LIAO'S HUMAN RIGHTS CASE in CANADA AND US:
- Most recent updates are at the bottom of this page -
WANXIA LIAO
Many Chinese, like dissident Chen Guangcheng, have been brain washed to imagine the US as a human rights defender. The truth, as testified by my human rights case in US and Canada, is the US and the West will brutalize on any Chinese with Fascist racial persecution, and there is no Constitutional right to equal protection of law to persons of color, as there is another law made by court applying to them that gives the law enforcement agencies the right to selective law enforcement towards different persons - by their choice.
Their choice is on basis of race, just as the Blacks already blame it for their mass incarceration. The US law enforcement agencies the exercise this “lawful” choice, so “lawfully” refused to investigate the felony crimes committed against me by the Whites and their non-White accomplices, yet I was incriminated on a bogus charge. Even the US government is free to threaten me with death and forced disappearance without any liability. All because I challenged a professor’s White supremacy theory.
The right to free speech is also selectively enforceable in US on political basis. My Internet free speech has been censored by the US government, including Department of State, and by all the major private media. When I sued, the court ruled that the private media are not “government actors” so not liable for violating my free speech rights, as for the real “government actors” like the Department of State, the court ruled they are “immune” from lawsuits. NO free speech to challenge racism.
................................................................................................................................I am a Chinese immigrant in Canada, and a victim of a brutal Fascist racial persecution in that I am even criminalized jointly by the Canadian and US governments as a result of challenging a White professor's racist academic theory.
In 1991, as a Master student at the University of Toronto (U of T), I challenged a White professor David Waterhouse’s White supremacy theory that beauty is a “European concept” that the Asians did not have in history, and “Although China has been far left behind history, some Chinese are still very keen to claim historical inventions”, etc. While acknowledging his loss to the dispute by writing on my term paper that challenged his theory, Waterhouse retaliated against me through a series of fraud and violations of the university rules in faking a final grade for me, and bypassing the review of the grade by the then Chair of the Department (an ethnic Korean) as required by rules of the university, etc. that caused the failure of my Ph. D application. I complained to the University but was retaliated with a wrongful dismissal from my cafeteria position, causing me the loss of life’s means.
Click here for details and documents.
I brought a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC), but the OHRC conspired with an American government employee, a White UC Berkeley professor, James Cahill to set me up for criminal prosecution.
At first as I declined to answer some questions of the OHRC, the OHRC compelled me to testify to the Commission “everything true”, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty in accordance with the Canadian witness compellability law. Then the OHRC officer Strojin, after befriended with me and gained my trust by telling me his Native Indian status and his strong anti-racism sentiment, repeatedly asked me to testify my state of mind as to that what I would do if my case couldn’t be resolved at the OHRC. I had some devastating ranting such as “If I die, not only me, die” after I was fired by the U of T.
In April of 1995, as “expert” to reread my paper that I claimed was given a low grade because it successfully challenged Waterhouse’s racist theory, Cahill sent the OHRC his Opinion. In it while backing up the grade in issue, Cahill deliberately disclosed the conspiracy between the OHRC and him by confessing his intimate exchange of information with U of T and the OHRC about my paper and human rights complaint background, and acknowledged his subsequent political consideration in the re-reading of my paper, etc.
When informing me about Cahill’s Opinion over the phone, Strojin said that Cahill was biased because he had similar problem with his Chinese students before as he told Strojin himself, but still, my complaint would be dismissed on the basis of Cahill’s Opinion. All of these were purposed to provoke my anticipated rage as it did, I started crying and Strojin then asked me: "What are you gonna do now?" I grumbled in crying "If they are going to kill me, I'm going to kill them, too". Strojin recorded this grumbling without my knowledge and passed it to U of T. I was convicted by Judge Knazan on this crying for "Uttering Death Threat to Waterhouse".
Judge Knazan when convicting me, totally disregarded my contention that the Canadian Charter of Rights guaranteed me as a witness the “complete immunity” right not to be prosecuted for my own testimony at the OHRC, otherwise the OHRC unlawfully compelled me to testify to entrap me. To my contention that I never even mentioned Waterhouse’s or any one else name in my ranting, Knanzan rebutted me by a guessing that I nevertheless “meant Waterhouse” in my mind. I was then convicted on such a guessing and on an overt deprivation of my Charter rights against self-incrimination. I challenged the OHRC’s entrapment and the prosecutor in civil court, but all my cases were dismissed and finally the court barred me from filing any action without court permission. Meanwhile, the government refused to investigate my criminal Complaint against Strojin for his perjury at my criminal trial, despite his crime was on records.
Click here for details and documents.
