4,
`
`[ /
`
`[L
`
`b !
`
`F!L5
`APR 222019
`
`64
`
`tjt
`
`0.__J
`
`_
`
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE
`UNITED STATES
`
`CHARLES G. KINNEY,
`Plaintiff and Appellant,
`
`I,,
`
`MARIANO -FLORENTINO
`CUELLAR; et al
`Defendants and App ellees,
`A
`
`On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The
`Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (18-16402)
`
`US District Court No. 3:18-cv-01041-EMC,
`Northern District of California,
`San Francisco
`A
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
`CERTIORARI
`4
`
`CHARLES KINNEY
`Petitioner in pro se
`5826 Presley Way
`Oakland, CA 94618
`charleskinney@hotmail.com
`Phone: 510-654-5133; FAX 594-0883
`
`
`
`[ /
`
`[L
`
`b !
`
`F!L5
`APR 222019
`
`64
`
`tjt
`
`0.__J
`
`_
`
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE
`UNITED STATES
`
`CHARLES G. KINNEY,
`Plaintiff and Appellant,
`
`I,,
`
`MARIANO -FLORENTINO
`CUELLAR; et al
`Defendants and App ellees,
`A
`
`On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The
`Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (18-16402)
`
`US District Court No. 3:18-cv-01041-EMC,
`Northern District of California,
`San Francisco
`A
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
`CERTIORARI
`4
`
`CHARLES KINNEY
`Petitioner in pro se
`5826 Presley Way
`Oakland, CA 94618
`charleskinney@hotmail.com
`Phone: 510-654-5133; FAX 594-0883
`
`
`
`S
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`This is about crimes due to ongoing bankruptcy
`fraud, and judicial accessories-after-the-fact.
`
`Crimes are being committed not only by listed
`creditors, a contract-attorney/co-planner, and a
`discharged debtor; but also by judges, justices
`and federal officers who conceal the crimes and
`thus become accessories-after-the -fact (since all
`are felonies). 18 USC Secs. 152 and 157; Cal.
`Penal Code Secs. 17, 31 and 33. The felonies and
`the concealment have been occurring for years.
`
`There is no immunity for: (1) judges and justices
`who act as prosecutors of Kinney rather than act
`as neutral arbitrators of disputes [e.g. they not
`only concealed the fraud, but also knew there
`was the clear absence of all jurisdiction to issue
`any fee awards]; (2) listed, unsecured creditors
`Marcus, discharged debtor Clark, and contract-
`attorney Chomsky; and (3) officers who refuse to
`enforce bankruptcy laws even though stopping
`this type of fraud is one of their specific duties.
`
`Michele R. Clark is the 2010 Chapter 7 no asset
`discharged debtor. Her attorneys David Marcus
`etc were listed creditors [who had Clark sign a
`2007 hourly-fee retainer with a charging lien].
`The contract-attorney is Eric Chomsky. Kinney
`and Kempton were co-buyers of Clark's house in
`2005, but creditors Marcus etc kept violating 11
`USC Sec. 524(a)(2) by moving for more attorney
`fees. The courts and others continue to conceal
`ongoing fraud and ignore 11 USC Sec. 524(a)(1).
`
`
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties to this proceeding are those
`specified and appearing in the caption to this
`petition.
`
`11
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............i
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS .....ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............iii
`
`INDEX TO APPENDIX ...............iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............v
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.. 1
`
`OPINIONS BELOW ..................22
`
`JURISDICTION ......................23
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............32
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..........32
`
`SUMMARY OF LOWER COURT
`PROCEEDINGS .....................32
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ...............33
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE
`WRIT OF CERTIORARI ...............34
`
`Certiorari Should Be Granted Because Federal
`Courts Continue to Ignore Federal and State
`Law Which Violates Kinney's First Amendment
`Rights; And The Method and Application of
`
`111
`
`
`
`"Alleged" Due Process by the Courts Severely
`Impairs Meaningful Review of Important
`Questions of Federal Law, And Severely Impairs
`Rights Guaranteed Under The First, Fourth,
`Fifth, Eighth And Fourteenth Amendments; And
`Is In Conflict With Decisions Of This Court And
`Other United States Court Of Appeals .....34
`
`CONCLUSION .......................39
`
`APPENDIX
`
`lv
`
`
`
`INDEX TO APPENDIX
`
`Page numbers at top of page:
`
`Sequential No.
