 24 Bell v.... 1213 …………………………………………………………………… 35 Board of Directors.. Boise (9th Cir. 3d 890 ………………………. 2002) 304 F..... Pankow (1993) 16 Cal. DktEntry: 9.... App'x. Yoshina (9th Cir.… 36.... 3d 453…………………………………………………………………. Page 5 of 74 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES DECISIONS Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v..C. 1998) 142 F.. 11.. Chalker (6th Cir.. 54 Bennett v.... De Bello (D.. 45 Bauguess v. 08/31/2017... 1985) 521 F..S..

48.. S. 1.……………………… 37 Exxon-Mobil Corp. 43 Great Western Mining & Mineral Co.D. cert. Ferry (6th Cir. Appx. 48 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Inc. Weingarten (4th Cir. 42. 15 Davis v. 280 ………………………………………………………. 462 . den. Fla. Case: 17-55404. 845 (11th Cir. Ed. 2d 1298.. 24-31. 3d 637 ……………………………………. 2002) 307 F. 19.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Salem Inn (1975) 422 U. Judges of Superior court (9th Cir. Cooper v.50 Gross v. 08/31/2017. 32. v. City of Tucson (9th Cir. J.. 50. City of Fontana (9th Cir. Moore (11th Cir. Hanshaw Enterprises. 922 ………………………………………. 524] …………………. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. 563 U. 904 …. 17. Florida (N. DktEntry: 9. 1994) ………. 3d 772 ………………………… 31. Emerald River Development Co. 36 Fontana Empire Center LLC v. 2005)…….. S. Child & Youth Services of Chester County (3d Cir. 3d 1128 …………………………………………. 30. 39 Gaines v. 140 Fed. v. 2010) 615 F. 2001) (en banc) 255 F. ID: 10566393. 36 Green v. den.………………. 3d 1086 ……………. (1997) 522 U.S. aff’d. U.………………………. 51 Dubinka v. cert.S. 2006) 471 F. 2012) 704 F. 34–43. 1997) 121 F.S. 3d 159. 43 Dale v.. 51 Cooper v. 51.…………… 41. Fuentes (1875) 92 U. 50 Ernst v. (9th Cir. Feldman (1983) 460 U. 3d 624 ………………………………….. v. 3d 208 …………………………… 47 ii Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. [(2 Otto)] 10 [23 L. Zelon et al. Page 6 of 74 Children A & B ex rel. 45. Fox Rothschild LLP (3d Cir.. 1997) 108 F. S. 40 Fieger v. Bayless (5th Cir. 28 – 30 F. 850 …………. 53 Doran v. 1995) 70 F. Supp. Ramos (9th Cir. 2004) 355 F.……………………………. 3d 367 ………………………………. 2000) 217 F.. 2001) 244 F. 3d 486. 3d 987 ……………………………………………………………………. (2005) 544 U.

Inc. en banc den. Inc. 12. 3d 77 ……………………………………………………………. Stone (9th Cir.…………………………. 2d 1179 .. Zelon et al. 22 Iqbal v.. 35. Peterson (2002) 100 Cal. 2000) 226 F. 08/31/2017. 3d 637 …………………………… 10. 2003) 322 F. reh. 1996) 84 F. ID: 10566393. 2004) 404 F. 2012) 682 F. 619] …………………………. App. filed 5/19/2017 …………………………………. en banc den.. 44 iii Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Ct.. 30. 3d 728 ………………………………… 39. 4th 279 …………………………… 49 In Re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal. Lexis 25438 ……………. 2005 U.D. App.... Rodriques (10th Cir. DeGrandy (1994) 512 U.. Lindblade (In re Dyer. Cal. Case: 17-55404. cert. 3d 534. 3d 381 …………………………………………………………………… 36 In re Fair Wage Law (2009) 176 Cal. S. 2014) 748 F.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . S. 2017) 845 F.. (9th Cir. 53 Johnson v.. 51 Holliday Amusement Co. 3d 769 ……………… 39 Johnson v. 31. U. Sterling (C.S.. 36 Kimes v. TMSL. Page 7 of 74 Groves v. 640 [4 S. 997 ……………………………………. Guy (5th Cir. rehg. Albany County Board of Elections (2d Cir. den. 2004) 359 F. Waters (1884) 111 U. 9th Cir. 3d 394. 40 Johnson v.. Patel (7th Cir. 2005) 422 F. 3d 1121 …………………………………… 48 Knupfler v. 3d 1136 ………………. Piper (8th Cir. v. DktEntry: 9. 4th 659 ……………………………… 43 Hoblock v. 50 Housing Rights Center v. App. Supp. 546 U. 40 Kougasian v. LLC (7th Cir.……………..…………………………………………………………… 40 Illinois Central Railroad Co.S. 42 Johnson v. cert. 2015) 780 F. of Charleston. State of South Carolina (4th Cir. 822 ……………………. 3d 1103. v. 46 Karsjens v.……. 3d 1178 …………… 18. 2005) 401 F. Pushpin Holdings.

1996) 95 F. 6 Long v. 2d 240 ………………………. 2d 540 …………………………… 45.. Zelon et al. Page 8 of 74 Lakin v. Harris (9th Cir. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . cert. 589 ………………………………………… 46 McKay v. 30. 50 Mothershed v. 9. 968 …. 35 Noel v. sub nom.. (2012) 688 F. 1999) 182 F. Eu (9th Cir. 35 Marsh v. 2006) 441 F. den.. 4th 644 ……………… 8. 1987) 827 F.……….S. 3d 1022 …………………………………………… 15. City of Lebanon (3d Cir. (7th Cir. App. Mountain Zephyr (1995) 43 Cal. Pfeil (9th Cir. West Coast Life Insurance Co. 2d 697 ……… 53 Maldonado v. U. 459 ……………………….Y. 3d 1003 ……………………………. 2005) 420 F. 2000) iv Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.. Case: 17-55404. v. DktEntry: 9. 08/31/2017. 34. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 2007) 521 F. ID: 10566393.……………………………….. 50 Marshall v. 3d 602 . Maldonado (2005) 544 U.50 Lee v. (2d Cir. 29 Mo’s Express LLC v. Dennis (per curiam 2006) 546 U. 29 Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Supp. 4th 289 ………………………. Sopkin (10th Cir. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.Y. 10 Lance v. Kempton v. N. N. Grant (E. Justices of Supreme Court (9th Cir.S. Hall (9th Cir. S. McGrath (2005) 128 Cal.D. App.. Shore Bank Development Corp. 3d 1229 …………………. 2003) 341 F. Holmes (1891) 141 U.………………………………………………………………. 45 Marshall v. 48 Moccio v. 3d 1004 ………………… 4. 3d 945.. State Office of Court Admin. 3d 1148 …………………………………….S.. 42 Nesses v. 3d 548 ………… 30 Los Angeles County Bar Association v. 47. 4th 1093 …………………………………………………… 43 Parkview Associates Partnership v. 2004) 370 F. 1995) 68 F. Shepard (7th Cir. 3d 195 ……. 2005) 410 F. 1992) 979 F. 36 Manufactured Home Communities Inc.

S. 37 Payne v. 1. 1999 Cal. (9th Cir. 4th 1336. rev. Inc. Fidelity Trust (1923) 263 U. 2002) 305 F.……………………. rev. 10 Shaw v. S. 522 ……………………………… 53. 48. den. S. Allen (1984) 466 U. den. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 51 Sklar v. 50.. 19 Pulliam v. 2014) 56 F. 24-31. App. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal. 3d 855 ………………… 48 Rochin v. Hernandez (2009) 172 Cal. 3d 386 ……………………………………………………………. 37. ID: 10566393. Ironridge Global LLC (C. Wachovia Bank N. (1987) 487 U.. App.. 2001 Cal. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal. 3d 1121 ……………………………………………………………… 40 Sexton v. 50 Skinner v. v. 51. U. 43 Powers v. App. 4th 1569 ………………………… 8.. 15 v Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 30. Jordan (1979) 440 U. A. 5th 124 ………………………………………… 9 Scripsamerica Inc. Texaco. S. 08/31/2017. S. 3d 321 ……………………………………………………………………. App. Supp.. Cal. Hughes Aircraft Co. 332 …………………………………………… 53 Reusser v. 4th 715 ……………………………… 49 Peterson Novelties. v.. Addendum Quern v. Zelon et al. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 85 …………………………. 2008) 525 F.D. 34–43.……… 5. Switzer (2011) 562 U. (1998) 67 Cal. 43 Rooker v. 31. Commissioner (9th Cir. 17. 521 ……………………………………. Lexis 251 …………………………………………. Rader (2008) 167 Cal. S.…. 18 Pennzoil Co. 1 ………………………………… 31 People v. 9. 10. 11. DktEntry: 9. Lexis 1222 . Page 9 of 74 225 F. Inc. v. (2000) 83 Cal. 53 Ryan v. 4th 1228. Johnson Manufacturing Co. 4th 1403 ……………………… 9. 2002) 282 F. City of Berkley (6th Cir. 3d 610 ……………………………. 45. 413 ……………………………. Case: 17-55404.

S. App. en banc den. DktEntry: 9..3d 592.………………………………………………… 37 United States v. S. 441 ……………………………………………. 2008) 546 F. 50 Sun Valley Foods Co. 4th 199 ………………………. 2d 186 ……………………………………. den. 2006) 434 F. 175 ……………………………… 47 Williams v. den. S.. S. 3d 432. 828 ………. App. 549 U. Levesque (1st Cir. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal. Case: 17-55404. Lexis 19802] …………………………………. 3d 794 [2002 U. Page 10 of 74 Sole Energy Co. 3d 923 ………………………… 48 United States v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.Y. 18 Southern California Edison Co.S. v. 3d 1284. Sprecher (S. reh. ………. Zelon et al. 41 United States v. (6th Cir. . 2002) 307 F. 41 United States v.S. 08/31/2017.D. cert. Detroit Marine Terminals. v. Lane (1986) 474 U. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 28 United States v. 321 ………………………………. Weltman. 3d 78 …………………………. v. 18 Todd v. Computing Scale Co. Kline (1973) 412 U. reh.……. ID: 10566393. 1986) 801 F. Beggerly (1998) 524 U. 133 …………… 13. 2014) 765 F. 54 United States v.……………… 47 Svistunoff v. App. v. den. Inc. Lynch (9th Cir. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U. 61 ……………………………….. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U. rehg. 45 vi Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 23 Wells Fargo & Co. 438 ……………………………………… 38 United States v. 46 Vlandis v. BASF Catalysts LLC (3d Cir.. den. 1992) 783 F. 38 …………………………………. S. Taylor (1920) 254 U. rev.. 1994) 15 F.. 2d 638.S. den. S. S. Ritchie (6th Cir.. (1923) 261 U... 47 United States v. Supp. 44 United States v. 399 ………………. 886 ……………………………………………… 37 Toledo Scale Co. 3d 306 …………… 32. Dicter (11th Cir.N. S. Weinbert & Reis Co. 1994) 23 F. (6th Cir. Shepherd (5th Cir. v. 531 U. 1999) 198 F.. cert. 21. U.

..14 42 U...... Constitution ………………………………….……………………… 30 STATUTES 18 U....... 14 28 U. §371 ………………………………………………12. Addendum 42 U. 2006) 448 F.... §501(c)(3) …………………………………………………………….C....C.. S.. § 1983 …………………………………………………… 14...C. Constitution ………………………………….. 31.... Government Accountability Office (Fed. S. Page 11 of 74 Willis v.. §47(b) ………..C...…… 49 Wood v.. Constitution ……………………………………. Code.S.C...……………………………………………………48 vii Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.. Zelon et al....S... Constitution …………………………………. § 1291 …. 47 Business and Professions Code §17200 ………………………………………. Orange County (11th Cir. Constitution ……………………………… 43.....2d 1543.... 20... DktEntry: 9.... cert. 50 26 U... § 1988 ……………………………………………………… Addendum Amendment One of the U.. § 1331 ….S..........S.C...... S........... S............ (2007) 549 U........C...S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 ........ 10 28 U.. Cir...… 24 Cal. S..S.. Case: 17-55404..... denied (1984) 467 U.. 28 28 U........S....... 45...19.................... 38 Amendment Five of the U.C... 27.. 26 28 U.......... 08/31/2017. 41 Amendment Eleven of the U.....S. S.… 24 Amendment Fourteen of the U. 1206 ………………………….... 1983) 715 F....... 3d 1341.. Civ.S. U. ID: 10566393.. 30. §1257 …………………………………………………………………... 1210 ……………………….S....... §636 …………………………………………………………………........... cert... den. 24 Amendment Eight of the U.

