good afternoon this is the ninth circuit docket number fifteen there's a jersey or seventy nine in right patrick alexander masoud and this is a hearing requested by mr mist in response to the court cause the scope of the hearing today is limited to the question whether this court you know impose reciprocal discipline that is you are entitlement to represent as a member of the bar of the ninth circuit in this court we don't review any matters that have occurred in the state bar directly we have no authority no jurisdiction to a fact what the court the state bar court or the california supreme court did was what any other court did the only matter currently before me here is your continuing entitlement are centrally three criteria that this court uses to assess whether to impose reciprocal discipline and the first question is whether the state court proceedings afforded you notice and an opportunity to be heard the second criterion is whether the evidence that was before the court the state bar in the state bar proceedings was adequate to show reason that would prevent this court from imposing similar discipline all right so ms masood do you understand what i've said to you already today yes so process in the state bar court proceedings whether the evidence was sufficient and whether there's some other reason why this court should not impose the same discipline so with that in state bar provided me with a notice and due process and an opportunity to be heard is is not at all what happened you see for about five years now the state bar has been trying to disbar me because my unofficial job is as a federal whistleblower to expose rampant attorney and judicial corruption throughout california's courts and beyond now i understand that you just told me that you're not going to be reviewing any state court decisions regarding my disbarment however i do have with me transcripts and that the office is well probably over three thousand pages of transcripts now among those are at least a thousand pages of transcripts from state bar proceedings including the january twenty seventh twenty seven governance in the tatt governance in the public interest task force proceeding it was before the entire board of directors of the state bar the the bar president and pro tem president were both present when i testified for about i think it was twenty minutes and i explained to the entire panel that was the sampled to discuss the best ways of protecting thirty eight million californians from corrupt bar members now i regaled them about five stories on how my clients were being targeted for financial predation by a bunch of very greedy attorneys who were using their bar licenses offensively to steal now they would file fraudulent cases up front for insurance shakedowns and also they would target private individuals who happen to be a contractor friend of mine who undertook a project and after ninety five percent of it was done and it was pretty much fully inspected by the city and county of san francisco the owner decided to lock the doors not let him finish the last five percent of the work brought in  attorneys who hired some as of yet unknown professional less to major to determine that the city hadn't properly inspected the project and it was actually rife with construction defect so they think that at that time they demanded a quarter million dollars in damages but you know what even more funny than that not only did they claim that there were a lot of construction defects that the city never found but they waited until the eleventh hour to file suit so they could collect on three years lost rent so yes right i hate to interrupt you fine but i'm having a little trouble following the logic here you are now talking about some facts that were raised i suppose at some other proceeding you mention this was a twenty eleven proceeding where such a some other proceeding seems other than the one that's that we're now talking about and i'm unclear why that is relevant to this a bar proceedings that yielded the october first twenty four teen opinion of the hearing department right ok as i was saying the state bar has been trying to do is bar me ever since twenty men and specially since january twenty seventh two thousand and eleven when i started blowing the whistle on the state bar where i showcase five especially frauds by bar members targeting members of the public and i did this in front of the government's task force that was tasked with protecting thirty eight million consumers from dirty bar members that i was  ok but none of that none of what you're saying now is appears in this current decision and it's not a basis for your disbarment nor do i and i don't see any  your filings in this court that discuss this matter as a basis for your attacking this board is for me this is i think i read through everything and correct me if i'm wrong i don't recall that you have presented this in writing thus far that's correct i was supplementing my pleadings with this oral argument with a little factoid which is actually public record well that's fine but you know this is the date for us to have a hearing you've submitted a lot of material already here and i have taken time to read it and try and understand it and its bass the day to introduce evidence of other matters that predated this that you could have but did not include in these filings so i'm i really want to address the question that's right before us here i mean i i think you're an intelligent person and i know i think you can do that and i'm hoping that you well absolutely now you want me to get into the july first twenty thirteen order and decision of involuntary  registered by the state bar and which shows up on my it was actually the october first review to apartment i think that was the final that's a secondary review and actually there was a tertiary review that was filed with of california supreme court but she denied review right but this is the operative document far as i'm concerned and that's the one yes and actually there was a quad jury review that was sought with the petition for writ to john roberts was which was sent to him by tract