`In Document
`
`Appendix A: Jan. 23, 2019 "final" decision by the
`Ninth Circuit denying Kinney's timely request
`for permission to appeal by using a "so
`insubstantial" excuse [Ninth Circuit Dk #5;
`Appendix A] .............................1
`
`Appendix B: June 1, 2018 dismissal order by
`USDC Judge Chen as to Kinney's FAC [USDC
`Dk#44; App. B] ..........................3
`
`Appendix C: June 29, 2018 denial order by
`USDC Judge Chen as to Kinney's motion to
`vacate the dismissal, and as to an USC for an
`overbroad new pre-filing order against "creditor"
`Kinney [USDC Dk #53; App. C] ............19
`
`Appendix D: July 17, 2018 pre-filing order by
`USDC Judge Chen against Kinney that
`included the Los Angeles next-door-neighbor
`Carolyn Cooper even though Cooper was never
`a party as to matters involving creditor David
`Marcus' bankruptcy fraud for discharged-debtor
`Michele Clark [USDC, Dk #56; App. D] .....31
`
`V
`
`
`
`4
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda,
`177 Ca1.App.4t 14 (Cal. 2009).. . 38
`
`American Ry. Express Co. v. Levee,
`263 U.S. 19 (1923) ..........25
`
`Bauer v. Texas
`341 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2003)... . 35
`
`BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB,
`536 U.S. 516 (2002) ..........36
`
`Boddie v. Connecticut,
`401 U.S. 371 (1971) .........26
`
`Bosse v. Oklahoma,
`580 U.S. -, 137 5.Ct. 1 (2016) . 23, 38
`
`Bostanian v. Liberty Savings Bank,
`52 Cal.App.4t 1075 (Cal. 1997). . . 22
`
`Broadman v. Comm. on Jud. Perf.,
`18 Cal.4th 1079 (Cal. 1998) ......7
`
`Bulloch v. United States,
`763 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1994). .. . 38
`
`Cadle Co. v. Flanagan,
`271 F.5upp.2d 379 (D.Conn. 2003). . 11, 27
`
`Canatella v. State of California
`304 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2001) . . . 25, 35
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Cen-Pen Corp. v. Hanson,
`58 F.3d 89 (4th Cir. 1995) ........7
`
`Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm.,
`558 U.S. 310 (2010) ............5
`
`Cohen v. California,
`403 U.S. 15 (1971) ............25
`
`Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. US,
`424 U.S. 800 (1976) ............38
`
`De Long v. Hennessey,
`912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) .....4
`
`Devereaux v. Abbey
`263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) .....35
`
`Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman,
`460 U.S. 462 (1983) ...........10
`
`Dodds v. Comm. on Judicial Perf.,
`12 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1994) .......7
`
`Donovan v. City of Dallas,
`377 US. 408 (1964) .............18
`
`Evans v. Fraught,
`231 Ca1.App.2d 698 (Cal. 1965) . . 28
`
`-
`
`Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic Indust.,
`544 U.S. 280 (2005) .............8
`
`Fink v. Shemtov,
`180 Cal.App.4th 1160 (Cal. 2010). . 5
`
`vii
`
`
`
`4,
`
`Fitzpartrick v. Bitzer,
`427 U.S. 445 (1976) ............23
`
`Fowler v. Guerin,
`899 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2018) .....8
`
`F.T.C. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co.,
`504 U.S. 621 (1992) ...........24
`
`Giset v. Fair Political Practices Comm.,
`25 Ca1.App.4th 658 (Cal. 2001). . . 24
`
`Goncalves v. Rady Child. Hosp. San Diego,
`865 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2017). . .. 19
`
`Grannis v. Ordean,
`234 U.S. 385 (1914) ............37
`
`Griffin v. Illinois,
`351 U.S. 12 (1956) .............37
`
`Hafer v. Melo
`502 U.S. 21 (1991) .............35
`
`Hawaii ex rel Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
`761 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2014) .....24
`
`Hernandez v. Sessions,
`872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) ......36
`
`Hooten v. H Jenne III,
`786 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1986) .......36
`
`In re Castellino Villas AKF, LLC,
`836 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2016) .....9
`
`viii
`
`
`
`In re Gonzales,
`830 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1987) ......24
`
`In re Gruntz,
`202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) .....9
`
`In re Hamilton,
`540 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 2008) ........24
`
`In re Isaacs,
`895 F.3d 904 (6t1 Cir. 2018) .........38
`
`In re Justices of Supreme Crt. of Pueto Rico
`695 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1982) .......35
`
`In re Kinney,
`201 Ca1.App.4th 951 (Cal. 2011). . 6, 29
`
`In re Marino,
`577 B.R. 772 (9th Cir. 2017) .......7
`
`In re McLean,
`794 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015).. . . 6,38
`
`In re Miles,
`430 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005) .......24
`
`In re Murchison,
`349 U.S. 133 (1955)
`
`In re Schwartz,
`954 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1992) .......8
`
`In re Thomas,
`508 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2007) .........1
`
`Ix
`
`
`
`A
`
`Janus v. Am. Fed. of State, Cty & Muni. Empi,
`585 U.S.
