You are on page 1of 28

No.

18-55461
__________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BILLY Z. EARLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, in her individual and official capacity


as the Executive Director of the Board of California; GLENN
MITCHELL, in his individual and official capacity as the Executive
Director of the Physician Assistant Board of California; ZACHERY
MORAZZINI, in his individual and official capacity as Chief
Director, Office of Administrative Hearings; DOES, 1-100,

Defendants-Appellees,

On Appeal from the United States District Court


for the Central District of California
No. 5:16-cv-02274-AB-SK
Honorable Andre Birotte Jr.,

APPELLANT’S OPTIONAL BRIEF

Billy Z. Earley
Appearing in Propria Persona
2144 Wembley Lane, Corona CA 92881
Telephone: (714) 615-4956
E-mail: bze2101@aol.com

Self-Litigant for Appellant


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................1

JURISDICTION STATEMENT…………………………………………………...3

STATEMENT OF PRESENTED ISSUES……………………………………...…4

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………… ..............5

I. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE VITAL EVIDENCE….......... ……5

A. DOJ Prosecutors and Lawyers Concealed Police and DOJ

Misconduct From State and Federal Courts………. ……5

II. THE RES JUDICATA IS SIMPLY NOT VALID…………...7

B. Menance, Threats, Perjury, Retaliation, and Evidence

Tampering / Concealing Not Supported by Law………7

III. AN EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY


EXCEPTION EXIST…...………………………………..…..9

C. Appellees Are State Police Officials Engaged In Criminal

Misconduct Creating An Unconstitutional Administration

of the Law In Violation of Federal Laws……………..9

IV. ALL OF THE JUDGES ARE WITHOUT OATHS OF


OFFICE INCLUDING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL……11

i
D. The Supreme Court Law Rules The Land and the Judges’

Lack Authority, and Jurisdiction Because They Have No

Oaths or Bonds On File …………………………….....11

V. BILLY EARLEY'S FATHER WAS BEATEN BY


APPELLEES…………………………………………...……..13

E. The Defendants Threatened Appellant and they also

Threated His Family at Gun-Point and Beat His Father.13

VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW…………………………………..17

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................20

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………..……….….1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………..………………...N/A

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)
Cases

Bauer Schweitzer malting Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1973)
8 Cal.3d 942, 946)……………………………………………………...…15
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)………………………………...…8
Brady v. United States,
397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969)………..10
City of San Mateo v. Hardy, 64 Cal. App. 2d 794, 797 [149 P.2d 307]....18
County of L.A. v. Dept. of Social Welfare,
41 Cal. 2d 455, 457, [260 P.2d 41]……………………………………….12
CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Comm.,
43 Cal. App. 3d 306, 329 [118 Cal. Rptr. 315]………………………..…18
Crosstalk Productions Inc. v. Jacobson (1998)
65 Cal. App. 4th 631, 644……………………………………………...…17
Drummey v. State Bd. of Funeral Directors, 13 Cal. 2d 75, 80-81
[87 P.2d 848]……………………………………………………………..18
Endler v. Schutzbank,
68 Cal. 2d 162, 168 [65 Cal. Rptr. 297, 436 P.2d 297]…………………..12
Greenblatt v. Munro, 161 Cal. App. 2d 596, 605-607 [326 P.2d 929]…...12
In re Brown, 17 Cal.4th 873, 879-880 (1998)………………………….….7
In re Chadsey, 141 App. Div. 458, 126 N.Y.S. 456 (1910),
aff'd, 201 N.Y. 572, 95 N.E. 1124 (1911)…………………………………8
In re Luce, 83 Cal. 303, 23 P. 350 (1890)…………………………………8
Katzberg v. Regents of University, California, 29 Cal. 4th 300 (2002)….14

iii
Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist.
(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1454………………………………..……15
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962)…………………….13
Mosk v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 474, 493…………………....15
Morton v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.App.3d at p. 984.)…………….18
Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton (1886) 69 Cal. 479, 484……………...…15
Ogo Associates v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 830, 834
[112 Cal. Rptr. 761]………………………………………………….….12
People v. Sims, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 484………………………….……8
Phillips/May Corp. v. United States,
524 F .3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008)…………………………………..10
Rich & Whillock, Inc., supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 1158…………….…17
Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 8………………………...…15
Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1995)…………….....….8
Stout v. Department of Employment (1959, Cal App 2d Dist)
172 Cal App 2d 666, 342 P2d 918, 1959 Cal App LEXIS 2004………..9
Sullins v. State Bar. 15 Cal. 3d 609, 542 P.2d 631, (1975),
cert. denied 125 Cal. Rptr. 471 425 U.S. 937 (1976)……………………..9
Tate v. Wood, 963 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1992)…………………………….…..8
Wilson v. Civil Service 1475.Com. (1964, 2nd Dist)
224 Cal App 2d 340, 36 Cal Rptr 559, 1964 Cal App LEXIS.……….….10
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976)……………………..…..8