federal mail four times and the last time tracked also to the f b i in washington d c they got their sat john roberts got his sets and that has yet to be docketed that's just a side note now yes let's get to the july first twenty thirteen notice order and decision of involuntary disbarment of a federal informant and he time or later patrick masood now if you would note of that i think twenty something page decision it is a certain corporation called the r horton that file right i think this november two thousand and three shopped around for a house in vegas near my sister's home and we found a very nice residence we put earnest money down nearly a thousand dollars we bought some upgrades so when all was said and done we put ten thousand dollars into escrow and three or four months after the home was completed it had appreciated from pre construction to completed by fifty thousand dollars so when it papen ing is that they lied in a letter saying that i didn't fully comply with their inside lending requirements although i had all the letters confirming from the loan officer that i had fully complied so that they could rescind the contract and forfeit my ten thousand and cash so let me let me understand this because when i understand from reading this and you can fill in the blanks that what was going on somehow was that the lender that worked with them generally was supposedly available only for purchasers of those properties who would use them as their primary residence but not for rental and that if purchasers intended to purchase the units but use them for rental rather than personal residence that they could not use the  i related lender but had to find independent financing do i have my closely no d h i and at the time its affiliated lender c h mortgage were perfectly happy to lend to any and all who knocked on their door they didn't even have to be purchasing a d r horton manufactured house to get a loan through c h mortgage they opened their doors for everybody and for every purpose now  originate loans basically through the primarily throws the those two banks as well as the mack and all the other banks that you heard were involved in predatory lending now d h i would make a  three series of letters each one with diminishing requirements the last one having been satisfied that was verified right i fully fully cooperated with the inside terms of the contract because they knew very well that within the contract my failure to fulfill all lender terms would cause contract rescission and my cash deposits to be forfeited so i was very very very careful about crossing every t and dotting every i so i was pre approved through c h mortgage there inside lender which incidentally wanted me to take a three thousand dollars a month loan and then tack on additional fees i didn't like that one so i picked wells fargo because that was only fifteen hundred dollars a month payment with no additional fees but d r horton didn't like that i found a much more competitive outside lender so it sent me a threatening letter saying that it would cancel my contract by lying that i hadn't fulfilled inside lend requirements so it could rescind the contract and steal my money now as soon as i got that letter and understood that this sixteen billion dollar company was strong arming me into a sixty thousand dollar instantaneous loss my megillah response kidneys acted up spat out a couple of hit me stones one of which got stuck in my year at her and three years later i'm three hours later i was writhing in pain in seton medical hospital needless to say i was very pissed off first that a sixteen billion dollar corporation tried to steal my money and second after i was released from the hospital on high on vika it in and i drew more phone which is morphine i jumped on a plane and i tendered performance in the offices of d r horton with a sixty thousand dollars check i told them give me my house they understood full well that i would make a lot a normal amount of trouble for them if they did not follow their end of the bargain and if they stole my money they knew that they had hell to pay so that very afternoon they became very cordial and they allowed me to close on the house that i had three pre approved loans on i did not lose a penny however i was sent to the hospital i said i file several suits including breach of contract fraud  intentional infliction of emotional distress against the company which intentionally tried to steal my money with scienter because i had found just to know that eighty other families that had been financially targeted and not their inside lender because bundling home loans to his home sales is an illegal anti trust sherman clean and cartwright act of violence as well as a violation of regulation acts and res ok that was very helpful for me that feels and a factual predicate to all this ok so now let's move back if you don't  mind i now understand the genesis and i understand your concern about this tactic that you have described occurring to others and that you i guess as a member of the bar also had a special opportunity to attack practices that would be in violation of law chose to employ to attack the h i i were excessive and i think they used the words abusive and used the words supreme court state court and since then with cisco and received a determination that the state of california state court did not have personal jurisdiction over horton who did business in nevada but evidently not in california and then you re filed these actions in multiple times in state court and so one of the grounds that this the bar court review department seized on was the repetitive filing of actions and claims that had previously been rejected let's just talk about that one that's already pretty straightforward and simple it is you got you got the word yes they could doesn't have jurisdiction and then you came back and filed again right ok that's it you just mentioned the review department claimed my litigation actions were abusive and frivolous and district judge edward chen called them harassing see district judge chen filed our complaint twelve dash oh dash one two two seven