`(2018) ............35
`
`Johnson v. DeGrandy,
`512 U.S. 997 (1994) ...............31
`
`Johnson v. Home State Bank,
`501 U.S. 78 (1991) ...............7
`
`Johnson v. United States,
`135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) .............4
`
`Kalb v. Feuerstein,
`308 U.S. 433 (1940) ..............9
`
`Keith v. Kinney,
`961 P.2d 516 (Cob. App. 1997).. . . 31
`
`Keith v. Kinney,
`140 P.3d 141 (Cob. App. 2006). . . . 31
`
`Kempton v. City of Los Angeles,
`165 Ca1.App.4th 1344 (Cal. 2008). 14, 28
`
`Kinney v. Clark,
`12 Cal.App.5th 724 (Cal. 2017) . .2, 15, 21
`
`Kinney v. Keith,
`128 P.3d 297 (Cob. App. 2005). . . . 31
`
`Kinney v. Overton,
`153 Ca1.App.4th 482 (Cal. 2007). . . 27
`
`Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.,
`359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004).. . 8,9
`
`x
`
`
`
`4
`
`Lacey v. Maricopa County,
`693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir 2012) .......36
`
`Levin Metals v. Parr-Richmond Term.,
`799 F.2d 1312(9th Cir. 1986) ......14
`
`Long v. Shorebank Develop. Corp.,
`182 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1999) ......8
`
`Maritime Electric v. United Jersey Bank,
`959 F.2d 1194 (3rd Cir. 1991).. . . 24
`McCarthy v. Madigan,
`503 U.S. 140 (1992) ............38
`
`Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line v. Calvert,
`347 U.S. 157 (1954) ...........25
`
`Mojtahedi v. Vargas,
`228 Cal.App.4th 974 (Cal. 2014).. 19, 25
`
`Moore v. Kaufman,
`189 Cal.App.4th 604 (Cal. 2010). .. 28
`
`Moy v. United States,
`906 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1990) .......25
`
`NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers,
`377 U.S. 288 (1964) .............37
`
`Nat. Inst. of Fam. & Life Adv. v. Becerra,
`585 U.S.
`(2018) ............35
`
`Ogunsalu v. Superior Court,
`12 Cal.App.5th 107 (Cal. 2017) .....5
`
`xi
`
`
`
`Olson v. Cory,
`35 Cal.3d 390 (Cal. 1983)
`
`. 25
`
`Orner v. Shalala,
`30 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 1994).. . 6,38
`
`Paramount Pictures Corp. v Davis,
`228 Cal.App.2d 827 (Cal. 1964). . . 28
`
`Patrick v. Burge t,
`486 U.S. 94 (1988) .............23
`
`Pennhurst St. S. & H. v. Halderman,
`465 U.S. 89 (1984) .............23
`
`Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.,
`491 U.S. 1 (1989) ..............23
`
`Pennzoil v. Texaco, Inc.,
`481 U.S. 1 (1987) .............10
`
`People v. Partee,
`21 Cal.App.5th 630 (Cal. 2018). . . 27
`
`Peralta v. Heights Medical Center,
`485 U.S. 80 (1988) ............37
`
`Plaza Hollister Ltd. Ptsp v. Cty of San Benito,
`72 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. 1999) .. 24, 38
`
`PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler,
`22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) .........7
`
`Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson,
`25 Ca1.3d 124 (Cal. 1979) .........7
`
`xii
`
`
`
`Riley v. Nat. Fed. of the Blind of NC, Inc.,
`487 U.S. 781 (1998) .............35
`
`Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles,
`761 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014) .....4
`
`Saltarelli & Steponovich v. Douglas,
`40 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. 1995) .....24
`
`Sinochem Intl. v. Malaysia Intl. Ship Corp.,
`549 U.S. 422 (2007) ..........9, 38
`
`Sloman v. Tadlock,
`21 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1994) .....36
`
`Smith v. Bennett,
`365 U.S. 708 (1961) ...........37
`
`Smith v. Robbins,
`528 U.S. 259 (2000) ............10
`
`Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan,
`874 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1989) .....36
`
`State Univ. of New York v. Fox,
`492 U.S. 469 (1989) .............3
`
`Supreme Ct. of Virginia v. Consumers Union
`446 U.S. 719 (1980) ............35
`
`Thomas v. Collins,
`323 U.S. 516 (1945) .............25
`
`Trope v. Katz,
`11 Cal.4t 274 (Cal. 1995) ..........7
`
`xlii
`
`
`
`United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn.,
`389 U.S. 217 (1967) .........25, 36
`
`United States v. Frega,
`179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) ......26