iv
OTHER AUTHORITIES

Government Code Section 53069.4(a)(1)…………………………….….11


Government Code Section 1363…………………….……………….…..12
Government Code Section § 11405.20……………………………….....12
Government Code 1363(a)(3)……………………………………….……4
Government Code 1770 (i)…………………………………………. …..4
Executive Order 10450…………………………………………………..11
42 U.S.C. § 1983…………………………………………………...……18
42 U.S.C. § 14141…………………………….…….………….... .….…19
42 U.S.C. §§ 241-242…………………………….….…………………. 19

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE TO RECORD CITATION

Original Complaint Filed October 31, 2016 (OC – 10/31/16)


Request for Judicial Notice Filed January 27, 2017 (RJN – 01/27/17)
Request for Judicial Notice Filed April 24, 2017 (RJN – 04/24/17)
Affidavit of Billy Z. Earley Filed June 21, 2017 (ABE – 06/21/17)
Request for Judicial Notice Filed August 08, 2017 (RJN – 08/08/17)
Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice 06/01/18 (ARJN – 06/01/18)
Appellee Zackery Morazzini’s Answering Brief (ZMB – 08/06/18)
Appellee Kirchmeyer/Mitchell Answering Brief (KMB – 08/06/18)

v
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Supreme Court and the United States of America’s Constitution has

ruled that you cannot convict anybody based on False Testimony, Tainted

Evidence, Concealing Exculpatory Evidence, by Threats or Coercion, or using any

method that is not upheld by the US Constitution, specially Law Enforcement.

This case provides clear established evidence that the very nature of the

Constitution is at stake. Appellant requested the oaths for all the judges after they

made knowledgeable decisions not consistent with the US Constitution and they all

did not have oaths or Bonds registered with the Secretary of State. The Department

of Justice (“DOJ”) has a BLANKET written policy that they cannot investigate

their own officials including known crooked police officers because of their

Attorney-Client-Police and Buddy-Buddy Relationships with each other.

America has more doctors locked-up in Jail than any other country in our

civilized world for treating its injured people. The Drug Distributors pays-off

Congress and controls US organizations like the DEA, a fact established and seen

Nationally with the Tom Marino Bill. The DEA allows China to ship illegal drugs

like Fentanyl, responsible for 90% of the overdose deaths, yet the CDC and other

controlled agencies lie and blame innocent doctors, a fact that is well established.

Appellant was suing CVS, the leader in passing the Tom Marino Bill, and in 2013,

appellees’ agencies were captured protecting CVS interests; this is Corruption.

1
The record is “undisputed” that when appellees concluded their

investigation, the appellant sent a “certified” complaint addressed to Governor

Edmund Brown and to the Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”), demanding

they investigate the appellees for Corruption, Racism, and Abuse of Power.

The 75-page complaint sketched-out six DOJ and MBC employees including

a prosecutor who laughed during a recorded interview and said plaintiff’s pain

patients were all “NAACP” members, a fact that was not true and racist.

The appellees would love to fool this court into believing that appellant

overprescribed and walked out of the court hearings with the benefit of counsel, a

made-up theory designed to further mislead the Courts and cover-up misconduct.

The appellees have intentionally withheld key facts leading up to the hearing

in April of 2016. These facts are the foundation of Appellees Administrative

Complaint against Appellant, but since they are Exculpatory findings in Nature;

exposing corrupt law enforcement and overzealous crooked prosecutors. The entire

case was covered-up and the Administrative Court which is actually led by

Zackery Morazzini, a top DOJ official: The DOJ’s Blanket Policy of not

investigating valid misconduct against law enforcement, now applies to the Office

of the Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) under Morazzini’s control. Wherefore,

the OAH has adopted policies and procedures not consistent with the United States

Constitution of America and in violation of Appellant’s 14th Amendment Rights.

