You are on page 1of 21

Case 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 PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING


AND/OR REHEARING EN BANC

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

I. REASON FOR GRANTING REHEARING / REVIEW IN BANC ...................1

II. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS……………...………………….5

IV. THE PANEL’S OPINION OF THE RES JUDICATA DIRECTLY


CONFLICTS AND ABROGATE GOVERNMENT CODE § 11500….……….…8
V. THE PANEL’S OPINION CONFLICTS WITH ZACKERY MORAZZINI’S
FACTUAL TESTIMONY THAT WAS PERJURED………………...………….10

VI. THE PANEL ERRORED BY OMITTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE


REQUIRED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW ….......................................................12

VII. CONCLUSION…………..………………………….…………………....…14

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………..…….…N/A

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

i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)
Federal / Circuit Cases
Bank of N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc.,
607 F.3d 905, 919 (2d Cir. 2010)……………………………………. 9
Bauer Schweitzer malting Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
(1973) 8 Cal.3d 942, 946)……………………………………………. 13
Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963)…………………………………………………….4
Buck v. Davis,
580 U.S. 137 S. Ct. 759, 778 (2017).………………………………… 5
JOHNNY BACA V. DERRAL ADAMS,
No. 13-56132 (9th Cir. 2015)…………………………………………11
Katzberg v. Regents of University, California,
29 Cal. 4th 300 (2002)……………………………………………….. 13
Kenner v. Comm'r,
387 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir.1968)……………………………………. 9
Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist.
(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1454…………………………………... 11
Mitchell v. City of Moore,
218 F.3d 1190, 1202 (10th Cir. 2000)…………………………. …….. 7
Morgan v. Covington Twp.,
648 F.3d 172, 177–78 (3d Cir. 2011)………………………………… 9
Mosk v. Superior Court,
(1979) 25 Cal. 3d 474, 493……………………………………. …….. 13
Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton
ii
(1886) 69 Cal. 479, 484.)…………………………………………….. 13
Obrey v. Johnson,
400 F.3d 691, 699 (9th Cir. 2005)…………………………………… 7
Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
(2006) 37 Cal. 4th 921……………………………………………….. 10
People v. Sims, Supra,
32 Cal.3d at p. 484…………………………………………………… 9
Phillips/May Corp. v. United States,
524 F .3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008)………………………………. 6
Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
462 F.3d 521, 529–30 (6th Cir. 2006)………………………………... 7
Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby
(1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 8……………………………………………………13
Smith v. Potter,
513 F.3d 781, 783 (7th Cir. 2008)…………………………………… 9
United States v. Banks,
36 M.J. 150 (C.M.A. 1992)…………………………….……………. 8
United States v. Beltran-Rios,
878 F.2d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir. 1989…………………………………… 6
United States v. Fitch,
659 F.3d 788, 797 (9th Cir. 2011)…………………………………… 7
United States v. LaPage,
231 F.3d 488, 492 (9th Cir. 2000)…………………………………… 7
United States v. Lui,
941 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1991)…………………………………… 6
United States v. Rahm,
993 F.2d 1405, 1415 (9th Cir. 1993)………………………………… 7

iii
United States v. Wells,
No. 14-30146 (9th Cir. 2017)…………………………………........... 6
Univ. of Tenn v. Elliott,
478 U.S. 788, 799 (1986)…………………………………………….. 8

OTHER STATUTORY AUTHORITIES

Government Code Section § 11500 …………………………………... 5


Government Code Section 1363…………………….………………...13
Government Code 1363(a)(3)………………………….…....……...…13
Government Code 1770 (i)…………………………………………. .. 13
Executive Order 10450………………………………………….….....13
Article I, section 26 California Constitution………………………….11
Senate Bill 304…………………………………………………………1
Penal Code § 118………………………………………………………8
18 U.S.C. § 1621……………………………………………………….8
42 U.S.C. § 1983…………………………………………………….....5
42 U.S.C. 14141………………………………………………………..1

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE TO RECORD CITATION


Appellant’s Opening Brief Filed June 01, 2018
Appellant’s Optional Brief Filed August 21, 2018
Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice Filed June 01, 2018
Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice Filed October 16, 2018
Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice Filed November 25, 2018
Complete District Court Records CM/ECF Access

iv
I. REASON FOR GRANTING PANEL REHEARING AND/OR
REHEARING EN BANC

The panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme

Court, federal rules of procedure, and state law that protect citizens from police

abuse by giving victims of police misconduct a pathway to file suit under Section

1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The panel decision also conflicts with State

law and statutory provisions giving rise to public citizens seeking to sue State law

enforcement police officers under 42 U.S.C. 14141.