`
`United States v. Hooten,
`693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1982) .......36
`
`United States v. Inzunza,
`638 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2009) .....26
`
`United States v. Murphy,
`768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985) ......35
`
`U.S. v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.,
`489 U.S. 235 (1989) ..............24
`
`Verizon Maryland v. Pub. 5erv. Comm.,
`535 U.S. 635 (2002) .............31
`
`Williams v. Pennsylvania,
`- U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1899 (2016)... 18
`
`Wolfe v. George,
`486 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007) .......4
`
`Young v. Tr-City Healthcare Dist.,
`210 Cal.App.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) .....24
`
`Zarcone v. Perry,
`572 F.2d 52 (2nd Cir. 1978) .......36
`
`CONSTITUTION and STATUTES
`
`xlv
`
`
`
`. 2,35
`U.S. Const., Amend. I
`U.S. Const., Amend. IV ......2, 35
`U.S. Const., Amend. V ......2, 35
`U.S. Const., Amend. VIII ..... 2, 35
`U.S. Const., Amend. XIV ..... 2, 35
`U.S. Const., Article VI, Sec. 2 . . . 18
`
`11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 ............12
`
`ii U.S.C. Sec. 506 ......12, 13, 24
`
`ii U.S.C. Sec. 524 .....1, 8, 17, etc
`ii U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1) . i, 1, 6-8, etc
`ii U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2) . . i, 1, 6-8, etc
`
`18 U.S.C. Sec. 152 .........
`i, 2, 26
`18 U.S.C. Sec. 152(2) + ....... 11, 26
`18 U.S.C. Sec. 157 ......... i, 2, 26
`18 U.S.C. Sec. 157(3) ........11:26
`18 U.S.C. Sec. 158 .............39
`
`18 U.S.C. Sees. 1346 & 1951 ......26
`18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961 etc .........27
`
`28 U.S.C. Secs. 1254(1) & 1257(a). . 23
`28 U.S.C. Sees. 1331 and 1343. . 10, 32
`28 U.S.C. Sees. 1441 and 1443.. 10, 32
`28 U.S.C. Sec. 1452 ........10, 14, 32
`28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651 ............3, 27
`28 U.S.C. Sec. 1739 ...............8
`28 U.S.C. Sec. 2101(c) ............23
`
`42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ............30, 32
`
`FRBP 3001, 3002 & 6009 .........24
`
`xv
`
`
`
`Cal. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 3
`
`. 28
`
`Cal. Civil Code Sec. 1717 .........7
`Cal. Civil Code Sec. 3483 ........28
`
`Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. Secs. 391 etc. 3
`Cal. CCP Sec. 525 ...............28
`Cal. CCP Sec. 1033.5(a)(10) .......7
`Cal. CCP Sec. 916(a) .............28
`Cal. CCP Sec. 1060 ..............27
`Cal. Penal Code Secs. 17, 31 & 32 . i, 2, 11
`
`30A Amer. Juris., Judgmts, 43, 44, 45 . 9
`
`xvi
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Petitioner Charles Kinney requests that a "writ of
`certiorari" issue to review the "final" judgment by
`the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal on Jan. 23,
`2019 that refused to allow Kinney's appeal to
`proceed [App. A] as to US District Court orders
`against Kinney issued on June 1, June 29, and
`July 17, 2018 by Judge Chen [App. B, C and D].
`
`The oniy reason given by the Ninth Circuit was
`that Kinney's appeal was "so insubstantial" that
`Kinney could not proceed with it. The only case
`cited was In re Thomas [App. A, 1]. However, the
`case In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2007),
`does not apply to attorney fee orders deemed void
`pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1).
`
`Insubstantial vs. Substantial
`The adverse economic impacts on Kinney of the
`ongoing violations of bankruptcy law and fraud
`exceed $500,000 due to 13+ void attorney fee
`awards for already-discharged pre- and post-
`petition debts that were shifted onto Kinney by
`the 2010 Chapter 7 no asset discharged-debtor
`Michele Clark and her listed, unsecured creditor
`attorneys David Marcus etc (with help by contract
`attorney Eric Chomsky as a co-planner of the fee
`motions and accessory-after-the-fact). $500,000+
`is not an "insubstantial" financial issue.
`
`The bankruptcy law being violated [11 U.S.C. Sec.