zero eleven days after he dismissed sixteen billion dollars d r horton and its predatory lenders that availed itself of california law in court and used california law sensibly to compel five class action members into a secret of arbitration down in san diego all five of them claimed design i did that after they put their money in escrow that d r horton threatened forfeiture of their tens of thousands of dollars and would rescind the contract so unless they capitulated to the bait and switch predatory loans that d r horton voice did on them  i mean you're telling me this now but that when there was no evidence of that in these in these proceedings and to the said there might have been evidence of that the doctrine of billions of dollars on the line because it's defrauded i found four hundred families from coast to coast eighty of whom in the vat a one hundred of whom in california had it been known that four hundred families from coast to coast were defrauded by d r horton by using predatory bait and switch tactics fraudulent inducement them into contracts and then forcing them to consummate one sided deals which  doubled their mortgage rates that would have cost the company billions in restitution to the consumers and billions more to the u s government because freddie fann and other agencies underwrite wrote the fraudulent loans that c h mortgage her mortgage originated for d h i using countrywide wells fargo and  indy mac and all the other banks like washington mutual that were caught up to their necks in predatory lending ok but i mean you had an opportunity to raise these issues and i did he did raise him and the courts held against you ended up happening is that each judge successively carried the information and facts when i was in california court i submitted c r a california rules of evidence for fifty sel casual dismissal however district judges would ignore the evidence as did word chan did well then did you but you didn't appeal these these these matters of personal jurisdiction in each case did you as a matter of fact i did i repeatedly requested reconsideration base and yet more facts i even told judge peter bush that i had twenty named californians who had been similarly thought i was here in california he laughed at me and i have the transcript he said well i don't know if you'll be able to bring those up after i dismissed this case you see d r horton news that if any of this information were to get out it would lose billions in restitution to consumers and billions more in restitution to the us government now the u s government's been making deals with a lot of corporate cred of superior court infliction of emotional distress the court sustained a motion to quash service the summons and complaint in this mr without prejudice case and then you refile that in december of then there was no appeal from that there was no appeal from the finding of lack of personal jurisdiction to the california court of appeal but instead then october of two thousand and six you refile again in superior refuses to consider evidence of properly before the court that's what a lawyer does a lawyer goes and files a notice of appeal like is done in this court and they say well the dish record aired i had this evidence here it is in the record i all right now and i'm wondering why it isn't what happened here i am there was no appeal i am absolutely elated that you are bringing up these issues regarding appeals which are criminally proven with evidence that is properly before the court and much must be considered because i did happen to appeal the district court case that district judge chancellor merrily dismissed in favor of a sixteen billion dollars deep pocket yeah you know you were away it's an interesting rhetorical tactic that you just are using right here because i've been asking you about the but in some instances instead of appealing refiled and included as party some of the judges would ruled against him and without really any basis other than they had ruled against him and then said they were and they said as i read what they said they said they said well masood is contending that these judges acted fraudulent only and were paid off and were part of a conspiracy or whatever and as evidence for that the fact that they ruled against masood i think that's kind of what the review department was getting at ok well what the review department should have done was actually look at the complaints because there were multiple motions for reconsideration in each they all alleged different claims there was a breach of contract claim for your statute of limitation fraud  statute of limitation toward two your statute of limitation and each successive case was being filed after additional victims had been located and by the time i had filed the last california case seeking jurisdiction over the predatory lender that claimed not to have any contacts in california i had found all i don't know fourteen families that had been very specifically targeted for financial predation by this sixteen billion dollars that are most of the didn't prove to be too successful actually that was another ground that i guess the end is listed that ended up in a judgment with i guess sanctions against yes absolutely i think it was  fifty six thousand dollars in sanctions to shut me up and it was actually called eighteen u s c fifteen thirteen a financial retaliation against a federally protected whistleblower b c or so also it's a penal code yet that's threatening in interfering with a federal informant also one of the subsections in eighteen u s c fifteen twelve happens to be threatening the life of a federal whistleblower i've got here a police report dated august two thousand and seven when i was exposing your horten on the internet and finding defrauded families from coast to coast that's how i mast my four hundred strong victim file it would seem that donald horton wasn't too happy with my exposing his multibillion dollar financial predation of consumers across the nation so he decided to blow up my truck let me repeat that police report almost seven almost seven nine three one seventy two that is docketed