The proceeding issue is of an exceptional importance because State Police

officers are engaged in pervasive misconduct and the regulatory agency is sending

out letters to the victims claiming they cannot stop the misconduct, due to client-

attorney privilege. The DOJ says it cannot take action against Medical Board Police

Officers in charge of enforcing all of the Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”)

agencies. This issue is extremely important for panel rehearing because Senate Bill

304, the Medical Board Reform, signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013, created a

binding relationship between the MBC law enforcement and DOJ personnel.

The DOJ blanket letters that they are sending out to California citizens who

have been subjected to State police misconduct is real. The MBC police officers

have the DOJ as their “protectors” and many dishonest police officers are

committing heinous acts against California citizens. The Administrative Courts and
1
the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) are commonly used agencies where

DOJ Prosecutors and MBC police investigators (“MBPI”) have easy access to

tampering with evidence and manufacturing evidence against unsuspecting citizens.

The “urgency” for review and rehearing en banc is that the panel decision to report

or try to resolve the police misconduct with MBPI’s and DOJ Prosecutors will set a

perfect precedent for Danger, Retaliation, and Physical Harm.

The reason the Ninth Circuit should grant rehearing is because California has

39.54 (2017) million citizens and all of their Constitutional and Due Process Rights

are compromised by legislative intent, teaming-up and partnering the DOJ with

Police Officers. The panel decision for victims of police misconduct by DOJ/MBPI

officers sets a conflicting precedent for citizens seeking to file state or federal suit

for police misconduct by deciding that law enforcement abuse under color of law

used against citizens in the OAH cannot be persued and the victims must work out

deals with the DOJ/MBPI perpetrators is unconstitutional.

The Petitioner, (“Billy Earley” or “Mr. Earley”) seeks a panel rehearing or a

panel rehearing in banc because the panel’s decision is conflicting with federal and

state laws regulating law enforcement and police misconduct. Mr. Earley identified

six State and local police officers engaging in willful misconduct: (1) Altering

Video Evidence; (2) Altering Subpoenaed Charts; (3) Making False Reports; (4)

Manufacturing Evidence; and (5) Numerous other transgressions including


2
retaliation and Prosecutorial misconduct. The panel decision to approach the

perpetrators is extremely dangerous and Police statistics shows that 1, 129 deaths

were reported in 2017 and 718 fatalities to nonviolent offenses, such as traffic stops.

A shocking 1% of law enforcement engaged in questionable killings are brought to

justice and charged.

The record reflect that Mr. Earley requested a criminal investigation into the

six police officers, in November of 2017, 8 months before the OAH hearings had

started and the letter from the AG Chief Deputy was sent to the Petitioner stating the

DOJ cannot investigate the State police because they are their clients. The

Administrative Court and Due Process to 39.54 million citizens in the state of

California is in perils. Mr. Earley has some authority in DOJ/MBPI misconduct

because he was a Panelist and spoke to Legislative members recently in April of

2018. See the AG’s blanket letter stating that they cannot investigate State police

misconduct sent out to the victims. Dkt. 38, Exhibit 14, filed January 27, 2017.

The panel decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedents by deciding a

case against a victim of police misconduct without the complete support of the

evidence and Prosecutorial concealment and fraud on the Court. The factual

evidence is proof that the DOJ Prosecutor hid and concealed two significant

complaints of police misconduct and corruption, well before the Administrative

hearings occurred. This is a diabolical atrocity designed to rob the Courts from
3
Justice and weep havoc on innocent families and patriotic Americans by tampering

with evidence and providing it to the OAH and State Courts, stripping people of

their property, wealth, integrity, and some of the very lives. See Mr. Earley citizen’s

complaint against the six police officers, filed in November of 2015, eight months

before the first OAH hearing took place. [(RJN - 01/27/17) pg.29-31], also see five

of Mr. Earley’s clinic employees made serious complaints about the DOJ/MBPI’s

team and absolutely no investigation ensued. See Optional Brief [(RJN – 01/27/17)

pg.37-44]

The Petitioner provided clear convincing evidence showing law enforcement

corruption and the evidence substantiates Prosecutorial Misconduct, concealing

exculpatory evidence, and creating a false narrative to convict and harm Mr. Earley

because he is an American Black professional that said no to police corruption. The

DOJ/MBPI’s have zero oversight, since the DOJ is the Government Agency that

provides oversight of Police Officers in California. More disturbingly, the panel’s

decision reflects Police misconduct and Prosecutorial crimes by intentional putting

on fraudulent cases against unsuspecting citizens and robbing them of the Due

process and Constitutional protections by engaging in massive evidence Spoliation

and targeting. The panel’s decision reflects why Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1963), was a Precedent Case in the US.