`524] was created: (1) to enjoin the exact activity
`that continues to be pursued by listed unsecured
`creditor attorneys Marcus etc [Sec. 524(a)(2)]; and
`
`1
`
`
`
`(2) to void any resulting state or federal court
`attorney's fee awards or orders [Sec. 524(a)(1)]
`because the fee motion and resulting award order
`concede that debtor Clark is still personally liable
`to her own listed creditor attorneys Marcus etc.
`
`All the courts involved here have refused to follow
`explicit bankruptcy laws; see Kinney v. Clark, 12
`Ca1.App.5th 724 (Cal. 2017) for examples of their
`ongoing refusal to follow the bankruptcy laws.
`
`These bankruptcy laws have been violated over 13
`times. These same violations are also bankruptcy
`fraud "crimes" which is a felony because of the
`potential for 5 years in jail [18 U.S.C. Sec. 152 and
`157]. These felonies continue to be willfully
`concealed by Chomsky and others. Those who
`conceal are accessories-after-the-fact (which is
`also a felony) [Cal. Penal Code Secs. 17, 31 and
`32]. Those are not "insubstantial" legal issues.
`
`The vexatious litigant ("VL") law is being used as
`justification for allowing listed-creditors Marcus
`etc to continue to violate bankruptcy law and
`commit crimes against listed-creditors Kinney and
`his co-buyer Kim Kempton (now deceased) [who
`purchased Clark's house in 2005], and to compel
`silence upon them by denying their constitutional
`rights [e.g. 1st, 4th, 5th,8th and 14th Amendments].
`Those are not "insubstantial" retaliation issues.
`
`Even though an attorney fee "cost" order is void
`under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1), and even though
`Clark's listed, unsecured-creditor attorneys David
`Marcus etc are prohibited by 11 U.S.C. Sec.
`
`2
`
`
`
`524(a)(2) from filing any motion which results in
`attorney's fee award "cost" orders (based on the
`false premise that Clark still has personal liability
`for fees), the unsecured-creditor attorneys Marcus
`etc keep filing attorney fee motions on behalf of
`2010 Chapter 7 discharged debtor Michele Clark.
`
`The Vexatious Litigant Laws
`Here, the courts ignore bankruptcy law and
`justify their actions by mis-using VL law [e.g. Cal.
`Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") Secs. 391-391.81.
`
`Here, creditors Marcus etc continue to violate
`bankruptcy law against listed-creditors Kinney
`and his co-buyer Kim Kempton (now deceased).
`
`Here, the courts continue to compel silence upon
`them and deny them the right to redress of their
`grievances [e.g. by denying the right to appeal].
`
`The VL law is also being used by state and federal
`courts to impose excessive fines on Kinney
`contrary to the 8th Amendment (see US Supreme
`Court decision in the Timbs case decided 2/20/19).
`
`The state VL law allows a Calif. court to make a
`person a VL [e.g. when a federal court has made
`that person a VL], but without safeguards to keep
`a VL order from being overbroad. State Univ. of
`New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 482-486 (1989). In
`contrast to "narrowly tailored" federal VL orders,
`all Calif. VL orders are "broadly" applied.
`
`The federal VL law arises from the All Writ Act
`(28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651) and under federal law all VL
`
`3
`
`
`
`orders must be "narrowly tailored" in scope. De
`Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146-1149 (9th
`Cir. 1990). However, in Kinney's situation, the
`federal VL orders against him are being broadly
`applied to all of his federal cases [e.g. Clean Water
`Act citizen-lawsuit cases] and broadly applied to
`include non-parties [e.g. Carolyn Cooper].
`
`Challenges To The VL Laws
`The Calif. VL law has been challenged before.
`Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007) did
`consider the VL law, but that case had no facial
`challenge, and the VL law has been substantially
`changed [e.g. to allow a Court of Appeal Presiding
`Justice to decide whether an appeal has merit].
`
`In 2014, the constitutional framework of VL laws
`was extensively clarified in Ringgold-Lockhart v.
`County of LA, 761 F.3d 1057, 1060-1067 (9th Cir.
`2014). Based on this case, the Cal. VL law does
`not satisfy the clarified constitutional standards.
`
`Since substantial changes have occurred to Calif.
`VL law after the 2007 Wolfe decision [e.g. in Jan.
`2012], and since the Ringgold-Lockhart decision
`explains some issues of the VL law that the Wolfe
`decision never considered, the 2007 Wolfe decision
`is no longer controlling as to the current VL law.
`
`No court has ever considered the unconstitutional
`vagueness of the current Calif. VL law. Johnson
`v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557-2563 (2015).
`
`For example, given how the Calif. courts tally up
`losses under the Cal. VL law and given that Cal.