27. Code Civ.. 42 Corporations Code §5913 ………………………………………………………. 40 Cal. §1034 ……………………………………………… 27. 32. Rule of Court 8.S.7 ……………………………………………………… 14 Cal. Crim. §128. Zelon et al..500(c) …………………………………………. U.. L. Pro. 15. 33 Cal. Code Civ. 32. 72 ……………………………………………………………………. Proc. R. 104-317.500 ……………………………………………………. 16. Rule of Court 8. DktEntry: 9. 23. ID: 10566393.16 ……………………………………………………. 08/31/2017.…………………………………………………… 7 Cal. 104-366 ……………………………………………… 53. 14 ………………………………………………………………. 49 Cal. Pro. Addendum viii Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 3487 ……………………………………………. Pub. 8 ………………………………………………………………… 40 F. §907 ……………………………………10. §425. Rule of Court 8. Proc. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Proc. Code Civ. 41 Cal. Code Civ. §473(b) …………………………………………………13. 18.Civ. No. 16. R.. §906 …. P. Case: 17-55404. 42 SECONDARY SOURCES Sen. Crim. 39.. Rep.R. Proc. Code Civ. §909 ……………………………………………………11. 20 Corporations Code §12261 ……………………………………………………… 3 The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996. 11. 14 Cal. Code Civ. No. 110 Stat. 53 COURT RULES F. 26 F. Page 12 of 74 Cal. 27 Cal. Proc. Code Civ. 32 Cal. Proc.264 ……………………………………………………. Proc.

Appellant. Hugh John Gibson (“Gibson”). Feldman (1983) 1 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. DktEntry: 9.S. Southern District of California) LALAURIE ZELON ET AL. 17-55404 Plaintiff .. 2017. The R & R recommended dismissal of the action based on the so-called Rooker-Feldman “matter” (a/k/a the “RF affair” or “cutoff” or “detour”). THOMAS. I. ID: 10566393. U. Case No. on February 3. Case: 17-55404. and manually served it on the Appellant. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . No. Defendants . The Magistrate Judge Andrew Wistrich filed his Report & Recommendations (“R & R”) with the clerk of the district court in response to the Defendants’ several motions to dismiss the Complaint. Page 13 of 74 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY G. 08/31/2017. Zelon et al.” Laurie Zelon and Dennis Perluss are described as the “Judicial Appellees” herein. Norman Solomon (“Solomon”) and Hope Park Lofts 2001-02910056 LLC (“HPL”) are designated the “Conspiring Appellees. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. INTRODUCTION Rosario Perry (“Perry”). 2:16-cv-06544 (Central vs.Appellees. APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF et al. D.C..

Case: 17-55404. himself and the public by covering up the 2 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.07. Appellant manually filed with the court and manually served the Appellees through the U.S. 462. S. Appellant alleged that the Conspiring Appellees intentionally deceived the court. ER at 203 .169. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 08/31/2017. 205:11 – 13. Fidelity Trust (1923) 263 U. ER 216 – 224. 413. In response to the R & R. 6. because Conspiring Appellees caused a fake and nonexistent “zombie” plaintiff to bring the action in the superior court (“1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC”) and to fraudulently dismiss all defendants from the action before the court ruled on a dispositive motion or tried the action. S. cause of action by cause of action. R & R. Objections. BC466413 in the superior court. ER 168 . U. ER 152 – 191. and the additional grounds asserted in the motions of the no state action and absolute immunity defenses. DktEntry: 9. Page 14 of 74 460 U. The R & R reasoned that the Appellant’s Complaint directly attacked a state court judgment and was as a de facto appeal therefrom. ID: 10566393. R & R. mail with the “Objections to the R & R” (hereinafter “Objections”) within fourteen (14) days of the court’s service of the R & R on him. Zelon et al. S. Id. The R & R twice incorrectly identified Appellant as the person who brought the appeal in #B254143. In his Objections responding to the R & R. action no. ER at 201 n. Objections. Complaint. Appellant specifically addressed the RF Cut-off. The Complaint specifically alleges that the superior court lacked jurisdiction of the action appealed from in the court of appeals. Rooker v.

Zelon et al. which reinstated the articles of 1130 South Hope Street Investment Associates LLC. ER 13 . The secretary of state required a name change amendment because after the secretary cancelled the articles. Appellant’s client in action BC466413 was Mr. 08/31/2017. BC466413 sought to recover money from the fund in the court on the theories of money lent and implied contract. 236 – 240. Appellant’s client claimed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200. ER 216 – 224. which they claimed were fraudulently cancelled. Mr. Case: 17-55404.1 See Ex. Haiem. BS140530. U. 171. ID: 10566393. it registered unrelated Delaware incorporated entities with these names. BS140530 to reinstate the articles of 1130 South Hope Street Investment Associates LLC and Hope Park Lofts LLC in November of 2012. Page 15 of 74 nonexistence of the zombie plaintiff through manipulation of change of name records of the Secretary of State of California for a second limited liability company to the former name of the zombie plaintiff limited liability company. 2013. Corporations Code §12261. Objections.14. 1 to Declaration.S. The superior court ordered the entities reinstated on August 28. 171. Haiem’s original cross-complaint in action no. ER 169:7 – 170:6. 3 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Complaint. to deceive Appellant into believing that the zombie plaintiff 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC had existed since in 2003. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . DktEntry: 9. ER 163:24 – 164:2. The Conspiring Appellees concatenated the name change amendment with the court order in case no.000) from the balance remaining of the fund in court of One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars 1 Conspiring Appellees petitioned the superior court in action no. Objections.

ER 63 – 65) distributing the fake fund in court in the so-called interpleader. 2013. including the final order dated May 22. 08/31/2017. 2013 in action no. 2013 denying a motion for requested relief to restore Mr. because the reversal of the order dated May 22. Lee v. 2013 (Ex. Mr. Appellant appealed from several orders. The Complaint alleges that the state court of appeals did not have jurisdiction of the appeal because the order of the superior court dated December 4. Zelon et al. Page 16 of 74 ($1. Haiem’s original cross-complaint for money lent and for breach of implied contract to the civil active list. West Coast Life Insurance Co. 3d 1004. 2015 is void. BC466413 which became appeal no.S. 2013 would require Conspiring Appellees to restore the fund in court to the court. 4 to Declaration. See Ex. B254143. The Appellant filed the notice of appeal on January 30. ID: 10566393. Complaint. ER 30. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . DktEntry: 9. The superior court’s final order of May 22.300. The mere reversal of the order dated December 4. and the order dated December 4. Haiem appealed both orders. 7 to Declaration. 10 to Declaration. The fund ceased to exist after May 22. (2012) 688 F. 2013 from the order of the superior court dated December 4.000). ER 110- 111. 2013 appealed from and decided by the court of appeals on April 27. Case: 17-55404. The Complaint alleges that all orders of the superior 4 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. ER 236 – 242. 2013 would have resulted in a trial on a complaint seeking the payment of damages by Conspiring Appellees personally. 2013 in action BC466413 distributed the remainder of the fund in the court to the Conspiring Appellees. U. Ex.

B250173 in the second court of appeals. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Haiem’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his original cross-complaint. 2013. B466413 denying Mr. BC466413 are void because the fake zombie plaintiff brought the action and caused it to be dismissed by voluntarily dismissing all defendants. Haiem separately appealed from the order dated May 22. 2013 in appeal no. Zelon et al. Ex. On or about December 10. Mr. Haiem’s original cross-complaint in 2011! Appellant prays for leave of this federal circuit court of appeals to amend the Complaint on remand to allege that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction of the issue on appeal. despite that the fake zombie plaintiff had previously filed an answer in no. 2013 after Conspiring Appellee Hugh John Gibson Esq. 2013 in action #BC466413. On May 22. 11 to Declaration. 5 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Case: 17-55404. 185. U. Page 17 of 74 court in action no. provided the Judicial Appellees with a copy of the superior court’s order dated December 4. 2013 in action no. 08/31/2017. 2013.123. B254143 that included the appeal from the final order dated May 22. ER 161. as follows. DktEntry: 9. for an additional reason. Haiem’s prior appeal in #B250173 from the order dated May 22.S. Before taking appeal no. the Judicial Appellees dismissed Mr. Objections. ID: 10566393. ER 113 . the superior court denied Appellant’s client the right to challenge the distribution of the fund in court because the fake zombie plaintiff dismissed the Appellant’s client from the action. BC46613 to Mr.

Therefore it was only fair to consider Mr. See Objections 161. Haiem was unsuccessful on December 4. In July of 2014. and Mr. B250173 because they reasoned that Appellant’s client was no longer a party to the action in the superior court as of May 22. and that the superior court permitted the fake zombie plaintiff to control the fund in court. 2013 in his motion to vacate the dismissal of the original cross-complaint by the order of the superior court on November 10.S. Haiem’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the original cross-complaint on December 4. 67 – 82. Exhibits 7 & 8 to Declaration. Haiem 6 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. compare Lee v. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . ID: 10566393. Case: 17-55404. 185. (2012) 688 F. DktEntry: 9. 3d 1004. 2013 because the fake zombie plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed the client in February of 2013. Zelon et al. Haiem was not a party to the action after 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC dismissed him from the action in February of 2013. 2013 (which Mr. Page 18 of 74 The Judicial Appellees dismissed appeal no. West Coast Life Insurance Co. Haiem as a party to the action insofar as his original cross-complaint pleaded a claim against the fund in the court . 2013 and the appeal from the order dated February 1. 2013 as conclusive proof that Mr. The Judicial Appellees failed to consider that 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC filed an answer to the original cross-complaint. But the Judicial Appellees foreclosed this argument by interpreting the superior court’s denial of Mr. ER 63 – 65. 2012. U. Conspiring Appellees filed a motion in the court of appeals to partially dismiss #B254143 including the appeal of the order dated May 22. 08/31/2017.

the first time in the appeal no. 2014. Zelon et al. ER 113 . §906). DktEntry: 9. 11 to Declaration. 2013 in action no. the Conspiring Appellees’ deception as to the name change amendment concatenated with the reinstatement of 1130 South Hope Street Investment Associates LLC as 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC had cast its spell on Appellant and his client. and included it in the record on appeal. Code Civ. Appellant and his client did not know that the plaintiff was a zombie and did not make this argument. and the plaintiff was controlled by Conspiring Appellees who also had claims to the fund in court. Thus the Judicial Appellees prejudged the appeal of the order dated May 22. 08/31/2017. Judicial Appellees granted the Conspiring Appellees’ motion. Haiem from the action. The motion asserted that more than sixty (60) days elapsed between the superior court’s entry of the orders and the filing of the Notice of Appeal. B254143. 11 to Declaration. 2013 twice for the same reason. (Ex. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . U. On August 28. BC466413 must be reversed on appeal because Conspiring Appellees caused the plaintiff to dismiss Mr. Twice when the issue was presented to them that the superior court allowed 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC 7 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.S. Proc. ER 116). The opening brief that Appellant filed for Mr. Page 19 of 74 appealed under Cal. Haiem in July of 2014 argued that the order dated May 22. Case: 17-55404. ID: 10566393. At this time. B250173 and the second time in the appeal in no. The opening brief noted that the plaintiff had answered the original cross-complaint. Ex.123.

and that Mr. Zelon et al. after the partial dismissal of the appeal the Judicial Appellees’ denied leave to Mr. not direct. B254143 that Judicial Appellees would not consider any argument in the appeal that the voluntary dismissal of Mr. Judicial Appellees refused to grant Appellant’s motion for Mr. Case: 17-55404. 2013. 2013 in appeal no. Page 20 of 74 to control the claims to the fund in the court.S. Proc. Haiem because it had filed an answer to his cross-complaint. Haiem should be deemed to be a party to the action notwithstanding that 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC had filed a voluntary dismissal of Mr. U. thus denying effective access to the courts for Mr. And after the partial dismissal of the appeal on August 28. Haiem’s only avenue of attack on the order dated May 22. Mr. or at least to have the reply briefs deemed filed. §473(b). 2014. Haiem should be ignored and Mr. 4th 644 the state’s high court stated the general rule that the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction of an appeal from a postjudgment order involving the same issues as an appeal from the 8 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. ID: 10566393. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal. Haiem and Appellant. 08/31/2017. DktEntry: 9. B254143 was collateral. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Haiem seeking leave to file additional briefs. Haiem to file additional briefs to more fully address the issue of the jurisdictional time limitation of Code Civ. Haiem should have been deemed a party to the action for the purpose of attacking the order dated May 22. In Lakin v. Although it was clear because of their premature dismissal of appeal no. B250173 and the partial dismissal of appeal no.