in district court case seven two six two five sandra armstrong says here that officer curry took four pictures of the blown up  my chevy truck and even them into evidence i told sandra armstrong the reason that why my truck was blown up on a particular evening was because on that evening my internet sites were garnering over eight hundred eighty two clicks per night i was informing three hundred nineteen million americans that your hoarding was a predatory lender and that if you did business with a company you would lose tens of was you know the the bomber list like sinai and they have a tendency to run away after they've done a dastardly deed that can throw them in prison until they die the bombers of selden never stick around and they try to cover their tracks what we got to do is use our common sense and take a look at the hard proof that on the very night that  life was threatened i was exposing multibillion dollar predation that is exposed would cause all the chairpersons on da charges board to get incarcerated if you did and investigated convicted so they weren't successful in stopping you right actually that's not the only retaliation after i filed suit in clark county registered on the official docket faxed and it was also attached to d r horton saw only papers as exhibit i i also brought any personal set she wasn't expecting me because i said i was submitting on the papers since i live five hundred miles away she was shocked to see me in a courtroom and she lied that she didn't get any of the copies of the  positively sent her so that she could rig case dismissal i've got a transcript wherein she says mr masoud i'm sorry i never got your opposition i had to remind her that it was attached as exhibit i to d r horton zone opposition high court judge by a b run in a very big lie on june tenth and when i got home the following week there was a police case that was left in the second of my pickup trucks and the bomb squad asked me after having investigated if there was anybody that wanted to do you harm and would stop that briefcase with and that is also a police report and you can get a copy of it at the ingleside station ok let me just the basis for this sanction in  according to the news that is a court decision and the decision of the state bar court was that there was a protective order and concerning it was a protective of racketeering and multibillion dollar fraud on the public order when i didn't it was never signed by me it was purportedly  a former attorney you know that the only valid contracts are ones that are executed by the person to be charged since this court wanted to find me in violation of the stipulated particular order what they should have done was find my signature on it it did not exist it was never stipulated to i've got emails proving that i told d h i that there was no way in hell that i was going to take down my websites exposing their twenty seven state predatory lending without guarantees that the consumers would be protected and not preyed upon i have gobs of gonzales on july thirteenth two thousand and ten the first thing that she did was clear her courtroom of any media that might be in attendance i have that fifteen minute transcript wherein i tell her of in california we have over four hundred victims if ever caught a day in court would bankrupt d r horton which is a no one predatory lender ok so getting back to what is before us today from what i'm from what i'm gathering from what you're telling me you're really not contending that the state bar court proceedings didn't give you notice an opportunity to be heard you did have that you did make your case to them they didn't believe you or they got it wrong or whatever they came up with an incorrect conclusion my my reading you reasonably right here by the time so the bar got me into their bar court trial i had already exposed i'm estimating now sixty state and federal judges ultra corruption it's easy to do when you file everything up front along with a complaint like f t c records out audit reports f investigations a list of four hundred defrauded victims when you file all that up front and the judge ignores it all like chen who ignored that the h r purposefully veiled itself of california law on the wilson case and yet law days later saying there was no jurisdiction over d h i then eleven days after that to cover up that he sold his decision  save it billions of dollars he filed a bar complaint to initiate an investigation into my quote unquote harassment of a sixteen billion dollar corporation that bankrupted  a matter of fact let's consider this first year civil procedure first week he'll learn about jurisdiction the most basic form  asking about you just said that chance sold his decision that means that somebody paid him to come up with that decision huge that's what that means to me so you're now contending that judge chen received money money yes illegally but what evidence do you have that he received money illegally let's see he is a sitting district court judge who doesn't understand basic jurisdiction who want i want a court to cut loose   you're just speculating that an individual might be ignorant of the law or make a mistake in the law but i asked you whether you had any evidence that there was money transferred here and you've made this allegation with respect to multiple judges and i'm just wondering whether this all is simply your inference that the only basis for them getting it so wrong must have been that they receive money from wharton for ruling as they did is that we're is that what you're saying here now what you just said is something about a mistake in the law basic jurisdiction is like saying two plus two equals one judge chen made the equivalent of a where's the money has trying to follow the money you said you said judge judge can receive money for making this decision you said that about a number of other judges your i mean your typewriter does not have an esky on it it only has a dollar sign on it when you're talking about not just so where is the money where is the evidence of money so you're asking me if i actually witnessed the exchange of the