`
`4
`
`
`
`requires an appeal within 60 days of whenever a
`defendant is dismissed, a plaintiff can become
`labeled as a VL in one case with 6 defendants by
`"losing" against 5 defendants, but "winning" the
`case against the 6th defendant. Fink v. Shemtov,
`180 CaLApp.4th 1160, 1170 (Cal. 2010).
`
`Cal. VL law has also changed a party who is a
`"defendant" into a "plaintiff" which shows how
`arbitrarily the VL law is being applied Ogunsalu
`v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.5th 107 (Cal. 2017).
`
`As for facial challenges to the Cal. VL law,
`Kinney contends every application of that VL law
`is unconstitutional because it is: (1) hopelessly
`vague [e.g. as to wording such as "litigation",
`"finally determined against", "merit", "reasonable
`expenses" for security; "presiding justice"]; and (2)
`an "ongoing chill upon speech that is beyond all
`doubt protected makes it necessary in this case to
`invoke the earlier precedents that a statute which
`chills speech can and must be invalidated where
`its facial invalidity has been demonstrated".
`Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
`558 U.S. 310, 331 (2010). There is no doubt that
`the VL law, and acts by judges and justices using
`this law, are chilling Kinney's protected speech.
`
`As for as-applied (factual) challenges to the Cal.
`VL law, Kinney contends the VL law was and is
`misapplied to him, contrary to specific language
`and criteria of the statute [e.g. because in Nov.
`2008 Kinney was not a party and, as an in pro se
`plaintiff, did not have 5 out of 7 losses in the last 7
`years; and because Kinney was not a party in
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dec. 2011 when In re Kinney, 201 Ca1.App.4th 951,
`was issued by a Cal. Court of Appeal, Second App.
`District ("COA2") "presiding justice" who did not
`yet have subject matter jurisdiction to do so].
`
`The federal VL law has been challenged too. It
`must be applied narrowly per the De Long case,
`but that is not happening as to Kinney.
`
`Ongoing Bankruptcy Law Violations
`11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1) "voids" a court judgment
`if the ruling decides that 2010 Chapter 7 "no
`asset" discharged-debtor Clark still has personal
`liability to a listed-unsecured creditor [e.g. Marcus
`etc]. That ruling is void regardless of the court's
`rationale used to justify that decision. As to a
`void order, a collateral attack or appeal (de-facto
`or not) is unnecessary; and the Rooker-Feldman
`doctrine does not apply. Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d
`1307, 1309-1310 (10th Cir. 1994).
`
`11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2) prohibits any unsecured-
`creditors from employing any means to obtain any
`judgment, order or sanction that determines a
`discharged Chapter 7 "no asset" debtor still has
`personal liability to that creditor. In re McLean,
`794 F.3d 1313, 1321-1325 (11th Cir. 2015). Sec.
`524(a)(2) is known as the discharge injunction.
`
`For 8+ years, listed unsecured-creditor attorneys
`David Marcus etc have filed 13+ attorney fee
`motions on behalf of discharged Chapter 7 "no
`asset" debtor Michele Clark, based on pre-petition
`contracts, with help from contract-attorney Eric
`Chomsky.
`
`no
`
`
`
`Their goal was to shift over $500,000 of pre- and
`post-petition attorney's fees [incurred by Clark]
`onto listed unsecured-creditors Kinney and/or
`Kempton, the co-buyers of Clark's house in 2005.
`However, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2) prohibits all of
`those attorney fee motions. In re Marino, 577
`B.R. 772, 782-784 (9th Cir. 2017).
`
`The dockets for cases in state and federal courts
`confirm that judges continue to issue decisions
`that concede discharged-debtor Clark is still
`personally liable to her own unsecured-creditor
`attorneys David Marcus etc for their legal work.
`
`Each time creditor Marcus files an attorney's fee
`"cost" motion to shift Clark's legal bills onto
`Kinney, Marcus concedes (admits) that his client,
`discharged-debtor Clark, still has some "personal
`liability" to him (Marcus) for his legal work [which
`violates 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2)]. Cal. Civil Code
`Sec. 1717; Cal. CCP Sec. 1033.5(a)(10); Cen-Pen
`Corp. v. Hanson, 58 F.3d 89, 92-94 (41h Cir. 1995);
`Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84
`(1991); Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 279-289 (Cal.
`1995); PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Ca1.4th
`1084, 1092-1094 (Cal. 2000); Reynolds Metals Co.
`v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124, 127-129 (Cal. 1979).