DktEntry: 9. ID: 10566393. Under Sexton. but not as to Payne’s alternative holding which restated the general rule in Lakin. Compare Payne v. 2013 twice. B254143 treated that appeal as an untimely appeal. Zelon et al. when Mr. Case: 17-55404. supra. supra. App. App. Rader (2008) 167 Cal.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . §663 are unappealable postjudgment orders. Payne was disapproved by the state’s high court in Ryan v. Code Civ. 08/31/2017. U. 2013 and in appeal no. Lakin and Payne. which the state’s supreme court approved in Ryan. Judicial Appellees prejudged both appeals from the order dated May 22. Page 21 of 74 judgment or final order. Proc. 4th 1567. 4th 1403. 2013 because of a missed jurisdictional time limitation in the superior court on the motion to vacate the 9 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 2013 and May 22. The state rule is that dismissals of motions in the superior court because of missed jurisdictional time limitations must merely cite the missed time limitation. Judicial Appellees prejudged the appeal of the order dated May 22. 5th 124 insofar as it ruled that statutory motions to vacate the judgment under Cal. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal. See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. Haiem from the action by the fake zombie plaintiff 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC. Haiem had a reasonable argument that he should be deemed to be a party to the action in spite of the filing of a voluntary dismissal of Mr. 2013 the court of appeals was required to sua sponte exercise its discretion to consider whether or not it could dismiss the appeal from the order dated December 4. the merits are irrelevant. ie. when it partially dismissed the appeal from the orders dated February 1.

160 – 161. 233 – 234. 12 to Declaration. ID: 10566393. in its action against Conspiring Appellees in the superior court in action #BC546574 to recover valuable property from them. 166 – 167. Zelon et al. 3d 637. Proc. 252 . 228 .232. 2014 including the appeal from the order dated December 4. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . the Conspiring Appellees intended to destroy Appellant’s practice of law. Code Civ. ER 183. 10 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Lakin and Payne. ER 220. 181. 2013. 246 – 247. Cal. ER 179. ER 224. an Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) charity. Objections. The motion for sanctions in the appeal proceeded under the archaic and void for vagueness so-called “frivolous appeals” statute. With their motion for sanctions in appeal B254143. Page 22 of 74 dismissal of the original cross-complaint. Objections. Complaint. Case: 17-55404. Ex. 239. ER 154. ER 125 – 146. The state’s high court last addressed the definition of frivolity in the statute in the vague opinion in Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.253. Judicial Appellees were required to exercise their discretion to dismiss the entire appeal on August 28. 2014. after the court of appeals should have lost jurisdiction of the appeal on August 28.S. U. DktEntry: 9. §907 as part of the Conspiring Appellee’plot against Appellant. Objections. 249 – 250. Conspiring Appellees filed their motion for appellate sanctions in October of 2014. Complaint. 08/31/2017. 242. to disqualify Appellant from representing their arch-nemesis True Harmony. Under Sexton.

3d 626. The vague sanctions statute is limited to sanctions of appeals “as brought. which 11 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. The Conspiring Appellees and Judicial Appellees ignored procedural due process guarantees of a fair trial. Objections. DktEntry: 9. Code Civ. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . the Conspiring Appellees submitted information supposedly regarding the Appellant’s intent to harm the Conspiring Appellees (an element of a frivolous appeal) based on extra-record non-admitted into evidence emails between Appellant and Mr. and free speech and petitioning rights and equal protection of the laws of the Appellant. U. The Judicial Appellees failed to require the filing of a certificate of interested persons for the fake and zombie central respondent 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC. Zelon et al. ER 212 – 313. ID: 10566393. see Powers v. 08/31/2017. Code Civ. §909. With the declaration submitted to the court of appeals for the motion. §907. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal. Proc. And because the court of appeals lacked statutory jurisdiction of the extra-record extra-evidence motion. ER 154. Proc. it lacked the authority to sanction Appellant. Gibson attached to it. 4th 85. access to courts. Page 23 of 74 The court of appeals also lacked specific jurisdiction over the motion for sanctions. The court of appeals lacked jurisdiction of the motion for sanctions because it relied on extra-record information which was not admitted into evidence under Cal. Complaint. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.S. Id. Case: 17-55404.” Cal. The state courts lack the inherent power to order the sanction of payment of money. Bauguess v.

Case: 17-55404. already possessed by them as the records filed in the court of appeals for appeals nos. 239. Because the superior court lacked jurisdiction of action BC466413. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 2017. 08/31/2017. 2015 is void and the RF Cutoff does not apply. Judge of the United States District Court first entered an order on February 9. Page 24 of 74 Conspiring Appellees could not have truthfully provided. 6 to Declaration. on February 23. On the same day. (9th Cir. DktEntry: 9. In state court action no. conspiring 12 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Ex. Zelon et al. Judgment. B248456 and 250173. ID: 10566393. The order for sanctions dated April 27. Order. Objections. BC466413. In response to Appellant’s verbal request directed to the clerks for the Judge and the Magistrate Judge to evaluate the timeliness of the Objections. ER 55 – 61. ER 6. BC546574. Inc. U. The Honorable John A. B254143. and the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction of the appeal in B254143 and of the motion for sanctions therein. 3d 1136. Complaint 234. Amended Order. ER 8. the Court entered a judgment. Kronstadt. Kougasian v. After the Appellant filed the complaint in this action Appellant was able to obtain by subpoena on the escrow officer the escrow documents for the sale of the property the proceeds of which the Conspiring Appellees alleged became the fund in court in action no. TMSL.S. 2017. ER 179. ER 7. stating that Appellant failed to file objections in a timely fashion. 2004) 359 F. and accepted the Magistrate Judge’s R & R. the court entered an amended order adopting the R & R notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s Objections. Judicial Appellees failed to “find” the appellate record for appeal no.

Page 25 of 74 Appellees used the anti-slapp law to block this vital discovery of their crimes that they conspired to cover up with the bogus motion for sanctions in the state court of appeals. The escrow documents disclosed that Conspiring Appellees gave fake and false tax identification information for the fake and dummy zombie plaintiff 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC in the interpleader action to the escrow officer. Conspiring Appellees had obtained protective orders shielding the information from inspection by Appellant in state court action no. 1992) 783 F. S. §371. 18 U. Sprecher (S. The Conspiring Appellees claimed to distribute the proceeds of the sale to the fake and dummy zombie plaintiff. When done by an attorney at law who knows the law. government and they completes the crime of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service of the U. v. When the superior court denied the anti-slapp motions. 08/31/2017.S. these acts intend to harm the U. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Case: 17-55404.S. 5 to Declaration.Y. DktEntry: 9. Treasury. United States. BC546574. Appellant intends to file a supplemental Complaint herein or to include in the Amended Complaint as permitted by the order of this court of appeals a prayer for relief from the additional sanctions and/or attorneys’ fees that the Conspiring Appellees deceived the superior court to grant (by order dated 13 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 133. On remand.” Ex. S.N. ID: 10566393.D. whom they claimed received the funds and deposited the so-called “fund in court. ER 44 – 53.C. U. Zelon et al. instead of the information for the seller. Supp.

II. 4 to Declaration.C. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 42 U. Case: 17-55404. Page 26 of 74 August 24. Code Civ. 08/31/2017. and the federal claims arise under federal law as set forth in 28 U.S. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION A.S. Ex. after the court of appeals entered the remittitur.000) in addition to the above amount. B. DktEntry: 9. 2016 served on Appellant in November of 2016) against Appellant under Cal.S. DISTRICT COURT The District Court has jurisdiction of the dismissed Complaint because it included five federal claims for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. /// /// 14 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Zelon et al. ID: 10566393. §1331.7 without any evidence therefore. §128. §1291. THIS APPELLATE COURT The Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under 28 U. Id. §1983. Appellant learned of the existence of this final “new” order for sanctions and attorneys’ fees from the correspondence in October of 2016 to his office from the representative of the state bar administration who wrote a letter to Appellant in October of 2016 investigating the failures to report the sanctions and to pay the so-called debt. Proc.C. The trial court’s recent illegal sanctions and attorneys’ fees are approximately Forty-five Thousand Dollars ($45.C. U. ER 28 – 29.S.

TIMELINESS The central federal district court (by the Honorable John A. And. Commissioner (9th Cir. 2017. Moore (11th Cir. §907 states that: “When it appears to the reviewing court that the appeal was frivolous or taken solely for delay. Proc. v. Page 27 of 74 C. City of San Jose (9th Cir. ER 6). (ER 6). DktEntry: 9. 612. 3d 610.” Sklar v.” 15 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. D. E. Appellant filed the notice of appeal in the district court on March 24. 2017 (ER 1 – 5). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 .S. III. Code Civ. 08/31/2017. U. Case: 17-55404. 3d 624. Manufactured Home Communities Inc. J. Kronstadt. FINAL ORDERS The Notice of Appeal is from an amended order of the court adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations to dismiss the action without leave to amend. dated February 23. ID: 10566393. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES Cal. 3d 1022. Dale v. 2002) 282 F. “[w]hen de novo review is compelled. 2017 (Dkt. and the amended order (judgment) de novo. #109. Zelon et al. it may add to the costs on appeal such damages as may be just. no form of appellate deference is acceptable.) entered the amended order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s R & R on February 23. 2005) 420 F. 1997) 121 F. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court of Appeals must review the R & R de novo.

Case: 17-55404.. “(e) Time to serve and file 16 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. including an order dismissing an appeal involuntarily. finality.264: Rule 8. Rule of Court 8..500. ..” Cal. “(b) Finality of decision (1) Except as otherwise provided in this rule. ID: 10566393. a Court of Appeal decision in a civil appeal. and modification of decision . Page 28 of 74 Cal.500: Rule 8.. Filing.... is final in that court 30 days after filing. Zelon et al.. “(c) Limits of review (1) As a policy matter. DktEntry: 9. 08/31/2017. but as a policy matter the Supreme Court normally will accept the Court of Appeal opinion's statement of the issues and facts unless the party has called the Court of Appeal's attention to any alleged omission or misstatement of an issue or fact in a petition for rehearing. Petition for Review.” ..264.S. Rule of Court 8. on petition for review the Supreme Court normally will not consider an issue that the petitioner failed to timely raise in the Court of Appeal. U. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . (2) A party may petition for review without petitioning for rehearing in the Court of Appeal.

Whether the Exception to the Rooker-Feldman Cut-off for Judgments not involving a party to the action applies to this Complaint? V. 08/31/2017. App. Page 29 of 74 (1) A petition for review must be served and filed within 10 days after the Court of Appeal decision is final in that court. (2) The time to file a petition for review may not be extended. DktEntry: 9. Code Civ. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . but the Chief Justice may relieve a party from a failure to file a timely petition for review if the time for the court to order review on its own motion has not expired. U.” IV. supra. ID: 10566393. Whether the Exception to the Rooker-Feldman Cut-off for “Independent” Claims applies to the Complaint? B. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal. because a dummy nonexistent zombie plaintiff brought and dismissed the action in BC466413 of the superior court. To recapitulate the Introduction. the date of finality is not extended if it falls on a day on which the clerk's office is closed.S. Whether the Rooker-Feldman Cut-off applies to claims or causes of action equivalent to a Bill of Independent Equitable Relief? C. See Betz v. 4th 931. QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. For purposes of this rule. Zelon et al. §473 was void. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This Statement of the Case incorporates by reference the Introduction. Proc. and the appeal in B254143 from the void order of the court denying the client’s motion for relief under Cal. 17 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Case: 17-55404. the action no. BC466413 in the superior court was void.