2
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has

jurisdiction of this complaint since it involves federal and civil rights violations

under color of law. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Venue is

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Appellees are state government officials and

Appellant lives within this district. Respectfully, Appellant is hereby appealing the

following Court orders; ECF 57 entered on May 10, 2017, ECF 85 entered on

November 29, 2017, and ECF 96 and Appellant is appealing the Court Judgement

ECF 97, dated and entered on March 7, 2018.

3
STATEMENT OF PRESENTED ISSUES

1. Did the Court properly evaluate the Stipulated Agreement that Earley

signed while under Duress and Menace by the prosecutor John McKenna by

threatening to charge $20,000 dollars for each day to fight the case, removing

Earley’s legal defense and concealing confidential informant and video evidence?

2. With respect to the Res Judicata, did the Court properly evaluate the

evidence Earley submitted to the Court showing the hearing was unsupported, the

evidence contrary to the law, forensic, video, retaliation, duress, and concealing

exculpatory evidence hide by appellees lawyers and prosecutors?

3. Can Judges in the State of California create their own Delegation of

Authority which is not consistent with the United States Supreme Court? Do

Judges who violate their oath of office, not registering their oath properly and

timely, and not having Surety or Bribery Bonds, are these offices considered

vacant and can their authority be challenged for violating the Constitution?

4. Does the United States Constitution prohibit prosecutors and peace

officers from obtaining convictions using false statements and evidence? Did the

Court properly deny Earley’s request to amend complaint, recuse judge, request for

discovery, request to correct orders, and Earley’s request to be treated fair?.

4
I. ARGUMENT
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE VITAL EVIDENCE

B. The DOJ Prosecutors and Lawyers Concealed Police and DOJ Misconduct
From State and Federal Courts
The law, with respect to a prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence

to a defendant is very clear. The United States Supreme Court made this obligation

clear in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The appellees intentionally

withheld misconduct committed by their prosecutors and investigative police

officers. The wrongdoing in suppression of evidence does not come until there is

intent to keep relevant evidence from being available for trial. See In re Luce, 83

Cal. 303, 23 P. 350 (1890); In re Chadsey, 141 App. Div. 458, 126 N.Y.S. 456

(1910), aff'd, 201 N.Y. 572, 95 N.E. 1124 (1911).

The evidence is clear that appellant walked into the Administrative Hearing

with a plethora of factual and valid charges against the appellees for misconduct,

including but not limited to: (i). A certified letter asking the Governor to

investigate appellees for corruption. [(RJN – 04/24/17) pg.10], (ii). A citizen

complaint sent to the DCA demanding them to investigate and punish defendants

[(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.29-31], and (iii). An arsenal of evidence including a

FORENSIC REPORT showing appellees engaged in corruption under color of law

and abuse of power. [(OC – 10/31/16) pg.36-39].

5
In addition, a prosecutor’s failure to disclose material exculpatory

information to the defense renders a guilty or no contest plea constitutionally

invalid. Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Brown, 17

Cal.4th 873, 879-880 (1998); see also Tate v. Wood, 963 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1992).

The appellees provided four volumes of Joint Excerpts of the record,

however; there was absolutely no disclosures made about their own unlawful

misconduct, some included felonies and other violations of the law. In addition,

they also failed to mention that their prosecutor, John McKenna, harassed appellant

by threatening and charging $20,000 dollars a day, for each day that he decided to

stay and fight the bogus charges. [(ABE – 06/21/17) pg.3 ln.5].

The duty to disclose is applicable even if there was no request by the

accused, however; discovery request were properly made. United States v. Agurs,

427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). The Attorneys Duty to the Court against Concealment,

Nondisclosure and Suppression of Information as coextensive with their Duty not

to allow fraud to be committed upon the Court. The amount of evidence withheld

intentionally was outrageous. A similar case dealing with failure of an attorney to

advise the court of matters which were relevant to a proper decision was seen in

Sullins v. State Bar. 15 Cal. 3d 609, 542 P.2d 631, 125 Cal. Rptr. 471 (1975), cert.

denied, 425 U.S. 937 (1976). The appellees conduct is contrary to Sullins v. State

Bar concealing proper matters relevant to the administration of the law.