`
`The 13+ attorney fee "cost" orders were issued
`after Clark's 2010 bankruptcy. Those 13+ orders
`resulted in over $500,000 in attorney's fees owed
`by Kinney to Clark. By issuing those 13+ orders,
`the state courts have engaged in willful judicial
`misconduct. Dodds v. Commission on Judicial
`Performance, 12 Cal.4th 163, 166-172 (Cal. 1994);
`
`7
`
`
`
`Broadman v. Comm. on Judicial Performance, 18
`Ca1.4th 1079,1091-1113 (Cal. 1998).
`
`Challenges To "Void" Orders
`Kinney is challenging all "void" orders that were
`issued contrary to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a) [which
`have resulted in the "taking" of Kinney's property
`and excessive fines], so Kinney's grievance cannot
`be a de-facto appeal of a valid order because no
`appeal is ever necessary from a void order, and
`because full faith and credit can never be given to
`a void order. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1739.
`
`Each of Kinney's complaints is a "federal claim
`alleging a prior injury [caused by listed-
`creditors attorneys Marcus] that a state court
`failed to remedy". Fowler v. Guerin, 899 F.3d
`1112, 1118-1119 (9th Cir. 2018); Exxon Mobil
`Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S.
`280, 284 (2005); Long v. Shorebank Development
`Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554-561 (7th Cir. 1999); In re
`Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1992). The
`courts ignored violations by Marcus of 11 U.S.C.
`Sec. 524(a)(2). The attorney fee orders were void,
`but were also a "taking" of Kinney's property.
`
`Kinney is not filing appeals for any legal wrongs
`committed by a state court. Rather, those appeals
`are about legal wrongs committed by debtor
`Clark (an adverse party) and by her listed,
`unsecured-creditor attorneys Marcus etc (a
`non-party). Marcus filed these motions even
`though his "puppet" Clark knew it was prohibited
`by federal law. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d
`1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2004); 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2).
`
`
`
`Under bankruptcy law, all legal work performed
`by listed-creditor attorneys Marcus etc for debtor
`Clark is deemed to be fully-discharged pre-
`petition debt in Clark's Chapter 7 "no asset"
`bankruptcy. Debts cannot be shifted onto another
`creditor (Kinney). In re Castellino Villas, A.K.F.
`LLC, 836 F.3d 1028, 1033-1037 (9th Cir. 2016).
`
`State courts have never accepted 11 U.S.C. Sec.
`524(a) restraints and ignored that bankruptcy law
`has completely preempted state law.
`In re
`Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074, 1078-1084 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`Here, state courts have issued "final" attorney fee
`award orders to Clark, but those "final" orders are
`still automatically void under Sec. 524(a)(1).
`
`Some courts have argued that these bankruptcy
`and VL issues are "inextricably intertwined" with
`"final" state and federal court decisions.
`
`That is an unsupportable argument since a void
`order cannot be "inextricably intertwined" with a
`valid ruling because a void order is not accorded
`any dignity in the judicial system, and because
`void orders can be attacked at any time without
`violating the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Sinochem
`Intern. Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549
`U.S. 422, 430-431 (2007); Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308
`U.S. 433, 438, 60 S.Ct. 343, 345-46, 84 L.Ed. 370
`(1940); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136,
`1141 (9th Cir. 2004); 30A American Jurisprudence,
`Judgments, Secs. 43, 44, 45 (1958).
`
`
`
`Some courts have argued that Kinney cannot go to
`federal court to challenge void state court orders
`[e.g. made void by 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1)]. 28
`U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1343, 1441, 1443, and/or 1452.
`
`That is an unsupportable argument since district
`courts have jurisdiction over bankruptcy law and
`since Rooker-Feldman and other preclusionary
`rules do not apply to a facial challenge of the Cal.
`VL law. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
`Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-488 (1983).
`
`Since all state court attorney fee awards in favor
`of Clark were "void" after July 2010 [e.g. because
`those decisions had to presume that discharged-
`debtor Clark still had "personal liability" to her
`own listed unsecured-creditor attorneys Marcus],
`nothing could be "inextricably intertwined" with
`those "void" orders. Pennzoil v. Texaco, Inc., 481
`U.S. 1, 8-17 (1987). No valid order ever existed.
`
`Some courts have argued that Kinney's VL status
`was due to his frivolous actions that had no merit,
`but those are vague terms that are being applied
`to Kinney without any testimony under oath and
`allowing cross-examination to determine the true
`facts [see Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 269-276
`(2000) for "frivolous" and "without merit", and
`how those are determined]. The VL law is not
`relevant to Kinney's bankruptcy "creditor" rights.
`
`Ongoing Bankruptcy Fraud
`Each time listed unsecured-creditor attorneys
`Marcus etc file a motion for attorneys fees on
`
`10
`
`
`
`behalf of discharged-debtor Clark, they admit that
`11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(2) is being violated.