Page 30 of 74 Svistunoff v. see also Sole Energy Co. The Judicial Appellees afforded Appellant him woefully inadequate opportunity for live argument of the sanctions issue at the live argument of the appeal. Judicial Appellees were required to dismiss the entire appeal in response to Appellee Gibson’s motion to partially dismiss the appeal. den. §907. App. DktEntry: 9. See supra at I. 2013.S. there was no point to the court of appeals considering the appeal from the order denying the motion for relief dated December 4. Complaint. Case: 17-55404. The Judicial Appellees failed to serve Appellant with an appropriately precise order to show cause for the sanctions under the unconstitutionally vague and overbroad archaic law for appellate sanctions. Rader. rev. because of the rule in Payne v. Complaint. Proc.. The sanctions requested were punitive because Conspiring Appellees sought recovery of all fees invoiced to Appellee Gibson’s clients. The Judicial Appellees ignored precedential decisions of this federal court of appeals requiring a trial by jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt of in motions for punitive sanctions against attorneys at law. Code Civ. 2013. 242 . reh.. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . ER 235. 18 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. v. ID: 10566393. 4th 199. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal. Proc. Zelon et al. U. 08/31/2017. App. 2d 638. den.243. ER 235. and the fees allegedly incurred in the motion for sanctions. Code Civ. regarding appeals from post-judgment orders denying motions for relief from an order of the court under Cal. supra. Knupfler v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal. §473(b). Id. After the Judicial Appellees dismissed the appeal from the order dated May 22. Cal.

Appellant raised and discussed the requirements of a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt in his petition for rehearing from the sanctions order. U. ER 212 . 2003) 322 F. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 3d 1128. Case: 17-55404. Zelon et al. ID: 10566393. 08/31/2017. v. which was eighty percent (80%) of the amount that the Conspiring Appellees requested in the motion. Constitution.S. 3d 1178. Page 31 of 74 Lindblade (In re Dyer. 2001) 244 F. 9th Cir. and Appellant’s rights of free speech and petitioning for redress of grievances. The Judicial Appellees awarded appellate sanctions of Fifty-eight Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($58. (9th Cir. Inc. The Judicial Appellees’ vague procedures for noticing and deciding the bogus motion unconstitutionally combined prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in violation of the constitutional principles of separation of powers and due process of the laws. summarily dismissed by Judicial Appellees. J. Hanshaw Enterprises. right of access to the courts. Appellant also criticized the finding in the sanctions order of intent to harm based on extra-record information and non- admitted into evidence information. F.500). 19 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. The fines and fees that Judicial Appellees awarded to Conspiring Appellee Gibson threaten the taking of Appellant’s property in his license to practice law without just compensation in violation of Amendment Five of the U. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal. Ibid. through disciplinary proceedings by the state bar administration brought for the purpose of collecting the fines and fees for Appellant Gibson.S. See Powers v. Emerald River Development Co.313. 4th 85. DktEntry: 9. Complaint.

True Harmony alleged that the state’s attorney general failed to approve the Settlement Agreement under Corporations Code §5913. 2011 . based on a fraudulent interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and prior court orders. The factual background to action no. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . in action no. ID: 10566393.000) which they accomplished through back-to-back escrow accounts and through the intermediary 20 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. True Harmony alleged that Conspiring Appellees defrauded the court. BC546574 in the superior court filed by Appellant for True Harmony on May 22. Page 32 of 74 In case no. dated April 1. Furthermore True Harmony alleged that the clerk’s deeds obtained by Conspiring Appellees through execution on these void court orders are themselves void. BC546574 explains Conspiring Appellees’ motive to plot and scheme to deny his civil rights to Appellant. the public and True Harmony in obtaining void and unenforcible orders of the court in 2008. Case: 17-55404.S. the public and True Harmony in forging a fraudulent and void Settlement Agreement obligating True Harmony to convey part ownership to its downtown Property to Conspiring Appellees. and the sale of the Property in the fake escrow in 2011 violated the cease and desist order of the state’s attorney general against the sale. DktEntry: 9. Zelon et al. In 2011 Conspiring Appellees purported to sell the Property to a supposedly unrelated entity for Two Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2. Furthermore that Conspiring Appellees defrauded the court.100. U. 08/31/2017. requiring True Harmony to convey title to the Property by deed to Conspiring Appellees. 2014. BC244718.

U.000) currently. 08/31/2017.500. 224.000) or more in 2011 and is worth more than Five Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5.C. After closing the two sales escrows back-to-back. Conspiring Appellees falsely alleged in their 21 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. This interpleader complaint falsely alleged that the nominal seller in the so-called contract for sale of the Property was the zombie fake entity. Page 33 of 74 of a personal agent. #BC466413 in an unverified complaint. ER 221. a per se violation of the penal statute 18 U.S. Complaint. supra. 234. §371 because practicing attorneys at law know that they defraud the Internal Revenue Service in these circumstances. The Conspiring Appellees requested the escrow holder to deposit the cash purchase price minus deductions on the closing statement into an account in the name of the fake zombie entity 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC. ER 224. The Complaint alleges that the Property was worth Four Million Dollars ($4. v. Conspiring Appellees falsely reported to the escrow holder the tax identification number of 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC instead of the tax identification number of the seller 1130 South Hope Street Investment Associates LLC. Conspiring Appellees then caused the non-existent zombie entity 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC to bring the fake and dummy interpleader action in case no.000. Sprecher. Id. DktEntry: 9. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 .S. Complaint. ID: 10566393. Zelon et al. Case: 17-55404. U. 231.

Case: 17-55404, 08/31/2017, ID: 10566393, DktEntry: 9, Page 34 of 74

unverified complaint that the zombie entity had some entitlement to the proceeds

of the escrow. Ex. 1 to Declaration, ER 13 – 14.

The zombie entity deposited funds into the registry of the court to begin the

interpleader action. Conspiring Appellees carved up the fund in court between

themselves by confidential settlement agreement, before dispositive motions were

heard or a trial held. Complaint, ER 221 - 223. They caused the zombie plaintiff

to voluntarily dismiss all defendants, and moved the court for an order approving

release of the fund in court to themselves which the court granted on May 22,

2013. Ex. 7 to Declaration, ER 63 - 65.

Appellant became involved in the superior court in October 2012 when his

client, Mr. Haiem, engaged his representation. The superior court dismissed Mr.

Haiem’s cross-complaint for money lent and implied contract a month later. Id.

Mr Haiem opposed the motion to distribute funds that the superior court granted on

May 22, 2013. Mr. Haiem appealed this order in appeal no. #B250173 which the

court of appeals dismissed in December of 2013. Objections, ER 161, 184 – 185.

The Complaint alleged that the Judicial Council rule authorizing awards of

attorneys’ fees as sanctions is limited by statute to reasonable fees, the sanctions

exceeded this statutory authority, and infringed upon Appellant’s rights of free

speech and petitioning in general as applied and on its face. Objections; ER 183;

In Re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 637. The Complaint challenges the

22
Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Zelon et al.
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404

Case: 17-55404, 08/31/2017, ID: 10566393, DktEntry: 9, Page 35 of 74

constitutionality of Rule of Court 8.500(c) that requires petitioners for direct

review in the state supreme court to file both a petition for rehearing to correct

misstatements in the unpublished appellate opinions before filing a petition for

direct review with the state supreme court within the forty day period allowed by

court rules. Objections, ER 188. This Rule of Court establishes an irrebuttable

presumption denying due process of the laws generally to petitioners for review in

state supreme court. Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441; Berger v. Board of

Psychiatric Examiners (D.C. Cir. 1985) 521 F. 2d 1056. Appellant missed the

deadline for the petition for direct review, because of the irrebuttable presumption,

and the state’s highest court denied leave to file a late petition. Complaint, ER

224:21 – 28; Objections, ER 152 - 154. Appellant seeks to amend the Complaint

on remand to allege generally that the rule creates an unconstitutional irrebuttable

presumption which infringes upon the putatively sanctioned attorney at law’s

fundamental right to practice law. Vlandis, supra; Berger, supra.

Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the clerk’s office of the U.

S. Supreme Court, which was rejected because the petition lacked an order of the

state supreme court denying review on the merits. Id. Appellant served

Defendants with each of the post appellate opinion petitions, Appellee Gibson

received five letters from Appellant seeking his cooperation in the motion to recall

the remittitur – and responded to none. Id. Appellant later filed a motion to recall

23
Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Zelon et al.
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404

Case: 17-55404, 08/31/2017, ID: 10566393, DktEntry: 9, Page 36 of 74

the remittitur in the second court of appeals on October 31, 2015, that the Judicial

Appellees summarily denied.

Appellant filed his Complaint in federal district court on August 31, 2016,

alleging five causes of action for violation of his civil rights and two state law

causes of action, one each for unfair, fraudulent and unlawful trade practices under

Cal. Business & Professions Code §17200 and for the independent equitable right

to void the sanctions judgment. Complaint, ER 212 - 313. Judicial Appellees

allegedly have personal liability solely for attorneys’ fees with the fifth cause of

action.2 Id.

Appellees brought a series of motions to dismiss the complaint and special

motions to strike the state law causes of action. Docket, ER 314 - 317. Judicial

Appellees Zelon and Perluss moved to dismiss the complaint based on absolute

immunity, Amendment Eleven immunity, and the Rooker-Feldman cut-off. Id.

Conspiring appellees Perry, Solomon and Gibson were represented by separate

counselors at law (Appellee Solomon nominally represented by Appellee Gibson).

2
The judicial taking of property cause of action arises under Amendment Five of
the U. S. Constitution. All monetary sanctions in the state courts are authorized
solely by statute. Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 626. Judicial Appellees
awarded Defendant Gibson sanctions as though his client was a prevailing party
and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §907 shifted fees to the Appellant’s client, but this is not
a fee shifting statute. See infra at VII.C. Appellee Gibson never presented
evidence to the court of appeals or a reviewing court that his clients Appellee
Solomon or Appellee Hope Park Lofts LLC paid his fees.

24
Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Zelon et al.
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404

Wistrich considered the motions and opposition pleading filed by Appellant and recommended dismissal of the complaint because of the Rooker-Feldman cut-off. Order. Judgment. the Honorable John A. ER 192 . Neither the Magistrate Judge nor the Article III judge exercised their prerogative under the local rules to compel the Appellant to come to the courtrooms to argue the issue. Upon receipt of the order served manually by mail. absolute judicial immunity and state action in the private actor’s misconduct. ER 152 – 191. presiding. On Feb. Zelon et al. 9. entered an order approving the Magistrate Judge Wistrich’s R & R. Case: 17-55404.. 08/31/2017.S. and reciting that the court did not receive timely Objections in opposition to the R & R. ER 7. ER 8. DktEntry: 9. Appellant responded to the R & R with the Objection pleading to the Rooker- Feldman cut-off. federal cause of action by federal cause of action. Also on Feb. R & R. and requested leave of the court to amend the Complaint if the court approved the R & R. Kronstadt. 2017 the court. Page 37 of 74 The Conspiring Appellees filed motions to dismiss the complaint based on the Rooker-Feldman cut-off and failure to allege state action for the private actors’ alleged misconduct. Id. 9. Objections. J. U. Appellant communicated verbally to the clerks of Magistrate Judge Andrew Wistrich and Judge Kronstadt 25 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. The Magistrate Judge Andrew J. ID: 10566393. the court entered a judgment dismissing the action.210. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 .

the Court. U.C. The Complaint thus avoids the affair of Rooker and Feldman because it is not a hidden de facto appeal from the order for sanctions of the court of appeals. The Complaint is also not inextricably intertwined with the appellate order for sanctions.R. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Rooker-Feldman Cut-off does not apply to civil rights actions such as Appellant’s complaint of wrongful conduct of the Appellees. relating to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of appeals to consider the appeal from the order of 26 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. P. ID: 10566393. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 .S. 28 U. Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal appealing from the Court’s amended order on March 24. Case: 17-55404. 72 and the Magistrate Judges Act. Amended Order. 08/31/2017. ER 212 – 313. which seeks to remedy the wrongful conduct and which does not seek directly to overturn or vacate the prior judgment of the court of appeals. J. Complaint. and that he served the objections on the Appellees by mail at the same time. VI. The Complaint is not inextricably intertwined with the order for sanctions because Appellant raises (or will raise after amendment) independent substantive claims of the Appellees’ wrongful misconduct. 2017. Notice of Appeal. John Kronstadt. ER 6. Zelon et al. DktEntry: 9. presiding. Hon.S. §636.Civ. and entered an amended order dismissing the action. amended the order to state that the court accepted the R & R notwithstanding the objections. Page 38 of 74 that he filed objections within the time allotted by F. ER 1 through 5. In response to his verbal communications to the clerks.