6
II. ARGUMENT
THE RES JUDICATA IS SIMPLY NOT VALID

B. Menance, Threats, Perjury, Retaliation, and Evidence Tampering /


Concealing is not Supported by Law

The appellees argument with respect to the res judicata is without merit and

with respect to Zackery Morazzini; California Courts have ruled that only an initial

action may be precluded from the second proceeding under the collateral estoppel

doctrine. [Citation.] An issue is actually litigated `[w]hen [it] is properly raised, by

the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined . .

. . A determination may be based on a failure of . . . proof . . . .' [Citation.]" (People

v. Sims, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 484.)

Zackery Morazzini had no “initial action” and therefore his defense must be

voided as a matter of law. Furthermore, there were multiple uncontested

“Affidavits” and competent testimony affirming that Morazzini got one of his

workers out of the Government section of the DOJ, where he was a Supervisor,

along with his co-worker at the Office of Administrative Hearings, and they all

committed perjury and made intentional false statements to a federal judicial body.

The Administrative Judge, Adam Berg, knowingly violated Government

Code Section 53069.4(a)(1) by permitting the prosecutor, John McKenna, to

assess a penalty to procure a plea under duress, in direct violation of the law and he

7
also failed to impose the Court’s Administrative penalty that is legislatively

prescribed to him and not McKenna. See In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 412, 415.)

The Courts have upheld that decisions of an administrative agency will not

be upheld if they are “arbitrary or capricious, unsupported by the evidence, or

contrary to law” See Conclusions on res judicata de novo Phillips/May Corp. v.

United States, 524 F .3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The evidence shows that appellees committed perjury, concealed evidence,

colluded, and they applauded prosecutorial, police, and retaliatory misconduct to

continue and spread inside of the Administrative Court. Eliana, Betty, Arcelia, and

the clinic manager Evelyn made valid complaints of false statements and

fabrications of evidence. No investigation done! [(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.37-44].

The prosecutor concealed the information of a confidential informant that

removed documents from subpoenaed charts, denying cross-examination rights

[(OC – 10/31/16) pg.28]. Appellees concealed a tampered undercover video [(RJN

– 8/18/17) pg.8], which was proven to be tampered evidence submitted by bad

cops [(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.56-59]. These acts are clearly contrary to the law.

The Judge disallowed appellant’s Motion in Limine that he knew was full of

tainted evidence and forensics [(RJN – 08/18/2017) – pg.9-17)]. The Judge also

removed appellants representative with less than 3 weeks before trial. Morazzini is

the boss and he committed perjury, clearly reflective of the OAH’s vision and trust.

8
III. ARGUMENT
AN EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
EXCEPTION EXISTS

C. Appellees Are State Police Officials Engaged In Criminal Misconduct


Creating an Unconstitutional Administration of the Law In Violation of
Federal Laws
The Administrative Hearings are adjudicative proceedings that are

evidentiary in nature, to determine the facts, and to issue a decision pursuant to

Government Code § 11405. There are exceptions to the exhaustion requirements

and allowing police officers to violate federal laws is one of them. Ogo Associates

v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 830, 834 [112 Cal. Rptr. 761].

The exhaustion doctrine provides this exception; that when the subject of the

controversy lies outside the administrative agency's jurisdiction, the application of

the exhaustion doctrine must be defeated. (County of L.A. v. Dept. of Social

Welfare, 41 Cal. 2d 455, 457, [260 P.2d 41]).

Zackery Morazinni is a high-ranking DOJ official appointed to oversee the

OAH and all the administrative judges, a supposed neutral body that the DOJ

“contracts” in concert with their prosecutions. Morazzini is allegedly being sued

because he got the complaint letter from the Governor and instructed his office to

retaliate. Exceptions also exist when an agency cannot grant an adequate remedy.

Endler v. Schutzbank, 68 Cal. 2d 162, 168 [65 Cal. Rptr. 297, 436 P.2d 297].

9
The appellees were accused of violating a myriad of State and Federal

statutes prior to the Administrative Hearings held in April of 2016. Some of these

documented violations included, but were not limited to: [ See (ABE – 06/21/17) ]

1. 132 PC – Offering or Preparing False Evidence

2. 141 PC – Tampering or Planting Evidence

3. 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence, and

4. 518 PC – Criminal Extortion to Induce Guilty Plea

The Administrative Judge during the “pre-settlement” hearing engaged in

unlawful violations of the law, 518 PC, and then the prosecutor and judge,

intentionally removed appellant’s legal help. Appellant inquired his “New”

attorney that had 3 weeks to evaluate over 3,000 documents, and he said, “If we

keep bringing-up the ‘Police Corruption’ the judge is not going to like it!”