`
`In claiming that Clark still owes them for legal
`fees is false and deceptive, the post-2010 motions
`for attorney fees means creditors Marcus etc (and
`attorney Chomsky) have committed bankruptcy
`fraud. [e.g. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 152(2) {".. knowingly
`and fraudulently makes a false oath or account
`or Sec. 157(3) {".. makes a false or fraudulent
`representation, claim, or promise .
`
`The intentional acts by creditors Marcus etc are
`"crimes" with a potential for 5 years in jail; that
`means the crimes are felonies under Cal. law [Cal.
`Penal Code Sec. 17]. The intentional acts by
`creditors Marcus and attorney Chomsky are also
`predicate acts for RICO. Cadle Co. v. Flanagan,
`271 F. Supp.2d 379, 383-391 (D. Conn. 2003).
`
`Lies and Misdirection For 8+ Years
`Creditors Marcus and contract-attorney Chomsky
`have lied to state and federal courts for years
`about their status and the consequences of their
`actions. Those willfully false and deceptive acts
`are further evidence of bankruptcy fraud "crimes".
`
`For example, as of July 2012, Marcus represented
`to LASC Judge Scheper that Marcus could pursue
`attorney fee claims (based on emails to and from
`the trustee) even though ppJy the trustee could
`pursue those claims under the Bostanian case.
`
`11
`
`
`
`On Aug. 17, 2012, Chomsky admitted attorneys
`Marcus etc were listed as unsecured creditors in
`Clark's 2010 Chapter 7 "no asset" bankruptcy.
`
`However, on Oct. 6, 2016, Chomsky said attorneys
`Marcus etc "was a secured creditor" to the Ninth
`Circuit which resulted in an attorney fee award to
`Clark in Ninth Circuit #14-60081 [Dk #96]. That
`order is void pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(a)(1).
`
`On Jan. 2, 2019, Chomksy said discharged-debtor
`"Clark is a secured judgment creditor" to Alameda
`County Superior Court Probate Dept. That was
`false since Clark was the 201.0 Chapter 7 debtor.
`
`Clark's docket for #2:10-bk-41323 shows attorneys
`Marcus never filed any motion to prove they had a
`"secured" claim [e.g. under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 506].
`
`In March 2011, the bankruptcy court issued an
`"appear and defend" order to Clark during a CMC
`conference, but that was not a proper relief from
`stay motion under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 [with notice
`to all creditors] as Marcus/Chomsky have argued.
`
`In Oct. 2012, the US Bankruptcy Court issued an
`abandonment order as to galy the trustee, but
`Marcus/Chomsky have argued that gave them the
`"right" to recover attorney's fees for pre- and post-
`petition legal work (contrary to bankruptcy law).
`
`Courts Refuse To Follow The Law
`At all times, state and federal courts have refused
`to analyze and protect the rights of listed creditor
`Kinney. They have ignored inactions by creditors
`
`12
`
`
`
`Marcus [e.g. failure to prove in state court that
`their charging lien was valid per the Mojtahedi
`case; failure to prove in federal court that they
`had a "secured" interest per 11 U.S.C. Sec. 506].
`
`Instead, the courts kept granting attorney fee
`award orders to discharged-debtor Clark for legal
`work by listed-creditors Marcus etc, and kept
`ignoring restrictions imposed by bankruptcy law.
`
`Federal courts kept refusing to consider Kinney's
`removals, civil rights cases, and appeals [e.g. by
`making sua sponte dismissals, arguing these are
`de-facto appeals of state court fee award orders,
`and/or applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine].
`
`The federal courts have now applied overly-broad
`pre-filing orders to Kinney [e.g. Ninth Circuit #17-
`80256; USDC #18-cv-1041], and blocked Kinney's
`cases and appeals based on those pre-filing orders.
`
`Here, the federal courts are so bold that they are
`now including non-parties in pre-filing orders [e.g.
`Los Angeles next- door-neighbor Carolyn Cooper
`who falsely reported Kinney and Kempton to the
`State Bar to stop them from having federal ADA
`and state nuisance laws applied to Cooper's
`unpermitted, encroaching fences that were built
`on the public right-of-way (and which still exist)].
`
`Scope of the RICO Enterprise
`When Judge Chen included non-party Cooper in
`his 2018 VL order, he conceded the scope of the
`RICO "enterprise" against Kinney was very broad.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Kinney's civil rights case was directed only at the
`courts due to violations of bankruptcy law.
`Cooper was NOT involved in matters related to
`bankruptcy law. Cooper was involv
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