2013. It attacks the appellate sanctions statute as void for vagueness. Complaint. Objections. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . ID: 10566393. Proc. ER 242. Case: 17-55404. U. Zelon et al.232. DktEntry: 9. and it infringing on his constitutional rights of free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances under Amendment One of the Constitution. The Complaint is not inextricably intertwined with the appellate order for sanctions because it generally attacks the unconstitutionality of the procedural requirement in Rule of Court 8. 08/31/2017. Page 39 of 74 December 4. 235. ER 229 – 230.264. unauthorized by Cal. Each federal cause of action in the Complaint alleges a background of a void action in the superior court. Complaint.500(c) of a separate petition for rehearing to correct the false facts in an appellate opinion in the time period established by Rule of Court 8. Complaint. It also is not inextricably intertwined because it attacks the jurisdiction of the superior court over an action brought by a fake zombie plaintiff and asserts the voidness of all orders entered therein and the appeal from the void orders in which the court of appeals ordered sanctions against Appellant. 234. and a 27 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. ER 152 – 154.S. An independent bill in equity affords relief from a void judgment in a void appeal regardless of the Cut-off of Rooker-Feldman. 2013 after dismissing the appeal from the order dated May 22. It is not inextricably intertwined because it attacks rules of the Judicial Council of the state of California authorizing recovery of more than reasonable fees in sanctions proceedings. §1034. ER 231 . Code Civ.

08/31/2017. United States v. Rooker v. Appellant was not a party to the void appeal of the void order in which the bogus monetary sanctions were levied on him. S. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Supreme Court. en banc den. VII. The civil rights causes of action are each equivalent to an independent bill in equity. Fidelity Trust Co. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. Feldman (1983) 460 U. §1257 as excluding disguised appeals from the state courts to the federal courts below the U.C. S. Ritchie (6th Cir. In Exxon-Mobil Corp. the Supreme Court of the United States wrote that "Rooker and Feldman exhibit 28 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. DktEntry: 9.S. S.S. 280. Page 40 of 74 void appeal from a void order in the superior court. reh. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Zelon et al. (1923) 263 U. ARGUMENT A. The Conspiring Appellees’ attack on the Complaint based on the RF Cut-off is a facial attack and not a factual attack on jurisdiction. 1994) 15 F. 413. and a void order for sanctions in a void appeal. THE ROOKER-FELDMAN AFFAIR SOLELY APPLIES TO ATTACKS TO THE MERITS OF A STATE COURT JUDGMENT. Case: 17-55404. U.3d 592. 598. S. ID: 10566393. AND THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ATTACK THE MERITS OF A STATE COURT JUDGMENT The Rooker-Feldman “Cut-Off” (or “RF Cut-off”) is an interpretation of the jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U. v. (2005) 544 U. 462. and therefore the RF Cutoff does not apply.

In Exxon-Mobil. Exxon-Mobil may not have vacated the “inextricably intertwined” branch of the affair of Rooker and Feldman. quotation marks omitted). 293 (internal citations. Corp. Moccio v. DktEntry: 9. Page 41 of 74 the limited circumstances in which this Court's appellate jurisdiction over state- court judgments precludes a United States district court from exercising subject- matter jurisdiction in an action it would otherwise be empowered to adjudicate under a congressional grant of authority. State Office of Court Admin. at 291 [125 S." Id. (2005) 544 U. 3d 1148. Hall (9th Cir.” Exxon Mobil Corp. Saudi Basic Indus.Y. U. 1996) 95 F. Ct. Zelon et al. 280. then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion. albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that a state court has reached in a case to which he was a party. some federal circuit courts of appeals had held that R Cut-off deprived the district court of jurisdiction of a complaint which was barred under preclusion doctrine in state law. 2003) 341 F. It stated that: “[i]f a federal plaintiff presents some independent claim. 1517].S.. but it considerably 29 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Eg. 3d 195 (“subsequent litigation of the claim will be barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine if it would be barred under the principles of preclusion”). Prior to Exxon-Mobil in 2005. ID: 10566393. N. Case: 17-55404. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . (2d Cir. 08/31/2017.S. our Supreme Court accepted a similar definition of an independent claim as adumbrated by this federal circuit court’s definition of the term in Noel v. v.

This court has described the Exxon-Mobil standard as involving two steps: first. 1995) 70 F. Switzer (2011) 562 U. (7th Cir. This court of appeals has correctly interpreted Exxon-Mobil as adopting a liberal interpretation of Rooker and Feldman similar to the pre-existing interpretations of the Eleventh and Fifth Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. 2d 1543. v. 3d 1022. ID: 10566393. supra. Manufactured Home Communities. Case: 17-55404. 2005) 420 F. 2005) 422 F. Orange County (11th Cir. Albany County Board of Elections (2d Cir. see Long v. 84. Page 42 of 74 narrowed its scope to exclude the application of res judicata from it. Davis v. S. an analysis of whether or not the civil rights plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to attack the issues decided by the state court leading up to the judgment. Inc. 521. Zelon et al. 3d 548. Skinner v. 1030. 3d 367. The four requirements are: “(1) the plaintiff must have lost in state court. cert. DktEntry: 9. Bayless (5th Cir. Hoblock v. However this federal circuit court of appeals has apparently never settled on the meaning of the “inextricably intertwined” language of Feldman. an analysis of whether or not the civil rights complaint attacks the merits of the state court judgment.S. Eg. City of San Jose (9th Cir. Wood v. 08/31/2017. Shore Bank Development Corp. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 1999) 182 F. denied (1984) 467 U. U. 1983) 715 F. 1210. The Second Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has described Exxon-Mobil as establishing four requirements for Rooker’s and Feldman’s Cut-off. and second. 3d 77. (2) the plaintiff 30 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. S.

422 F. In Peterson the Sixth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the interpretation of “inextricably intertwined” in Justice Marshall’s concurring opinion in Pennzoil Co. 422 F. ID: 10566393. Hoblock discarded the “inextricably intertwined” language from Feldman. S. 08/31/2017. U.” Peterson Novelties. DktEntry: 9. Zelon et al. v. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . This federal circuit court of appeals adopted the Marshall definition of “inextricably intertwined” ten years later in Cooper v.S. (1987) 487 U. 3d 772. 31 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 2012) 704 F. The Sixth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a federal civil rights claim is “inextricably intertwined” with a prior state court judgment if “the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it. 1. 3d at 88. v. (3) the plaintiff must invite district court review and rejection of that judgment. Appellant submits that it is the Cooper interpretation of “inextricably intertwined” is the sole interpretation that is harmonious with the definition of “independent claim” in Exxon-Mobil. Case: 17-55404. Texaco.” Hoblock. acquiesced in or left unpunished by a state court judgment. 3d 386. and (4) the state court judgment must have been rendered prior to the beginning of federal court proceedings. City of Berkley (6th Cir. Page 43 of 74 must complain of injuries caused by the state court judgment. Inc. Ramos (9th Cir. 2002) 305 F.3d at 85. Hoblock held that the second requirement of causation of harm by the judgment is unsatisfied if the injury to a civil rights plaintiff is merely ratified. Inc.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . DktEntry: 9. Code Civ. And the success of none of the claims depends on a decision by the federal district court that the court of appeals wrongly decided the issues raised by Conspiring Appellees’ ill-conceived and badly executed motion unauthorized by Cal. BC466413 by causing the zombie nonexistent plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss all defendants before Appellant’s client could discover the nonexistence of the zombie plaintiff and the 32 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 08/31/2017. §907. Proc. 3d 306. The Conspiring Appellees terminated case no. §371. §909 and §1034 in the context of a void appeal of which the court of appeals lacked all jurisdiction. Case: 17-55404. BASF Catalysts LLC (3d Cir.C. They used a twisted jurisdictionless action and a jurisdictionless appeal and unauthorized bogus motion for sanctions to accomplish their wicked scheme. and to conceal the prima facie evidence of the Conspiring Appellees’ violation of 18 U. Page 44 of 74 None of the claims in the Complaint was “before” the court in appeal B254143 within the meaning of Cooper. U. the Third Federal Circuit rejected the RF Cutoff.S. The goals of the Appellees’ conspiracy were to dissuade Appellant from continuing to represent True Harmony. Zelon et al. a scheme which was as fraudulent and fraudulently concealed as to Appellant as the suppression by its defense attorneys at law of the asbestos in the defendant’s products destroyed by its defense attorneys in Williams v. their nemesis in the lawsuit in action no. ID: 10566393. BC546574. 2014) 765 F.S. supra. In Williams.

Appx. In this action on appeal in the federal district court. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . . 08/31/2017. subjecting True Harmony to successive special motions to strike the pleadings under Cal. “[i]nstead of seeking to nullify the state court judgment.C. §371. And as already explained supra at I and V. is not so much attacking as trying to bypass the 33 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 2013.S. DktEntry: 9. J. . BC546574 to harm Appellant and his client True Harmony. It was Appellant’s only opportunity to discover the Conspiring Appellees’ tax fraud that they were trying to cover up with the punitive appellate sanctions. Page 45 of 74 felony violation of 18 U. 2014) 596 Fed. §371 from a third party escrow agent. The Conspiring Appellees terminated discovery in case no. RICO Act).S.C. the Judicial Appellees terminated their jurisdiction over the appeal when they partially dismissed the appeal from the final order in the superior court action dated May 22. This caused all orders of the superior court to become void and the appeal in #B254143 to become void. U. (11th Cir." Id. Zelon et al. Proc. A. Code Civ.16 and to three motions for protective orders that the superior court granted without blinking an eye." Appellant seeks at worst "to bypass any findings in the state court judgment that would be adverse to [him] n this suit. Here as in the Arthur decision. in July of 2014. §425. Case: 17-55404. 669 (Fla. P. Appellant was empowered to subpoenaed the prima facie evidence of the Conspiring Appellees’ fraud on the United States under 18 U. ID: 10566393.S. Morgan Chase Bank N. As in Arthur v. the ”‘plaintiff .

Chief Judge Posner.” NOT the RF Cut-off raised by Appellees. Zelon et al. Id. (9 Otto) 80 [25 L. such as a right (if it is a right) to be judged by a tribunal that is uncontaminated by politics. and the doctrine that [may apply to] block him is res judicata. cited for authority in Arthur. Hunton (1878) 99 U. This federal court of appeals recognized that extrinsic fraud on the court is an exception to Rooker and Feldman in 34 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . found that whether Rooker and Feldman applied depended on whether the plaintiff was “[merely] claiming that the decision of the state court was incorrect [and therefore] that it denied him some constitutional right. In Nesses v. ID: 10566393.” or whether plaintiff claimed that it violated “some independent right of his.S. Nesses’s claim was the latter type of complaint because he was “relying on the adverse decision in state court only to show that the violation of his rights had caused the plaintiff’s harm. Ed. DktEntry: 9. U. the appellant alleged a conspiracy between state court judges to engineer plaintiff’s defeat in certain state court litigation. 3d 1003. an action involving a bill in equity to relieve a judgment debtor of a judgment resulting from extrinsic fraud. 08/31/2017. Page 46 of 74 judgment in that suit.” Id. 407]. 3d at 1004. 1995) 68 F. speaking for a divided panel. The plaintiff claimed that the lawyers for the opposition used their “political clout to turn the [state] judges against him. The term “independent” claim in this context apparently originated in the venerable decision of Barrow v. Case: 17-55404. 3d at 1005.” 68 F. Shepherd (7th Cir.S.” 68 F. supra.