bag of was a lie any are there any evidence any other evidence that there was actual bribery is what we're talking about here that occurred yes actually any other evidence  includes patterns and practices which is why i filed so many cases appeals and writs because judge after judge after judge for some reason always follows the money some i don't factor leadings that is registered in this court that is titled supplemental response happens to list i believe ten circuit court cases where only the deep pockets are favored and this isn't despite of the registered evidence that they don't necessarily have to be paid off but the thing is if they're lower court colleague is exposed as corrupt then every case that he's ruled on would have to be reviewed for corruption so they don't want to open up a can of worms what they do is to close ranks with the district court judge and they rubber stamp now did not on that judge chen handled three of my district court cases and any each he made  major basic mistakes as a matter of fact district court case c twelve five real six was registered as a rico action that very same day it was whisked off of the public pacer database and buried on the court's internal docket as a miscellaneous insurance claim thereafter that ninth district court assuming that they mistakenly took it of public they filed it internally to call an insurance claim and then they filed it as district c twelve dash sides four six eight this i'm not making up i've got the courts on official records the third time in to see twelve five four six eight ok so but those aren't matters that that were at issue in years they bark like proceeding correct no but you asked me about practices and circumstantial evidence proving that judges are on the take and when you've got a district court judge who throws three cases and makes a very very brazen and basic mistakes to dismiss one that you made fairly clearly in the in both of your submissions including the supplemental one  and we've talked about the due process issue and we've talked about the basically this efficiency of evidence issue any other and you've talked about eagerness to expose this are there any other reasons that this court should respect the determination of the california state for its permit proceeding oh absolutely you just mentioned due process and how we had considered all that we have barely scratched the surface i'm go on record right now three ultra damning facts the state bar and i was supposed to have produced all the transcripts for my disbarment within i think thirty days of my verified demands i actually had to subpoena the state bar to get production of public records and that was because it was breaking its own rules it was withholding the transcript for forty one days after it was reduced to writing and g matter ratsey certified that she had produced the transcript on a certain date and all the while i was demanding a copy of said transcript which i was doing was especially since i was the respondent in a bar court proceeding not only that when they finally produced the transcript concurrently with its decision in order of involuntary does the bar meant about one hundred and sixty seven pages were missing pages four thirty three to five ninety nine impeached of the star the bar's four star witnesses those witnesses happen to be or a warden attorneys the bar did not want me to have a transcript in my hand prior  rigged order of my disbarment because it wanted to hide the fact how easily i had impeached who attorneys who covered up the billion dollar financial predation by a sixteen billion dollar corporation not only that copy of the bar's order of disciplinary action that was produced on june july first twenty thirteen to have made it in the hands of another dirty set of attorneys on the third they got a preview copy to file in case c g c o seven four six four zero two in which a record touring ringing of superior court judges are rigging the federal labor arbitration act arbitrations just like the national arbitration who was exposed to doping in two thousand and eight in other words corrupt attorneys covering up the judge's regard atrocious and got an advance copy of my disbarment to the file in that case twelve days before it was publicly known this is a fact this isn't the official registrar of actions in the  actually yes it's even mentioned in the footnote of the supplemental that i filed for this hearing let me put inside it for you making the point that you didn't get timely copies of but the other side dead you know the other side didn't what ended up happening is that the transcripts that i was due were being illegally suppressed so that i wouldn't have them in my hands to contest any involuntary disbarment that's what i was asking you where that argument is did you know you didn't make that argument in britain this is a move that you thought i really don't think it's no this is definitely a point that i brought up and also if you would look at page eight footnote eight let me read that into the record you don't need to do that it's part of the record ok very good well for the benefit of loretta lynch maybe i should read it anyhow further note that per terms at the bottom of page thirteen the purcell hon concurrence to affirm the seven one thirteen decision an order of involuntary an act of status succinctly says the bar's recommendation became effective july fourth and yet corrupt attorneys covering up judicial corruption got an advance copy the day before and quickly registered in case seven four six four zero two two detailing f a rico orchestrated by judges wait a minute a reading from page eight footnote eight supplemental response demanded by this circuit which is desperate to preempt a record on eight for fifteen so when did you get the full transcript of the trial let's see after i served a bunch of state and federal subpoenas on the state bar which continued to suppress the evidence i had to serve  i had to threaten to serve sorenson court reporting and pacific manor a federal subpoena for production when the owner of the company immediately within the hour attached court reporter