4
II. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Pursuant to Government Section 11500, the OAH does not have authority or

delegation to bench or regulate police officers or police misconduct. The ALJ does

not have the authority or jurisdiction to provide a remedy against police abuse and

Zackery Morazzini is a “top” DOJ Supervisor who is in charge of the OAH and the

ALJ’s. The Government opened its investigation in September of 2011, and

concluded in December of 2014. As evidenced, the DOJ/ MBPI are a team working

together by legislative intent. The DOJ/MBPI officers tampered with (1)

Undercover Video Evidence, (2) Subpoenaed Charts, (3) Made False Reports, (4)

Concealed Evidence, (5) Prosecutorial Misconduct, and (6) The DOJ/MBPI used

one of Mr. Earley’s employees as a paid Confidential Informant and the record

shows that she altered chart records that was subpoenaed by the Appellees.

Mr. Earley was targeted because he was a Black Man and the transcripts from

the DOJ/MBPI’s interviews reflect this position. A DOJ Prosecutor, in a recorded

interview, said, Mr. Earley’s patents were “all” NAACP Members and Laughed.

The statement was not true and a racial slur used against Black people. However,

Chief Justice Roberts recently confirmed, “Our law punishes people for what they

do, not who they are.” Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 137 S. Ct. 759, 778 (2017). Mr.

Earley submitted over 100 pages of convicting evidence proving the Government

targeted his clinic and engaged in misconduct.


5
The Panel’s decision contravenes the authority that Congress imposed on

Section § 11500 by ruling that the res judicata is properly applied to a case where

police misconduct was used to procure a false administrative conviction. Mr.

Earley’s Administrative hearing was for overprescribing and he filed suit for police

misconduct and evidence tampering. The “concealed” record proves that the

Administrative court was “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 panel’s decision directly conflicts with prior Ninth Court of Appeals

rulings and opinions. One of the circuit judges on this panel provided a Partial

Concurrence in United States v. Wells, No. 14-30146 (9th Cir. 2017). Judge

Tashima concurred, “Every defendant has a right to be tried based on the evidence

against him or her, not on the techniques utilized by law enforcement officials in

investigating criminal activity.” United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir.

1991) (quoting United States v. Beltran-Rios, 878 F.2d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir. 1989)).

The Hon. Judge Tashima was the subject of government tactics being used to

convict or rule unknowingly against his will.

There is a preponderance of the evidence in favor of Mr. Earley, yet, the

Panel’s decision only reflects the misconduct offered by the Government. The

Supreme Court substantiates a rehearing in banc in favor of the Petitioner, “[o]ur


6
system of justice is a trial on the facts, not a litmus paper test for conformity with

any set of characteristics, factors, or circumstances.” United States v. Banks, 36 M.J.

150 (C.M.A. 1992).

A prosecutor has a special duty commensurate with a prosecutor’s unique

power, to assure that defendants receive fair trials.” United States v. LaPage, 231

F.3d 488, 492 (9th Cir. 2000) (addressing a prosecutor’s duty when he knows that

his witness commits perjury). The DOJ Prosecutors have adopted policies and

procedures not consistent with the California Constitution and the United States

Constitution of America. The erroneous admission of expert testimony is subject to

harmless error review, just like all other evidentiary errors. See United States v.

Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1415 (9th Cir. 1993). However, reversal is required “only if

the error affect[ed] a substantial right of the party,” Fed. R. Evid. 103(a), meaning,

“We require a finding of prejudice,” Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 699 (9th Cir.

2005). The DOJ Prosecutor has put on a “show” of lies for the Ninth Circuit.

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has ruled that in order to

reverse a district court’s factual findings as clearly erroneous, [the court of appeals]

must determine that the district court’s factual findings were illogical, implausible,

or without support in the record.” United States v. Fitch, 659 F.3d 788, 797 (9th Cir.