In Nesses Chief Judge Posner used the phrase “independent claim” in a sense that is distinguishable from the term as used in Barrow. DktEntry: 9. U. Zelon et al. dummy and zombie plaintiff. Case: 17-55404. and a void sanctions order in a void appeal from a void action. not a state court. Without mentioning Justice Fletcher’s concurring opinion in Bianchi.. an action over which the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction. (9th Cir. 2005) 420 F. 1213 Justice Fletcher wrote that neither Rooker nor Feldman barred jurisdiction of the federal courts of violations of constitutional rights allegedly caused by biases of state courts and state court judges. 3d 1136.. this court of appeals ruled that Rooker and Feldman did not cut off the complaint in Manufactured Home Communities. the fraud on the court is proven by the classic interference with adjudicative functions of the court. The Complaint clearly fits the Kougasian mold of a classic fraud on the court. 2004) 359 F.” and the plaintiff was “challenging the City’s interpretation of the 35 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 1030.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . (2004) 540 U. Inc. 2003) 334 F. den. This court of appeals wrote that the plaintiff was “su[ing] the City . S. Rylersdaam (9th Cir. 3d 1022. See infra at B. 3d 895. In Bianchi v. In Manufactured Home Communities the plaintiff alleged that the bias of a hearing officer of the city of San Jose violated its constitutional rights. TMSL. supra. v. Inc. City of San Jose (9th Cir. (an adverse party). cert. 08/31/2017. In this action involving a fake. Page 47 of 74 Kougasian v. ID: 10566393.

Harris (9th Cir. Maldonado (2005) 544 U. en banc den. sub nom. v. Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. Illinois Central Railroad Co. Guy (5th Cir. cert. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Fieger v. supra. ID: 10566393. Eg. because the civil rights plaintiff did not have a full and fair opportunity to raise them to the biased state court. DktEntry: 9. In Bell v. Piper (8th Cir.S. 3d 945.. Kempton v. Fox Rothschild. cert.3d 890. U. City of Boise (9th Cir. Zelon et al.” In Maldonado v. S.. 897 this federal circuit court of appeals held that civil rights challenges to the biased application of Idaho’s largest city’s homeless ordinance and its sleeping ordinance were independent claims and not de facto appeals. Ferry (6th Cir. 36 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 08/31/2017. Karsjens v. 391. 3d 394. den. and the merits of the civil rights claims were not raised in the state court. 968 this circuit court of appeals held that constitutional law claims against a billboard statute enforced by the biased state department of transportation were not barred by Rooker-Feldman because the property owner did not plead or argue his claims of bias in the context of a prior nuisance lawsuit in state court. 2017) 845 F. Case: 17-55404. 2004) 370 F. 3d 381. 2012) 682 F. 2013) 709 F. Several federal circuit courts of appeals have held or stated in obiter dicta that violations of the due process of laws caused by combination of adjudicative and investigative functions in a single decisionmaker involve independent constitutional rights beyond the grasp of Rooker and Feldman. v. rehg. Page 48 of 74 Ordinance” but not “directly challeng[ing] the state court’s factual or legal conclusion. filed 5/19/2017.

Page 49 of 74 2006) 471 F. Appellant did not have a full and fair opportunity to raise his claims in the appeal. S. 886. 1999) 198 F. den. And in Clearly the Complaint alleges violations of Appellant’s constitutional rights which were not raised to the state court of appeals and were therefore not before the state court of appeals in its decision on April 27. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Case: 17-55404. DktEntry: 9. Child & Youth Services of Chester County (3d Cir. cert. Parkview Associates Partnership v. This federal circuit court of appeals should not ignore the well-reasoned precedent of Peterson 37 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. (6th Cir. In Ernst v. den.” The Third Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a similar complaint of denial of constitutional rights because of an administrative decision based on an inadequate record of the facts survived the RF Cut-off. 531 U. cert. 08/31/2017. “predetermined result”). cert. United States v. S.3d 637. 3d 1284. 1997 U. U. the Third Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Rooker-Feldman challenge to a complaint alleging violations of substantive due process relating to combination of adjudicative and investigative decision-making in a single decisionmaker. 1997) 108 F.S. 2000) 225 F. 2006) 434 F. Lexis 5181. Weinbert & Reis Co. The complaint escaped the clutches of Rooker and Feldman because it “would not have involved the invalidation of any conclusion or judgment [of the merits] reached by the state court. Dicter (11th Cir. S. 3d 321. Todd v. 2015. reh. 828 (allegations of conspiracy between attorneys at law and judges. den. 3d 486. den. 3d 432. 549 U. Weltman. Zelon et al.. City of Lebanon (3d Cir. ID: 10566393.

But the petition for rehearing was not a part of the appeal. supra. Berger v.S. Case: 17-55404. supra. Page 50 of 74 Novelties. and require more than the allegation of no opportunity to raise the federal civil rights’ violations to beat the RF Cutoff. Board of Directors. Appellant requests leave of this court of appeals to amend the Complaint to allege that the local rules of court requiring the Appellant to first file a separate petition for rehearing during the first fifteen days of the finality period after the appellate opinion on April 27. 08/31/2017. Rotary Club of Duarte (1987) 481 U. Board of Psychologist Examiners. 2015 established an irrebuttable presumption that denied him due process of the laws. and is void for vagueness. Appellant did not have a full and fair opportunity to file a timely petition for direct review to that state supreme court because the unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption of true false facts in the 38 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . ID: 10566393. And any other conception of the “inextricably intertwined” language in Feldman violates Appellant’s rights of free speech and to petition the government under Amendment One of the Constitution. U. Appellant raised claims going to lack of jurisdiction of the extra-record and extra- evidence fake motion for sanctions. Zelon et al. 537. In his petition for rehearing that the court of appeals denied in May 2015. on its face and as applied to his vested fundamental right to practice law. S. As alleged in the Complaint. and the failure of the court to conduct a hearing with proof beyond a reasonable doubt and decision by a jury. Rotary International v. DktEntry: 9.

and due process of the laws. 3d 769. 2014) 748 F. It is true that this court of appeals stated in dictum in a later opinion in Bell v. City of Fontana (9th Cir. Patel (7th Cir. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Case: 17-55404. 2015. The Seventh Federal Circuit court of Appeals applies a simple per se rule that a federal civil rights suit for damages due to fraud outside of the state court courtroom is an independent claim that is not. 3d 728 (citing Johnson v. Iqbal v. 3d 987. ID: 10566393. and denied him his right of direct review in the state supreme court. 2002) 307 F. 11 to Declaration. Boise. 08/31/2017. that Rooker and Feldman do not apply to complaints seeking solely retrospective relief. required him to first file the petition for rehearing in the court of appeals during the finality period after April 27. supra. LLC (7th Cir. and thus fits within the mold of Iqbal. The Complaint is a civil rights action for damages and solely incidental declaratory relief. ER 113 . the final order in the action.S. U. this circuit court of appeals apparently 39 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Appellant requests leave of this court of appeals to amend the Complaint to allege that the unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption of the Rules of Court caused the late petition for direct review. 2015) 780 F. Zelon et al. He requests leave to amend the Complaint to include the allegation that the court of appeals forfeited jurisdiction of the appeal remaining after it partially dismissed the appeal including. Page 51 of 74 appellate opinion. See Ex. and therefore not subject to the Cut- off. DktEntry: 9.123. 2013. But in Fontana Empire Center LLC v. Rules of Court 8. Pushpin Holdings.500(c). dismissal of the appeal from the order dated May 22.

438. 08/31/2017.D. Supp. Compare Scripsamerica Inc. Sterling (C. 2006) 2006 U. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Knupfler. DktEntry: 9.Y. J. 3d 1121 (disabled persons rights). S. Lane (1986) 474 U. Goddard suffered a stroke in the courtroom).D. for the just result of reversal of the affair of Rooker and Feldman. 2014) 56 F. Ironridge Global LLC (C. N. Appellant recited his due process rights to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt in his petition for rehearing to the court of appeals. supra. Pro. supra. 8 & 14. Supp. Hanshaw. Cal. The Complaint should allege entitlement to a severance of the argument of the merits of the appeal from the argument on the sanctions because of conflicts of interest of the Appellant and his client. R.D. ID: 10566393. Cal. Lexis 19651 (independent claims for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of foreclosure proceeding. Zelon et al. The court of appeals thus denied him his due process rights as an accused subject to appellate sanctions. F. see United States v. Thus this federal circuit court of appeals has applied a very similar rule to Iqbal. with Housing Rights Center v. 2d 1179 (housing discrimination). U. Case: 17-55404. v. Page 52 of 74 recognized that Rooker and Feldman does not apply to allegations seeking monetary relief because a state court judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.S. In the Complaint. Ms. 2004) 404 F. S. Citibank (E. see also Goddard v. F. Dist. Crim. Appellant also alleged in his Complaint that the due process of the laws required a precise notice of order to show cause for sanctions and a substantial 40 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.

2008) 546 F. Zelon et al. cited in United States v. 244 . S. U.3 These are general constitutional law claims. 3d 78. Constitution if it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense.S. ER. 41 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Page 53 of 74 opportunity to contest the sanctions in live argument. The vagueness of the statute and the Judicial Appellees’ order to show cause and the failure of Judicial Appellee’s to provide a meaningful opportunity for live argument unconstitutionally combined adjudicative and investigative functions of the court of appeals in violation of his rights to access to the courts and his rights to due process of the laws. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U. Case: 17-55404. this federal court of appeals held that the claim that a certain proposition adopted by the voters was unconstitutional was a general constitutional claim excepted from Rooker-Feldman. Appellant’s claims that his procedural due process rights were violated because of bias and because he was not accorded a jury trial are similar to the plaintiffs’ class claims in Dubinka that the changes in criminal procedure violated the class’s constitutional rights. 1994) 23 F. DktEntry: 9. S." United States v. 3 A criminal forfeiture is unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause of Amendment Eight of the U. 244 – 250. ID: 10566393. the Judges of Los Angeles County (9th Cir. Complaint.245. Appellant’s claim that the Rule of Court 8. 3d 218. ER. 321. 08/31/2017.500 establishes an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption of the truth of false facts in appellate opinions (for the Complaint as he seeks leave to amend it) is also a general constitutional law claim. Levesque (1st Cir. In Dubinka v. Complaint.

thus avoiding Rooker and Feldman. ER 229 – 230. den. This court of appeals court wrote that Rooker and Feldman do not "prohibit a plaintiff from presenting a generally applicable legal challenge to a state statute in federal court. but Appellant’s Complaint alleges general claims. Lexis 25438 and Catz v. The Complaint challenges the legality of Rule of Court 8. Complaint. 2004) 226 F. For example it alleges that the Judicial Council rule allowing motions for sanctions exceeds authority for rules for award of reasonable attorney’s fees in Cal.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . reh. Proc. 3d 379. 2005 U. Justices of Supreme Court (9th Cir. 1998) 142 F. This court of appeals ultimately concluded that Mothershed had a particularized claim. 2005) 410 F. ID: 10566393. 410 F. U. §1034. reh. 3d at 606. Rodriques (10th Cir. 3d 602 this federal circuit court of appeals considered the Civil Rights Act claim of an attorney at law whom another state bar association disbarred because the Arizona State Bar Association censured his unauthorized practice of the law in Arizona. 08/31/2017. 3d 1103. even if that statute has previously been applied against him in state court litigation. DktEntry: 9. Code Civ. Page 54 of 74 In Mothershed v. Case: 17-55404. 234.S. en banc den." Mothershed. Chalker (6th Cir. This court of appeals considered that the attorney at law’s claim challenging the general application of a rule for admission of all applicants to the bar association in Arizona could be a general constitutional law claim. The Complaint alleges both independent and general constitutional law claims. Compare Dubinka with Johnson v. App. Zelon et al.500(c) that requires petitioners for direct review to 42 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.

