No. 21-1038

John B. Kenney v. City of San Diego, California, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-01-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: brady-violation civil-rights constitutional-rights damages due-process equal-protection first-amendment judicial-misconduct retaliation standing
Key Terms:
Antitrust DueProcess FourthAmendment FirstAmendment Securities Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-03-18
Question Presented (from Petition)

When & What interest &/or other penalties may A/P Kenney also collect along with the $6,050,800.00 "DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS" - now seven (7) years+ -per Defendant, entered in 2014 against many Corporations and MPOs, and individuals in INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT above (4.), & Petition, pg.3-4?

Whether -as in so many previous criminal cases- a trial judge suppressing video evidence of lying Brady cops -and HIS OWN ORDER, #499- at the Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), and then all other stages of trial- is an abortion of "justice" and clear violation of Ist Amendment, 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment and due process and equal protection of the law?

Whether trial & appellate "judges" using Brady cops lies as "facts" or "evidence", suborning petitioner's conflicting testimony, witness & video evidence- letting multiple thieving, lying, A&B abusing, Brady cops off at the MSJ & other stages of trial- is a violation of due process?

Whether U.S.C. 455 misconduct on the part of the 2 stalking trial judges: (1) One sitting on 2 trials with the exact same parties, (hayes) giving the exact same lies, injustices and "bias" to, and acting as 2nd counsel for, the police defendants and their attorneys, & (2) Second "judge" a stalking named defendant from DoJ, (schopler) again giving the exact same lies, injustices and "bias" to the police defendants and their counsel, even participating in her perjury for SANDAG on multiple occasions -is also acceptable, or justice?

Whether the years of Discovery abuse by steinman, etal, city of san diego (cosd) atto

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the video evidence of criminal and constitutional violations by law enforcement was improperly suppressed

Docket Entries

2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-24
Waiver of right of respondents Facebook, Inc.; Mark Zuckerberg to respond filed.
2022-02-24
Waiver of right of respondent San Diego Sheriff's Department to respond filed.
2022-02-24
Waiver of right of respondent U.S. Security Associates to respond filed.
2022-02-23
Waiver of right of respondent DHS to respond filed.
2022-02-16
Waiver of right of respondent Jose Susumo Azano Matsura to respond filed.
2022-02-02
Waiver of right of respondents City of San Diego, City of San Diego Police department, Jan Goldsmith, Officers Stum, Lawrence and Thompson to respond filed.
2021-06-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2022)

Attorneys

City of San Diego, City of San Diego Police department, Jan Goldsmith, Officers Stum, Lawrence and Thompson
Dana W. NicholasOffice of the San Diego City Attorney, Respondent
DHS
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Facebook, Inc.; Mark Zuckerberg
Eric Alan ShumskyOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Respondent
John Kenney
John B. Kenney — Petitioner
Jose Susumo Azano Matsura
Charles M SevillaLaw Office of Charles Sevilla, Respondent
San Diego Sheriff's Department
Morris Gerard HillOffice of County Counsel, County of San Diego, Respondent
U.S. Security Associates
Steven Jeff RenickManning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, Respondent