copies of the full transcript so i never got i never got it from the bar so when did you get i got the full transcript about a month after my notice of involuntary disbarment and i had to get it directly from sorenson court reporting on by the way the state bar has a pattern and practice of not furnishing records and transcripts especially when i catch judges in lies or ignoring evidence ok so we have number of them so far but i want you to be able to use this time to make whatever points that you need to make in draw my attention to whatever needs  because my obligation now after this hearing is to prepare a report a recommendation about what what the outcome ought to be here the ninth circuit that report recommendation incidentally is going to be served on you and you'll have an opportunity to file whatever comments you want there after the report or recommendation any comments that you have objections whatever will be submitted to a three judge panel and that's three judge panel will decide what to do except my recommendation or not fine i appreciate that and i also hope that after the report recommendation is produced that i will be able to get a copy of today's transcript and timely fashion so that i can contest ok this hearing is recorded you can access it on the public website we don't streaming video audio i don't i don't believe we're being although there is video capability i think this hearing is probably just audio i could be wrong about that but it is being recorded and you will have an opportunity to go on the web site and site whatever part of this hearing you wish in terms of putting together your comments on the report and recommendation all right now you started off our hearing by stating three elements that i had to prove and the first of course were related to due process and we probably covered that well enough right whether the state board proceedings were adequate and the evidence was sufficient to find me guilty or of moral grounds i think were two grounds basically and then a number of matters that they considered to be in aggravating factors yes and there are major point was that i kept on filing a quote unquote repetitive or harassing cases in multiple jurisdictions even though each successive case discovered more and more defrauded victims none of whom have a voice because they don't have a sixteen billion dollars bank account so the state bar proceedings whether they were to quit you also begin and this this hearing by stating that you would not look into california state courts reasonings for having destroyed me so i imagine it's not true i did not say that i said this matter is that our scope of review is simply as to what  court and whether this court respected to the extent of imposing reciprocal discipline but we don't have any authority to overturn any determination of the state court that is magistrate judicial officer have any authority to review any any federal court action that's occurred as i said at the outset all that we're concerned with here is your ability to  continue to be a member of the bar the ninth circuit and represent clients in this court filing now you just said that you are definitely interested in knowing what the state bar court did when it  decided to voluntarily disbar me the best evidence is the original evidence so i am more than happy to produce a copy of the court reporter's electronic transcripts all six hundred forty nine pages and you can see where in pages four thirty three to five ninety nine i am peached two of the bars star witnesses and there were only four and they happened to be two attorneys for the d r horton corp they were covering up the predation of four hundred families another of those bars star witnesses happens to have been james wagstaff of her and wax that frequently represents the state bar and has an automatic conflict adventurous james wagstaff is a procedural civil procedural expert that teaches at hastings college of the law and when i had him in court before district judge hamilton he was completely unable to explain why judge war lurd after having admitted not having any jurisdiction over a guy named think jurisdiction over a guy named thankless and then ordered him to pay allstate insurance for forty eight thousand dollars jimmy wagstaff was impeached on the stand during the state court proceedings so were leonard marquez and joel do all three of the star witnesses burst into flames and plummeted into the ground i will produce the six hundred forty nine page bar court transcripts proving that the criminal standards now going back to the grave reasons or important reasons that this ninth circuit court might have to not reciprocate disciplinary this isn't to disbar me i have so far prosecuted fourteen cases appeals date supreme court writs up through either the state courts or district circuit courts up to the u s supreme court in each i proved them to criminal standards and submitted the ritz and currently with overwhelming f r e e at all three evidence in each of the us supreme court denied i f b status so needless clean crease my costs of litigation to make me go away then i complied with sco tos rule thirty three point one submitted to cash and forty very pricey booklets and each they were denied simply because john roberts doesn't wan easy it is to catch judges who assert absolute judicial immunity to cover up their jobs or corruption and federal arbitration act award rigging as a matter of fact i've got two s supreme court writs pending now before the u s supreme court and the fourteen dash ninety three twenty posts a criminal standards that the city of san francisco preys mostly on minorities as did fergus violations of not following the sunshine ordinances or california's open government statues let me ask you this have you successfully litigated any matters i mean you've mentioned a number of important civil rights concerns as a practicing lawyer have you been successful in obtaining relief for your clients in any matters that raise these kinds of issues have i ever made any deals to keep my mouth shut you know the other way while corruption was festering i ask you if