B. App. ID: 10566393. 1239. 4th 659. THE ACTION IS A SUBSTANTIAL CONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT In state law. App. the affair of Rooker and Feldman does not bar the Complaint. “‘[a] judgment is void on its face if the court which rendered the judgment lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief which the court had no power to grant.S. see Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. 4th 1093. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Whether or not the claims in the Complaint are characterized as general constitutional claims or independent claims that Appellant did not have a full and fair opportunity to raise in the state court. 667. Case: 17-55404. Groves v. The Complaint alleged lack of jurisdiction of the 43 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 4th 929. App. Johnson Manufacturing Co. Constitution. 1100. Manufactured Home Communities. DktEntry: 9. Maldonado. 4th 1228. (1998) 67 Cal. and a petition for direct review in the state’s supreme court as an irrebuttable presumption against due process of the laws and equal protection of the laws under Amendment Fourteen of the U. Page 55 of 74 write and file a petition for rehearing to correct misstatements in the unpublished opinion within the time allotted for filing a single petition for direct review in the state supreme court. 08/31/2017. 933. Bell and Cooper are precedents of this federal court of appeals that compel a reversal here of the federal district court.’” Carr v. Peterson (2002) 100 Cal. McGrath (2005) 128 Cal. Kamins. Zelon et al. Rochin v. U. 151 Cal. S. App.

U. 399. (1923) 261 U. In Toledo Scale Co. our Supreme Court defined extrinsic fraud in federal law as fraud which deprives the defrauded party of a full and fair opportunity to present the proof of its case or its defense. it will allege lack of jurisdiction of the appeal as partially dismissed. supra. Nor does Kougasian seek damages based on any alleged 44 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. ID: 10566393. DktEntry: 9.S. The Conspiring Appellees’ concealment of the lack of jurisdiction of the superior court and the court of appeals is extrinsic fraud in state law. The extrinsic fraud that voided the state court judgment in Kougasian v. the voidness of the order appealed from in B254143. Zelon et al. (9th Cir. she seeks to set aside these judgments based on the alleged extrinsic fraud by defendants that produced those judgments. Kamins. Rather. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . and lack of jurisdiction of the appeal “as brought” and of the motion for sanctions. v. Carr v. S. 3d 1136 and avoided the RF Cutoff was perjured testimony in the state court trial. Page 56 of 74 action in the superior court because of the fake. See supra at I. This court of appeals wrote in Kougasian that: “Kougasian does not seek to set aside the judgments of the California courts in Kougasian I and II based on alleged legal errors by those courts. 2004) 359 F. 08/31/2017. TMSL. dummy and zombie plaintiff that brought the action in no. Computing Scale Co. Case: 17-55404. As amended. BC466413 and dismissed it. Inc.

.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . forgery of documents.. Marshall v.. Page 57 of 74 legal error by the state courts. (9 Otto) 80 [25 L. Pfeil (9th Cir. In Kougasian this court of appeals relied on two sources of law for its decision: (1) the local law for the equitable power of courts to set aside judgments on grounds of fraud. whether the proceeding . Grant (E. is or is not in its nature a separate suit. or whether it is a supplementary proceeding so connected with the original suit as to form an incident to it.S. 2d 240. & etc. or to a bill of review or an appeal. 1987) 827 F. is. ID: 10566393. and (2) the Supreme Court’s decision in Barrow v. 3d at 1139. bribery.. Rather. under Louisiana law. or to a writ of error.Y.” 359 F. 08/31/2017. The Conspiring Appellees’ extrinsic fraud is the wrongful behavior necessary to allege an independent claim of civil rights violations. Ed. If the proceeding is merely tantamount to the common-law practice of moving to set aside a judgment for irregularity. N.D. 2014) 765 F. jurisdiction . In McKay this circuit court of appeals recognized that an independent bill in equity to set aside the judgment of an Alaskan state court for extrinsic fraud is excepted from Rooker and-Feldman. DktEntry: 9.. 407]. she seeks damages based on the alleged wrongful behavior of the defendants. 2007) 521 F. Supp. 2d 540. it would belong to the latter 45 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. BASF Catalysts LLC (3d Cir.. see Williams v. U. This federal court of appeals wrote that: “The question presented with regard to . Kougasian. Zelon et al. holding that. Case: 17-55404. and substantially a continuation of it. mistake. a judgment is a nullity if “obtained through fraud. supra. or lack of jurisdiction. Hunton. 3d 306. (1878) 99 U.” The Kougasian opinion also relied on the opinion in McKay v.

Zelon et al. although having relation to the validity of an actual judgment or decree. (2) a good defense to the alleged cause of action on which the judgment is founded. The distinction between the two classes of cases may be somewhat nice.S. 08/31/2017. ID: 10566393.S. the investigation of a new case arising upon new facts. [2 Otto] 10 [23 L. Such a result would be totally inadmissible. (4) the absence of fault or negligence on the part of the defendant. 589 at 599.S. and in the other class. It defined the elements of an independent action of a bill in equity as: (1) a judgment which ought not. then they constitute an original and independent proceeding. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U. the Circuit Courts of the United States would become invested with power to control the proceedings in the State courts. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . or mistake which prevented the defendant in the judgment from obtaining the benefit of their defense. In the one class there would be a mere revision of errors and irregularities. or would have appellate jurisdiction over them in all cases where the parties are citizens of different States. 46 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. DktEntry: 9. but it may be affirmed to exist. or the party's right to claim any benefit by reason thereof. and according to the doctrine laid down in Gaines v. or of the legality and correctness of the judgments and decrees of the State courts. Fuentes (92 U. 61 the Supreme Court recognized the availability of the equitable remedy for fraud on the court that caused a final judgment. Otherwise. 524] the case might be within the cognizance of the Federal courts. accident. and the United States court could not properly entertain jurisdiction of the case. Holmes (1891) 141 U. if the proceedings are tantamount to a bill in equity to set aside a decree for fraud in the obtaining thereof. U. Ed. (3) fraud. in equity and good conscience.S. Page 58 of 74 category.” In United States v. See Marshall v.” “On the other hand. and (5) the absence of any adequate remedy at law. be enforced. Case: 17-55404. Johnson v.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . (6th Cir. supra. DktEntry: 9. this court applied the RF Cutoff notwithstanding its statement of the law disallowing it for challenges of personal jurisdiction because it found that Attorney at law McKay had challenged personal jurisdiction under the due process of the laws clause of Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution and lost.S. v. our Supreme Court assumed that the federal court has jurisdiction of a bill in equity to correct the judgment of a state court procured by fraud. though an original bill in the chancery sense of the word. Zelon et al.” In McKay. Page 59 of 74 Waters (1884) 111 U. 2d 186. A later Supreme Court decision cited Marshall for the jurisdiction in the federal court of the independent equitable action to set aside a state court judgment.S. The bill. 08/31/2017. 179–80. 667 [4 S. is a continuation of the former suit. 640. Taylor (1920) 254 U. Each of these elements is either expressly pleaded. S. Case: 17-55404. 188-89 (“fraud exception” to the RF Cutoff). ID: 10566393. Ct. U. Holmes. supra. . 45–46 our Supreme Court confirmed that an “’independent action’ for fraud “may be regarded as ancillary to the prior suit. In Marshall v. in the civil rights causes of action in the Complaint. Wells Fargo & Co.S. In United States v. or incorporated by reference. on the question of the jurisdiction of the [court]. 619]. 189. Compare Sun Valley Foods Co. v. 47 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Inc. . Detroit Marine Terminals. 38. so that the relief asked may be granted by the court which made the decree in that suit . 175. Beggerly (1998) 524 U. 1986) 801 F. .

S. 2008) 525 F. DktEntry: 9. based on extra-record and extra-evidence information which was not based on the appeal “as brought. As previously explained. Case: 17-55404. 3d 218. United States v. Conspiring Appellees maintained this extrinsic fraud of the existence of the central respondent 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates LLC in appeal no. Shepherd (5th Cir. the court and the world. Kimes v. see also Reusser v. B254143. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . ID: 10566393. 1996) 84 F. 1994) 23 F. U.S. Wachovia Bank N. to conceal their financial crime in violation of 18 U. 08/31/2017. (9th Cir. A.” and they engaged 4 Because Appellant pleaded extrinsic fraud. Zelon et al. supra. Stone (9th Cir. Conspiring Appellees filed a bogus motion for sanctions in a part of the appeal in which the Judicial Appellees lacked all jurisdiction. and only if. 48 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. §371 from Appellant. Compare Davis v. supra). Civil Code §47(b) does not apply.C. the fake zombie plaintiff brought the action in superior court and obtained a final order disbursing the so-called fund in court in the fake interpleader as extrinsic fraud. 3d 1121. Bayless. 3d 855 (citing Kougasian. the federal court plaintiff alleged extrinsic fraud in the state court and lost. Page 60 of 74 Thus McKay stands for the rule that federal allegations of a state court judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud will be terminated by Rooker and Feldman if.4 Additional decisions of this federal circuit court of appeals and other federal circuit court of appeals have acknowledged that void orders and judgments in void actions are not immune from attack because of the Rooker-Feldman Cut-off.

720 [pawnbrokers. the court of appeals could not add Appellant as a party to an appeal of which it lacked all jurisdiction. aggrieved by ex parte order to release stolen property]. Proc. See eg. den. 4th 279. 1206. Appellant was not a party to the appeal. Code Civ. DktEntry: 9. and a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for punitive sanctions.. APPELLANT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE STATE COURT APPEAL Appellant did not bring the appeal as the district court erroneously stated in the R & R. Attorneys at law are not parties to an action in the court. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Cir. §907 does not expressly authorize an award of attorneys’ fees. See Willis v. 3d 1341. Hernandez (2009) 172 Cal. 08/31/2017. 4th 715. U. S.S. 2006) 448 F. C. ID: 10566393. App. nonparties to criminal action. As already explained supra. Government Accountability Office (Fed. App. or fraud on the court. and it is not a fee-shifting statute. People v. In re Fair Wage Law (2009) 176 Cal. the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Zelon et al. Case: 17-55404. Page 61 of 74 the joint action of Judicial Appellees to grant the motion without due process protections of notice and opportunity to be heard. 285 [state supreme court’s recognition of Appellant’s right to appeal is not proof that he was a party to the appeal]. which because of the totality of circumstances is also extrinsic fraud. Cal. Obviously. a nonparty aggrieved by an order of a state court has standing to appeal. unless attorneys’ fees are awarded against them under a fee shifting statute. cert. (2007) 549 U. In state law. see also 49 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.

Bennett v. U. 1213. 822. Lexis 19802]. 2006) 441 F. 3d 794 [2002 U. 1994) 23 F. 537. See discussion supra at A. of Charleston. Zelon et al. Holliday Amusement Co.S. App. 2005) 401 F. State of South Carolina (4th Cir. v. Marsh v. denied 546 U. 3d 208. Eg. 3d 1229. 4th 289. Yoshina (9th Cir. v. rev. 1998) 140 F. Judges of Superior court (9th Cir. App. Rotary International v. Hughes Aircraft Co. Appellant’s petition for rehearing of the order for sanctions was not part of the appeal. Sopkin (10th Cir. S. 3d 534. 08/31/2017. Rotary Club of Duarte (1987) 481 U. Weingarten (4th Cir. Board of Directors. The Supreme Court has since adopted the “not involving a party” exception to Rooker and Feldman in Lance v. den. cert. 459 50 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.S. App. Mountain Zephyr (1995) 43 Cal. 3d 218. Lexis 251. Inc. Southern California Edison Co. 2001 Cal. Dennis (per curiam 2006) 546 U. cert. den. 2000) 217 F. 4th 1336. 2002) 307 F. Lynch (9th Cir. Gross v. see also Dubinka v. Appellant’s attempts to appeal the sanctions order did not somehow ratify or acquiesce in party status. ID: 10566393. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . The untimely petition for direct review was not part of the appeal from the appellate opinion. DktEntry: 9.. S. This court of appeals has refused to apply the RF Cutoff to plaintiffs who are not parties to a prior state court action resulting in a judgment. Page 62 of 74 Shaw v. (2000) 83 Cal.S. Case: 17-55404. (1999) 525 U. compare Mo’s Express LLC v.3d 1218.S.