2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The DOJ/MBPI team is very

slick and the findings are not located in [record] stripping the Court of Justice.
7
III. THE PANEL’S OPINION OF THE RES JUDICATA CONFLICTS
AND ABROGATE WITH GOV. CODE § 11500
The Panel’s decision must be reconsidered because it interprets - and –

ineffectively rewrites Government Code Section § 11500; by ruling that when a

police officer engage in misconduct and submits tainted evidence to an

Administrative Quasi-Judicial court, the victim has to file a lawsuit or police report

with the Administrative Judge or OAH. The Panel’s decision abrogates Section §

11500, and will set a dissent precedent by allowing Police misconduct and civil

matters to be heard by the OAH.

As evidenced, the ALJ lacks jurisdiction and delegation of authority to bench

civil suits against police. The Panel relied on Univ. of Tenn v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788,

799 (1986), in their decision that the res judicata was applied correctly. The Panel

unanimously agreed that Mr. Earley’s claims were raised, or could have been raised,

and a final judgement was based on the merits. Mr. Earley is requesting a hearing in

banc because these findings are not consistent with the record or fact. Tenn’s case

law is incorrectly used and not reflective of this suit.

In Tenn Univ., the case involved a Black person who was discharged from his

job for inadequate work and misconduct. Elliott filed an Administrative court filing

against his employer Tenn Univ., and then he filed suit in federal court for

discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Administrative Court found that Elliott

was not discriminated against and he returned to the Federal court were the
8
Petitioner Tenn Univ., filed for summary judgement and the Court ruled that Elliott

was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Mr. Earley is requesting review or rehearing in banc because the Panel’s

decision to grant the res judicata relied on Tenn Univ v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799

(1986), which has nothing to do with police misconduct and providing tainted

evidence to the administrative court. The case of Billy Earley v. Kimberly

Kirchmeyer, et.al, No. 18-55461 (9th Cir. December 05, 2018), cannot be compared

with Tenn Univ. v Elliott because Mr. Earley’s case involves government overreach,

police misconduct, retaliation, and racial targeting.

A decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all,

and never becomes final.” Kenner v. Comm'r, 387 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir.1968). The

Supreme Court has held that claim preclusion does not apply to claims that accrue

after the filing of the operative complaint, specifically “An issue is actually litigated

[w]hen [it] is properly raised, by the pleading or otherwise, and is submitted for

determination…” People v. Sims, Supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 484.

A number of other circuits have adopted a “bright-line rule that res judicata

does not apply to events post-dating the filing of the initial complaint.” See Morgan

v. Covington Twp., 648 F.3d 172, 177–78 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Bank of N.Y. v.

First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 919 (2d Cir. 2010); Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d

781, 783 (7th Cir. 2008).


9
IV. THE PANEL’S OPINION CONFLICTS WITH MORAZZINI’S
FACTUAL TESTIMONY THAT WAS PERJURED

First, the doctrine of res judicata applies “only if several threshold

requirements are fulfilled. (1) the issue must be identical to that decided in a former

proceeding. (2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding.

(3) it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding. (4) the decision

in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits, and (5) the party against

whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the

former proceeding.” (Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

(2006) 37 Cal. 4th 921.)

Mr. Earley seeks rehearing in banc because the Panel’s decision states that

Morazzini met criteria for the res judicata, this is not factual, and the OAH was not a

party in the initial proceedings. The Doctrine of res judicata has been misapplied

and even if Morazzini was a party, the res judicata, still would not apply because

Mr. Earley’s suit is for violation of constitutional and due process rights by

dishonest and corrupt police officers employed by the MBC/DOJ.

The Ninth Circuit has long held that false statements and perjury is a very

serious offence and it is a fraud on the Court. Perjury is a crime under both federal

and California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to a court.

18 U.S.C. § 1621; Cal. Penal Code § 118. Three (3) uncontested Affidavits were

submitted to the district court testifying that Morazzini made false statements to set
10
aside the entry of default, including a detached Affidavit from Margaret Frank, see

Dkt. 76, Exhibit 5. The Panel’s decision conflicts with the evidence and a rehearing

in banc is appropriate. The Supreme Court repeated that officials who knowingly

violate the law are not entitled to immunity. (quoting Ashcrof t v. Al-Kidd, 131 S.

Ct. 2085 (2011)).