you want any cases for your clients it is precisely the reason that i do not settle and i do not try to cover up traditional corruption and that i cannot settle so is the answer no you haven't won any cases as for other clients there's just a handful of those and the clients  did actually successfully represent i had to shut down the other attorney who was trying to get out who was trying to kill who filed fraudulent lawsuits in each getting the sense that what your real passion is is more on the plaintiffs side trying to right wrongs and i'm just wondering whether you have been successful in that in any respect i have on three fronts first of all i'm a bit of a webmaster although my numerous websites need updating so i've already publicly dedicated i am assuming twenty thousand pages of evidence to the web which is perused daily by three hundred eighteen million americans a lot of what about in court my my question is  i know about the website but what about have you received have you gotten any judgments in favor of clients as a plaintiff where there is still a case that is still active in which i was appointed attorney of some of them my friends there was no charge right for all of those i wanted them for the one that's still active and i was a plaintiff's attorney but then removed from the case by the superior court because it didn't want me further exposing n a s type arbitration rigging because it actually considered the notice eventually of my disbarment on july third when it wasn't publicly known until july ok let me let me just get to and i'm getting at here so one possible basis that you might come in to the court and say well you're taking away my license my delivery to earn a living and and you've mentioned that your license is valuable and you've used different figures in valuing it but my i guess my question is kind of a practical one the license does allow you the ability to practice law but it doesn't by and of itself provide income you have to earn the income from that and so my question is have you earned income as a lawyer not as a webmaster but as a lawyer from clients or from judgments to which you're entitled to a contingency award yes i used to work on  transactional basis and i actually still do as a matter of fact i even served a process for a client a couple of days ago peter van zandt downtown and a gentleman up in the richmond now so did you bill your time as a lawyer for these matters is that what you're telling me for the math for some matters absolutely and i don't have a contingency fee agreement in the case in which my disbarment was prematurely known by two days now what about in the ninth circuit have you ever represented a client in the ninth circuit as a lawyer and earn fees for that no not clients only in my own appeals all right so let me ask you this since what we're talking about is your ability to practice and you haven't ever practiced in the ninth circuit aside that you would actually practice as a lawyer in the court because of course nothing that we do today is going to affect your ability to appear as a pro se litigant the only real question here is whether you can represent others in this court as a lawyer and practicing member of the bar so what practical consequence is it to you of being able to practice here as a there's no way that those cases come to the ninth circuit actually there is as they're alleging civil rights violations however you didn't let me finish they produced a criminal court case in santa clara where am i and the defendant the case is c one five zero two one two three on january ninth twenty fifteen i call judge william elving in fifteen santa clara i explained to them that my false imprisonment on january ninth and for sixteen hours in county jail was for being a whistleblower who was asserting the civil rights of mostly hispanic and african americans who are being targeted by the traffic courts and criminal justice systems in both cities it's a class action in santa clara i already have a one hundred million dollar civil rights action there naming judge william elving for my false imprisonment and i've got the january night transcript catching the team lies and i page twenty asking city attorney bryan shut me down because my job is to expose traditional corruption and the federal courts i've done so over a hundred times in this many cases appeals and writ slow that we have to the u s supreme court ready illegally deleted dockets number eighty one through eighty five eighty seven eighty eight from the civil case see twelve dash three one one seven also registered his notice of dismissal on april twenty fourth twenty fourteen and within his proofs of service intentionally served with him five days later after wayne la pierre's national he took money from the n r a to do that if you were to look at district court case the fourteen dash want to two three i detail the two dozen ways in which i can prove that allsup sold his orders of dismiss doesn't he refused to apply us supreme court precedent in his decisions his decisions are completely avoided of any reasoning john roberts you don't have to actually witness a bag of money changing hands when there's a pattern in practice so you think if i come up with a report or recommendation in my my decision this court s corruption you have no choice but to close ranks and try to conceal it don't need a bag of money yeah i'm sure though that you've got access to judge portis and judges  in gray lord seventeen judges said they never got the money they all got convicted ok ok well our time is up for today i appreciate your coming here and your you are very courteous  presentation i appreciate that and as i mentioned before i will set out to prepare a report or recommendation i'll lay it out as i see it and you'll have your opportunity to make your whatever comments that you wish to make about it and then the three judge panel will make the ultimate decision in this matter thank you for appearing today thank you very much for the  additional service by our first the security folks i appreciate that very much for being here today and so this matter isn't submitted