S. in which the Second Federal Circuit Court of Appeals referred to the state law of res judicata to decide that the voters in the federal action were a party to. Appellant disagrees with Hoblock v. Cooper v. The Supreme Court denied "that all three plaintiffs should automatically be thrown into the same 51 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. Appx. 08/31/2017. and the Supreme Court has ruled that res judicata is distinct from the RF Cutoff. 2004) 355 F. 140 Fed. The doctrine of res judicata controls whether or not Appellant is bound by the appellate opinion as a non-party. three “topless” dancing clubs were represented by a single counselor at law. Skinner v. Florida (N. The Supreme Court decided that the three businesses were not bound by the events in each separate action in the court involving the other businesses. a prior state court judgment. supra. The parents were guardians-at-law of the minor children in their state court action. Page 63 of 74 In Children A & B ex rel. The three businesses sought to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance which banned topless dancing as obscene. Supp. DktEntry: 9. Case: 17-55404. Albany County Board of Elections. Fla. Hoblock preceded Skinner. S. 2005) the district court held that Rooker and Feldman did not bar the parents’ action in federal court to vindicate their right to enroll their children in a private school at public expense. simply because of a prior action between the state and the parents as guardians. 521. or privy to. In Doran v. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 845 (11th Cir. Salem Inn (1975) 422 U. U.D. Zelon et al. 2d 1298. similar to Appellant’s role as attorney at law in appeal #B254143. 922. ID: 10566393. Switzer (2011) 562 U. aff’d.

Page 64 of 74 hopper for Younger purposes . The Supreme Court reasoned that ". Zelon et al.. California (9th Cir. As to the availability of declaratory 52 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v.. en banc denied. A plaintiff must also "show that the feared harm is `actual or imminent." D. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . ID: 10566393.'" Id. at 928. control." Id. To have standing to seek "declaratory relief. 2002) 304 F.'" Canatella v. We thus think that each of the respondents should be placed in the position required by our cases as if that respondent stood alone. 852. and management. DktEntry: 9. they are apparently unrelated in terms of ownership. His complaint also alleges the State Bar Administration threatens to suspend his license to practice law because he did not pay the appellate sanctions. Case: 17-55404..S. . U. 08/31/2017. . OTHER ISSUES This court of appeals may consider the standing of Appellant to sue Conspiring and Judicial Appellees notwithstanding that neither the Notice of Appeal nor the Amended Order appealed from addressed or decided the issue. and have similar business activities and problems. reh. coupled with `a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way. while respondents are represented by common counsel. a plaintiff must show that he has suffered or is threatened with a `concrete and particularized' legal harm. Appellant’s Complaint alleges that Appellees’ extrinsic fraud and/or joint action in the courts caused the State Bar Administration to regard him as having breached his duties to Conspiring Appellees and also to find that he must pay Conspiring Appellees for his breach of the same duties. 3d 843.

Our Supreme Court has described the Rooker-Feldman Cutoff as an abstention doctrine. The text of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996. Case: 17-55404. compare Allen v. This federal circuit court of appeals has likewise described Rooker and Feldman as an abstention issue. Jordan (1979) 440 U. See Henrichs v. DktEntry: 9. DeGrandy (1994) 512 U. U. S. Page 65 of 74 relief and attorneys’ fees. thus the Act overruled Pulliam v. Hardin (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) 255 F. The State Bar Court of California suspended its disciplinary proceedings against Appellant while this appeal is pending. 1097. No. Johnson v. Rep. 2007) 474 F. Allen (1984) 466 U. 997. Zelon et al. S. See Green v. which is based on comity. See Quern v. 332. Los Angeles County Bar Association v.” Id. City of Tucson (9th Cir. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . ID: 10566393. 2d 697. 104-366. 2000) 223 F. expressly reserved declaratory relief actions from absolute immunity of judges. L. De 53 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. 3d 1086. Eu (9th Cir. S. and the remedy is manageable. 3d 609. the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 authorized declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees against Judicial Appellees. 522 only partially by withdrawing only the power to enjoin state court judges from the federal courts. This court of appeals plainly may not order abstention in this case. Allen interpreted the doctrine of comity. Appellant seeks declaratory relief.S. 3d 1041. Appendix. Pub. Valley View Development (9th Cir. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. 08/31/2017. Pullam v. S. 1992) 979 F. 104-317. “The mere potential for conflict in the results of adjudications is not the kind of interference that merits federal court abstention.

D.Y. Second Floor Santa Monica. N. 3d 453. S. C. 08/31/2017. U. THOMAS 201 Wilshire Blvd. Dated: August 31. 18 U. California 90401 Telephone: 310-650-8326 Attorney for Appellant In Propria Persona 54 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . 133. 2017 Respectfully submitted. Page 66 of 74 Bello (D.J. Lexis 55900. §371. the Conspiring Appellees committed extrinsic fraud on the superior court and court of appeals to conceal the prima facie evidence that they committed the felony crime of defrauding the United States with respect to collection of federal income taxes due from the proceeds of the escrow of the sale of the Property. s/Jeffrey G.N. (3d Cir. Sprecher (S. Furthermore. aff’d. 2017) 861 F. 1992) 783 F. United States v. DktEntry: 9. 2016) 2016 U. Case: 17-55404. ID: 10566393. CONCLUSION This court of appeals must reverse the erroneous decision of the federal district court.S. The sanctions are the intentional result of the Conspiring Appellees’ skillful manipulation of the unauthorized actions of the Judicial Appellees. VIII. Dist. Thomas______ JEFFREY G. Supp. who had no jurisdiction to order sanctions. Zelon et al.

S. Page 67 of 74 55 Appellant's Opening Brief – Thomas v. U. ID: 10566393. 08/31/2017. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Case: 17-55404. Zelon et al. DktEntry: 9.

Dated: August 31.S. THOMAS 201 Wilshire Blvd. ID: 10566393. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . Thomas__ JEFFREY G.955 words. Zelon et al. California 90401 Telephone: 310-650-8326 Appellant In Propria Persona 1 Word Count – Thomas v. Page 68 of 74 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT I hereby certify that the word count of this opening brief as measured by the Microsoft Word© word processing software is 12. __/s/ Jeffrey G. 08/31/2017. DktEntry: 9. U. 2017 Respectfully submitted. Second Floor Santa Monica. Case: 17-55404.

Zelon et al. 08/31/2017. Case: 17-55404. DktEntry: 9.S. 2017 Respectfully submitted. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #17-55404 . __/s/ Jeffrey G. THOMAS 201 Wilshire Blvd. Dated: August 31. California 90401 Telephone: 310-650-8326 Appellant In Propria Persona 1 Statement of Related Cases – Thomas v. Page 69 of 74 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES There are no related cases in this court of appeals. Thomas__ JEFFREY G. Second Floor Santa Monica. U. ID: 10566393.

309. ID: 10566393. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST A JUDICIAL OFFICER. unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.—Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U. 104-317. PROHIBITION AGAINST AWARDS OF COSTS. 08/31/2017. including attorney’s fees. the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996: SEC.S. unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction. 1983) is amended by inserting before the period Addendum – p. in any action brought against such officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity. including attorney’s fees. INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES. Page 70 of 74 ADDENDUM Section 309 of Pub. Case: 17-55404. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof ‘‘. No.S.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law. (a) NONLIABILITY FOR COSTS. except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs. L. no judicial officer shall be held liable for any costs. (b) PROCEEDINGS IN VINDICATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS. DktEntry: 9. 1 .—Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.’’ (c) CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS.C.C.

including the 100th. 104-366 state that: Senate Report No. and the American Bar Association. 522 (1984). 1995. the Conference of Chief Judges of the National Center for State Courts. DktEntry: 9. Allen. While the Committee favorably reported these bills in each of three Congresses. 1115 by Senator Thurmond in this Congress on August 3. Rep. 104-366 states at pages 36 . injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable’. including attorney’s fees. Pages 36 and 37 from S. ID: 10566393. Nearly identical bills were also introduced. See S. Page 71 of 74 at the end of the first sentence: ‘.37: Sec. 466 U. except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity. the 101st and the 102d Congresses. Case: 17-55404. Addendum – p. 311. 2 . No. and the subject of hearings in previous years.S. Legislation identical to section 311 was introduced as S. and has the support of the American Judges Association. the full Senate never considered them.—Prohibition of awards of costs. 08/31/2017. and injunctive relief against judicial officers This section restores the doctrine of judicial immunity to the status it occupied prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulliam v.

S. 08/31/2017. 556. Rept. 465. including attorney’s fees. 42 U. or to the award of attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Award Act. (1988). 2d sess. 1st sess. Addendum – p. the Supreme Court broke with 400 years of common law tradition and weakened judicial immunity protections. 3 . expressly holding that judicial immunity is not a bar to injunctive relief in section 1983 actions against a State judge acting in a judicial capacity. 2d sess. S. (1991). and an award of costs.S. DktEntry: 9. The defendant filed an action under 42 U. 102d Cong..C. Rept. 1988. 224. The Supreme Court affirmed. 101st Cong. Case: 17-55404. Those statutes are now amended to preclude awards of costs and attorney’s fees against judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity.. ID: 10566393. The case concerned a State magistrate who jailed an individual for failing to post bond for an offense which could be punished only by a fine and not incarceration. and to bar injunctive relief unless declaratory relief is inadequate. obtaining both an injunction against the magistrate’s practice of requiring bonds for nonincarcerable offenses.C.. S. In Pulliam. Page 72 of 74 Rept. 100th Cong. (1990). 1983.

the risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases. DktEntry: 9.S. the very process of defending against those actions is vexatious and subjects judges to undue expense. More importantly. Page 73 of 74 In the 12 years since Pulliam. 1988 to prohibit holding judicial officers liable for costs or fees.C. for acts or omissions taken in their judicial capacity.C. judges and magistrates) liable for costs. 4 . The record from the Committee’s previous hearings on this issue is replete with examples of judges having to defend themselves against frivolous cases. Case: 17-55404. The overwhelming majority of these cases lack merit and are ultimately dismissed. Subsection 311(b) amends 42 U. 1983 to bar a Federal judge from granting injunctive relief against a State judge. Subsection 311(c) amends 42 U. ID: 10566393. including attorney’s fees. unless declaratory relief is unavailable or the State Addendum – p. Even when cases are routinely dismissed. 08/31/2017. Subsection 311(a) codifies the general prohibition against holding judicial officers (justices.S. thousands of Federal cases have been filed against judges and magistrates.

Addendum – p. This section does not provide absolute immunity for judicial officers. 5 .S. 403 U. Case: 17-55404.. 438 U. subsection (a) states the general rule. Immunity is not granted for any conduct ‘‘clearly in excess’’ of a judge’s jurisdiction.g. The legislation extends protection to Federal as well as State judicial officers out of concern that Federal judges otherwise might be subject to cost and fee awards in cases alleging Federal constitutional torts. while subsections (b) and (c) specifically address the statutes at issue in Pulliam. Bivens v. 388 (1977). Economou. 08/31/2017. 478 (1978). ID: 10566393. e. Page 74 of 74 judge violated a declaratory decree. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Section 311 restores the full scope of judicial immunity lost in Pulliam and will go far in eliminating frivolous and harassing lawsuits which threaten the independence and objective decision-making essential to the judicial process. In short. and may obtain injunctive relief if a declaratory decree is violated or is otherwise unavailable.S. DktEntry: 9. litigants may still seek declaratory relief. Butz v. See. even if the act is taken in a judicial capacity. Moreover.