A Ninth Circuit Judge, Alex Klozinski, in a dissenting opinion of JOHNNY

BACA V. DERRAL ADAMS, No. 13-56132 (9th Cir. 2015), which involved a

clear violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Napue, which holds that

prosecutors cannot put on perjured testimony, much less lie themselves. Hon.

Klozinski suggested prosecuting the Prosecuting to stop them from lying.

As evidenced by the record, Morazzini and his colleague at work, Alicia

Boomer, made false statements and fabricated evidence to set aside the entry of

default. Boomer lied and stated that she was not authorized to accept service on

behalf of Morazzini, but she did it twice, and Morazzini lied and said she was not

authorized but he knew she accepted service both times without any comments or

concerns. Refer to Dkt 54, Plaintiffs opposition to Defendant Zackery Morazzini’s

Motion to set aside default, April 24, 2017. The panel’s decision conflicts with the

procedural history and the res judicata was misapplied.


11
V. THE PANEL ERRORED BY OMITTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE
REQUIRED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW

Mr. Earley seeks review and rehearing in banc because all of the judges were

in violation of the United States and California’s Constitution. The Panel

erroneously omitted this evidence that is a part district court and appellate record.

Mr. Earley, made the Court aware that he was concerned about the

Magistrate, Steve Kim fitness for duty, and the District Judge, Andre Birotte Jr.,

observations of how they discharged the Court Business. See PLAINTIFF

AFFIDAVIT REQUESTING JUDGE STEVE KIM DELEGATION OF

AUTHORITY; DELEGATION OF DUTIES; OATH OF OFFICE AND JUDICIAL

BONDS, filed on November 22, 2017.

Also, see AFFIDAVIT OF CORRECTION HON. ANDRE BIROTTE, JR.,

also filed November 22, 2017. See page 8, of the Appellant’s Opening Brief and the

ISSUES PRESENTED on page 3. Judge Andre Birotte refused to correct the record

that would have been favorable for Mr. Earley. Misconduct was identified involving

Judge Kim, his former boss, and Michael Avenatti. Mr. Earley requested his Oath

and retaliation followed. There was an altercation at the Riverside Court and Mr.

Earley saw this on the clerk screen, “PLAINTIFF REQUESTED FOR JUDGE

OATH AND DELEGATION – CASE CLOSED!” The Secretary of State

certificate proves that Andre Birotte, Magistrate Kim, and ALJ Adam Berg, have no

jurisdiction and their rulings are void due to critical violations of their Oaths.
12
Government Code 1363(a)(3) is strict and explicitly provides: “Each judge of

a superior court, the county clerk, the clerk of the court, the executive officer or

court administrator of the superior court, and the recorder shall file a copy of his or

her official oath, signed with his or her own proper signature...”

The Judges did not register their Oaths of office; this was not done, in direct

violation of the California Constitution. In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453,

Oaths of justices and judges, and section 1770 (i) of the California Constitution

provides; An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events

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.”

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

word they are declared to be otherwise.” Under this provision provides:

“All branches of government arerrequired 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.)”
13
VI. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner Mr. Earley, was targeted, falsely accused, and discriminated

against by the Government. The DOJ/MBPI violated Brady Law and stripped the

Administrative Court record of the Police Misconduct and Evidence Tampering.

Thus, the Panel’s fact-finding process was deficient. The evidence of wrongdoing

was intentionally subverted from the record, Concealing it from the Courts: (1)

Forensic Evidence, (2) Video Tampering Evidence, (3) Perjury Evidence, (4) False

Police Reports Evidence, (5) Prosecutorial Misconduct Evidence, (6) Violation of

Oath Evidence, and the list goes on. The Governments targeting and punishment of

American Black professionals living in California is awful and systemic.

“I think it’s a bit excessive”


Stephen Reinhardt

For the forgoing reasons, the Petitioner is requesting a rehearing en banc


be granted and the Oath of office evidence reviewed de novo

Date: December 17, 2018

Billy Earely Filed 12/18/2018


______________________________
Billy Earley
Appearances in Propria Persona

14
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 3,280 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 Word Document

and Times New Roman 14-point font.

Date: 12-17-2018

Billy Earley
_________________________________

Billy Z. Earley
Appearances in Propria Persona
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 PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
AND/OR REHEARING BANC
 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 12-17- 2018.


Maria Earley
____________________
Maria Earley