CALIFORNIA- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has refused to hear a motion for en banc hearing in an interlocutory appeal in a HOUSING DISCRIMINATION case against the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Appellate Case 16-56497. The motion for en banc hearing was received by the Court Feb. 8, 2017 and ORDER refusing to hear the motion filed March 24, 2017. Typically, the previous order of the court used case law that supported the appellant rather than the Court’s position. We imagine the court thought the appellant too stupid to read and comprehend case law English.
[Editor: below are excerpts from the filed documents.]
Appellate Court Says it Has no Jurisdiction to Review District Court Orders
“Appellant seeks a published opinion that (1) the United States Court of Appeals is authorized by 28 U.S.C. section 1291 to entertain appellate review of orders issued by district courts of the United States within the Ninth Circuit, (2) that the United States Court of Appeals is authorized by 28 U.S.C. section 1291 to entertain appellate review of orders issued by district courts of the United States within the Ninth Circuit, of the order dated/filed September 28, 2016 signed by Judge Andrew J. Wistrich, (3) that the United States Court of Appeals is authorized by 28 U.S.C. section 1291 to entertain appellate review of orders issued by district courts of the United States within the Ninth Circuit, of the order dated/filed Oct 14 2016 by Judge Julie L. Staton, (4) that the order issued November 16, 2016 by Circuit Judges CANBY, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, and order January 25 2017, dkt entry 10, is hereby reversed, (5) that the court of appeal for the Ninth Circuit hereby assumes jurisdiction over the appealable portions of district court orders filed September 28, 2016 and October 14, 2016.”
“The appellate panel circuit Judges have clearly erred as a matter of law and fact in dismissing the [appellant] appeal. “
“The appellate panel circuit Judges have clearly erred as a matter of law and fact in dismissing the [appellant] appeal. Appellant again seeks a published opinion, with specificity, as to the Court’s authorization under 28 USC section 1291 above; does the court have that jurisdiction or not?”
“As seen in the news: “When pressed in relation to Putin’s alleged links to the extrajudicial killing of journalists and dissidents, [President Donald] Trump said, “There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers.” “You think our country is so innocent?” Trump asked rhetorically. In a series of tweets that broadened his attack on the country’s judiciary, Trump said Americans should blame U.S. District Judge James Robart and the court system if anything happened. …The Republican president labeled Robart a “so-called judge” on Saturday, a day after the Seattle jurist issued a temporary restraining order that prevented enforcement of a 90-day ban on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day bar on all refugees… ‘The president of the United States has every right to criticize the other two branches of government,” [Vice President Mike ] Pence said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program….It is unusual for a sitting president to attack a member of the judiciary, which the U.S. Constitution designates as a check on the power of the executive branch and Congress….U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Trump seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.’ ”
[President Donald] Trump said, “There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers.” “You think our country is so innocent?” Trump asked rhetorically.
“The panel decision(s) of the appellate court noted herein, filed Feb. 2, 2017, Jan. 25, 2017, Nov. 16, 2016, conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed in Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court 99 F.3d 325; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28122 (1996); In re San Vicente Med Partners Ltd., 865 F2d 1128 (9th Cir.) (1989) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; and the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance.”
“Manatt Phelps and Phillips”
“[Appellant] files this petition because (1) the court has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the Appellant and (2) there has been a significant change in the facts in that [appellant] is no longer employed, thus changing the nature of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis status and effecting the lower court unjust ruling that [appellant’s] motion for pauper status and appeal was “frivolous” simply because he was viewed as poor and indigent and not able to pay the cost of filing fees. America welcomes immigrants and refugees into this country every day and they are not penalized and deprived of due process just because they are classified by the government as poor.”
“The defendants in this limited appeal are STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HI POINT APTS, LLC , CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, WALTER BARRATT, individual, CLIFF RENFREW, individual, ARMIDA OLGUIN-FLORES, INDIVIDUAL, BARBARA BRASCIA, individual, ALAN CHEN, individual, RICHARD BRINSON, individual, CHARLES GARCIA, individual. [Defendant WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE advisors may have been replaced by property owner HI POINT APTS, LLC with LB Property Management Inc. of Sherman Oaks. Also, appellant has since been terminated from employment by Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips, a law firm that has contracts/representation with defendants State of California, County of Los Angeles, and City of Los Angeles and/or its departments/interests.] The issues in this case involves a question of ‘exceptional importance’.”
“America welcomes immigrants and refugees into this country every day and they are not penalized and deprived of due process just because they are classified by the government as poor.”
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” [Emphasis added]. Under CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. (f) For the purposes of this section, “State” shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State. (g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California anti-discrimination law. Under CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 26. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.”
“The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise”
“The 42 United States Code section 1981 states: “(a) Statement of equal rights. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
“(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.”
“(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.”
[Editor: Above have been excerpts from court filed documents. Judges take an oath to uphold the constitution. The Court refused to recall and reverse its mandate appellate order in this interlocutory appeal. There are about forty-four Judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [Wikipedia].