Appellant was faced with a very difficult position due to police and

prosecutorial criminal violations of the law being integrated with the OAH. There

was also death threats and just a lot of negative stuff going on. Billy Earley

realized that the OAH was not the “Platform” to identify or to complain about

Police Corruption. Appellant also feared for his family safety and the law states

that an exhaustion exception exists when the pursuit of an administrative remedy

would result in irreparable harm. Greenblatt v. Munro, 161 Cal. App. 2d 596, 605-

607 [326 P.2d 929].

10
For this reason, the guilty plea was obtained through “coercion, terror,

inducements, [or] subtle or blatant threats” is involuntary and it was violative of

due process. See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S.

487 (1962); Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1454 (9th Cir. 1995). “[P]leas

induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment),

misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), e.g. bribes . . .

[cannot stand].” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472,

25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969).

Appellant wrote the appellees a certified letter right after the hearings and

informed them that he was under duress. [(OC – 10/31/16) pg.43-44]. The OAH

states that it is a fair hearing process but in actuality, it is under the control of the

DOJ and headed by one of its top officials, Morazzini, who also engaged in

misconduct by submitting perjured testimony and conspiring with staff members

and employees to submit false testimony to the Federal Government.

The People of the United States of America have very little confidence in the

Department of Justice and many of their top officials have been fired or demoted.

Appellant identified 6 corrupt police officers working for appellees and factual

evidence provided to the Ninth Circuit shows that they will not investigate any

complaints for “police” misconduct because they have an Attorney-Client-Police

privileged relationship. Forget about the Constitution and the Peoples’ Rights!

11
IV. ARGUMENT
ALL OF THE JUDGES ARE WITHOUT OATHS OF OFFICE
INCLUDING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

D. The Supreme Court Law Rules The Land and the Judges’ Lack Authority,

and Jurisdiction Because They Have No Oaths or Bonds On File

Pursuant to Article 4, California Government Code 1360, and unless

otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall

take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of

the Constitution of California.

Moreover, Section 1363. (a) Unless otherwise provided, every oath of

office certified by the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the

time required as follows: (1) The oath of all officers whose authority is not limited

to any particular county, in the office of the Secretary of State.

The procedural history and evidentiary fact shows that the Superior Court

Judge Andrew Birotte, the Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, the Administrative Court

Judge Adam Berg, and the California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, are all in

violation of the California Constitution and the United States Supreme Court

Constitution of America. They have no surety bonds on file and this is like a

Physician Assistant working with no Supervising Physician.

They also are all in violation of Government Code 1770, which provides in

part, “An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events

12
before the expiration of the term: (i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her

required oath or bond within the time prescribed.”

The Appellees, in their response to this Court contend that the Oath of

Office that is required by the California Constitution and the United States

Constitution is trivial and no need to worry. This is outrageous and a slap in the

face for the Great Men that has come to the aid of this Country. In light of their

intentional crimes, perjury, corrupt evidence, bad police and crooked prosecutors

steering the system against the Constitution, all Jurisdiction must be voided

mandated by Law and the United States Supreme Court:

“The recognized presumption of constitutionality requires that a constitution

and its provisions are to be upheld against all legislation. In Katzberg v. Regents of

University, California, 29 Cal. 4th 300 (2002) the Court reminded us that “Article

I, section 26 of the California Constitution states:

“The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless


by express words they are declared to be otherwise.” Under this provision, “all
branches of government are required to comply with constitutional directives
(Mosk v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 474, 493; Bauer Schweitzer malting
Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1973) 8 Cal.3d 942, 946) or prohibitions
(Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 8).” (Leger v. Stockton Unified
School Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1454 (Leger).) – As we observed more
than a century ago, “[e]very constitutional provision is self-executing to this extent,
that everything done in violation of it is void.” (Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton
(1886) 69 Cal. 479, 484.).” “Appellees have given testimony that Judges not
having oaths or bonds, “it’s not a big deal.” This is another valid example of why
the appellees are engaging in corruption and criminal misconduct in California.

13
V. ARGUMENT
BILLY EARLEY'S FATHER WAS BEATEN BY APPELLEES

E. The Defendants Threatened Appellant and they also Threated His Family at

Gun-Point and Beat His Father

Appellant was under extreme duress, menace, and economic duress, which

involved threatening 20,000 dollars a day by the prosecutor, a wrongful act that is

sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person faced with no reasonable

alternative to succumb to the perpetrator's pressure. Crosstalk Productions Inc. v.

Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 631, 644; Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton

Development, Inc. (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 1154, 1158. The Administrative Judge

enabled the threats and retaliation to stand because she was informed.

The appellant had no way of getting a fair hearing; this was an environment

where lawlessness, corrupt evidence, bad cops, and the prosecutor had concealed a

lot of evidence and was covering-up serious law enforcement crimes.

Appellant’s family, wife, kids, and his father were the victims of a vicious

attack launched by the appellees. On August 21, 2016, at approximately 8:00 pm.

Three (3) armed individuals took appellant’s family hostage, one of them, beat

appellant’s 78-year-old father with a pistol, sending him to the hospital for 3

weeks, inside an intensive care unit. See Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit A.

14
Three masked individuals with guns, held them to the heads of appellant’s

wife and two small children. They told appellant’s wife, “We are here investigating

your husband Doctor Billy for selling prescription drugs!” The leader said, “We

work for the DEA and the Police Department,” and had plastic tie-downs cuffs.

Under gun-point, they took appellants wife and two small children upstairs

and made them lay face down on the bed. One of the individuals went into the

room where appellant’s father was sleeping and he beat him with his gun

repeatedly. They then forced everybody into the restroom and appellant’s wife

heard the leader say, “Why did you beat him, we were not supposed to do that!”

The appellant was suing CVS and Walgreens for slander and discrimination.

They told hundreds of patients that appellant was not licensed and he was under

DEA investigation, dating back to 2012. They were also telling patients that

appellant should be locked-up in jail. Who was saying this? The pharmacy workers

at hundreds of CVS stores, not just in California, but to doctors all over the U.S.

When President Donald Trump, tapped Congressman Tom Marino, to be the

new Drug Czar, the evidence became clear. CVS Health paid over 60 percent of

the funding to pass the Tom Marino Bill, which Chief Administrative Judge John

Mulrooney, wrote, “The Tom Marino Bill was the best possible legislation written

to weaken the United States Controlled Substance Act harmless against the drug

distributors and Big Pharma.” The legislation was written by the DEA itself.

15
The article, “The Triumph Over The DEA” a joint investigation by 60

Minutes and the Washington Post revealed that CVS started to control the DEA in

2009 and the Tom Marino Bill was written by the Chief of the DEA, David Barber.

After the bill was passed, 63 Top DEA officials switched sides with Big Pharma.

The appellant’s attorney discovered that the appellees were tracking

appellant’s lawsuit against CVS. The attorney, Lee Durst and is paralegal

questioned the DOJ prosecutor and the lead investigator Veronica Alva, numerous

times. See [(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.31,¶3]. DOJ and Medical Board following

lawsuit against CVS and gave it to their expert witnesses [(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.48].

Then, on November 11, 2014, appellant’s clinic was broken into by the

appellees. The attorney Lee Durst and his Paralegal came to the clinic the next day

and it was determined that the individual(s) who broke into the clinic had

knowledge of the alarm system. Nothing was taken but they searched for the chart

that the Forensic Report showed was tampered, Tosha Tomas, the undercover cop.

[(RJN – 01/27/17) pg.30,¶1] and See Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit B.

The attorney Lee Durst started connecting the dots and he knew that

appellees were engaged in corruption; a fact that is very well known today. The

attorney contacted the Corona police sergeant and they said the sergeant was

shaky. Shortly afterwards, in 2015 and 2016, the appellant received death threats

from the appellees and his former attorney also received death threats as well.

16
Billy Earley walked away from the Administrative Hearings because his

family feared for their safety. Appellant obtained a FOIA from the DOJ and it

showed his home and father was being watched by the DEA during the time

appellant’s 78-year-old father was placed in the ER by someone posing as DEA.

On March 2, 2017, appellant received a 108-page report from the Drug

Enforcement Administration confirming that they were surveilling appellants home

and business frequently. See Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit C.

The DOJ is a Criminal Enterprise that targets doctors and innocent

unsuspecting people with wealth, success, and color. These corrupt government

employees are controlled by special interest groups; like CVS who controls the

DEA, CDC, Congress, and the Medical Boards. Anytime a crooked police can alter

evidence in front of the camera and the judge does nothing, this signals corruption.

THE APPELLANT DID NOT JUST WALK OUT OF THE COURT WITH

THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL. Appellant has briefed Legislators in Washington

DC and abroad regarding this type of callus and cruel misconduct that the DOJ is

doing to its citizens in California and other states. There is also no way to “report”

these police crimes and when a Citizen Complaint is made, they “retaliate” by

sending the Confidential Complaint to the perpetrators for the sole purpose of

inciting harm and injury. DOJ and State Police Corruption cannot be allowed to

stand in any Court.

17
VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Duress is often a wrongful act “which is sufficiently coercive to cause a

reasonably prudent person, faced with no reasonable alternative, to agree to an

unfavorable contract. The party subjected to the coercive act, and having no

reasonable alternative, can then plead ‘economic duress’ to avoid the contract.”

CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 644 [76

Cal.Rptr.2d 615], (internal citation omitted.)

While the doctrine no longer requires the commission of a tort or crime, it

still requires a "wrongful" act. California courts have recognized "wrongful" acts

sufficient to find economic duress to include bad faith threats to institute civil

process, blackmail, an assertion of a claim known to be false, or a bad faith threat

to breach a contract or to withhold payment.

On the other hand, there is an increasing recognition of the law’s role in

correcting inequitable or unequal exchanges between parties of disproportionate

bargaining power and a greater willingness to not enforce agreements which were

entered into under coercive circumstances. Rich & Whillock, Inc., supra, 157

Cal.App.3d at p. 1158.

The Court has unanimously ruled that the exhaustion doctrine is inapplicable

when constitutional or jurisdictional issues or questions of law are raised.

18
"Due process does not require any particular form of notice or method of

procedure. If the statute provides for reasonable notice and a reasonable

opportunity to be heard, that is all that is required." (Drummey v. State Bd. of

Funeral Directors, 13 Cal. 2d 75, 80-81 [87 P.2d 848]; CEEED v. California

Coastal Zone Conservation Comm., 43 Cal. App. 3d 306, 329 [118 Cal. Rptr.

315].)

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that

allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when

someone acting “under color of” state-level or local law has deprived a person of

rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes.

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is a quasi-judicial tribunal

that hears cases involving unemployment compensation, Medicaid and other public

benefits, public space, rent control, professional and business licenses, and

building, health and fire code violations, among others.

Federal laws address police misconduct including both criminal and civil

statutes. The law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to

engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected

by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. § 14141). It is a crime

for one or more persons acting under color of law to deprive or conspire to deprive

another person of any rights created by the Constitution. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).

19
CONCLUSION

The Appellees intentionally and knowingly concealed the factual history

showing they retaliated, engaged in police misconduct, concealed vital information

proving Billy Earley was wrongfully charged, and when they were asked to

investigate these allegations, they declined, citing Attorney-Client-Police privilege.

For the foregoing reasons, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should

reverse all rulings in favor of Appellant, Grant Appellant relief sought, or Remand

this case for an Evidentiary Hearing and or a Legitimate Enforcement referral.

Date: August 21, 2018

Billy Z. Earley
2144 Wembley Lane
Corona, California 92881

_______________________________
Billy Z. Earley

Self-Litigant for Appellant


Appearance in Propria Persona

20
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C), I certify that:

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 5,205 words, excluding the parts of the

brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this

brief has been prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface using Microsoft Word

Times New Roman 14-point font.

Date: August 21, 2018

Billy Z. Earley
2144 Wembley Lane
Corona, California 92881

_______________________________
Billy Z. Earley

Self-Litigant for Appellant


Appearance in Propria Persona

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY Z. EARLEY

Appellant-Plaintiff , District Case 5:16-cv-02274-AB-SK


v. Court of Appeals No. 18-55461
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER ET. AL.,

Appellees-Defendants,
________________________________

I am employed in the Country of Riverside. I am over the age of eighteen (18)


years and I am not a party to the above-entitled action. I served the following:
 APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the following party by placing a true copy and correct copy thereof in a
sealed envelope, with first-class postage prepaid thereon, and deposited said
envelope in the United States mail at or in Corona, California to:

John Echeverria Rosemary Luzon


Deputy Attorney General Deputy Attorney General
300 South Spring Street, #1702 600 West Broadway, #1800
Los Angeles, California 90013 San Diego, California 92101

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 21, 2018.


____________________
Maria Earley