I brought a civil rights suit against Cahill in California State court, but the court judges conspired with California State “Deputy Assistant Attorney General” Kay Yu to set me up as a “vexatious litigant” to bar me from court. This conspiracy even involved a criminal forgery of court document, a summons, by a court clerk Ramirez, who altered a copy of the summons I submitted for the court to Summons on 1st Amended Complaint and issued it to me, misleading me, a foreign lay person to serve summons on Defendants again. As a result the court found me a “vexatious litigant” and barred me from court.
I filed a complaint in US District Court for Northern California against these court judges and the clerk, etc. However, Judge Caludia Wilken dismissed my complaint on reason that these judges’ fraudulent conducts and Ramirez’s criminal conducts are still within their “jurisdiction” so they are protected by “judicial immunity”. And Wilken dismissed my Complaint with prejudice without adjudicating most of my claims, in violation of my Constitutional right to be heard by court.
I appealed up to the US Supreme Court and found that even the highest court of US would act in a complete lack of decency: the clerk of the court (a judge) repeatedly returned my appeal back to me, saying my appeal was filed late, and I repeatedly sending my appeal back to the court, providing the post office’s tracking record that showed my appeal arrived in the court’s office in time under the court’s Rule for filing time line. Finally the court accepted my appeal and dismissed it without any reason provided. By this dismissal, the Supreme Court acted in contradiction with all its previous rulings that criminal acts disqualify any government official from any kind of immunity, and sanctioned the denial of my Constitutional right to access to court.
After dismissing my state court case against Cahill voluntarily, I re-filed it in federal District Court. During this process, in purpose to claim protection of statute of limitations, Cahill committed a felony crime of perjury. He while under oath made a declaration that was irreconcilably contradictory to the declaration that he made in State court with regard to the issue of his residential history, in violation of federal criminal statute Section 1623 of the US Code (USC)- making contradictory declarations before grand jury or court. In this Declaration, he not only concealed but also falsified the most crucial material facts of his wife and his separate residential and employment histories, in violation of Section 1621- Perjury. Despite that my allegation of these perjured facts was not even disputed by Cahill himself, Judge Armstrong dismissed my case with prejudice on basis of Cahill’s perjured facts and refused to rule the case after investigation of Cahill’s perjury.
In order to break the US media publication ban on my case, I tried to publicize my story on Internet. On December 19, 2005, while I was posting on Yahoo's Message Board to reveal my case, I received a death threat and threat of forced disappearance that told me: "neither america nor canada is afraid of 'disappearing' people who they think actually pose a threat to them. So the fact that you are here and not gitmo, some yukon cell, or six feet under ALONE should tell you that they jut don't give a damn about what you think ", and: “Your conspiracy includes far too many organizations who are far more likely to eliminate you than put up with endless contentious litigation and threats.” This poster identified himself only as an “American”, but I believed that he is a government agent, since he was undoubtedly speaking for the US and Canadian governments and did so as a knowledgeable insider of the governments.
I began to bring criminal complaints against the crimes said above to all US federal and California State criminal law enforcement agencies, alleging violations of both federal and state criminal and civil rights statutes, yet all these agencies refused to investigate my complaints. The US Department of Justice said they had no “jurisdiction”; the FBI said “The facts set forth in you letter do not constitute a federal civil rights violation”, all contrary to the federal laws and facts. The San Francisco Police Department said I was “convicted” for crime myself, contrary to the US Constitution that every one, even convicted criminals, has the right to protection by criminal laws. The acting “foreperson” of San Francisco Criminal Grand Jury alone (without knowledge of other jurors) made a “personal view” after consulting with “law authorities” that my Complaint should be handled by the police, in violation of the provision of California Constitution that any decision of the Grand Jury on a complaint shall be made by votes of all jurors. The same happened with the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury.
Click here for details and documents.
In the meantime, the US government conspired with all major US media for a cover up of my human rights cases. When I registered to post my story on CNN and Youtube, all my posts were filtered out by automatic filters and never showed up. That was The first time ever for me to have any contact with CNN and youtube, but obviously they had already anticipated me and prepared these auto filters to ban me. Such a well-organized action could only be done by the government. After I brought an action against them in District Court, their conduct became more veiled with a means of selective auto filtering and deleting. I experienced the same with Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Topix.com, etc. Then the US government directly joined the suppression of my free speech rights. While the Youtube stopped auto filtering my posts, the White House’ Channel on youtube began to delete my post, or in a more subtle way, hide all the comments as soon as I posted a message under a White House video.
Click here for details and documents.
In June of 2008, I filed an action against all these law enforcement agencies for violations of my right to equal protection of criminal law, and against US government for conspiracy with media CNN and youtube to unlawfully restrict my free speech on Internet, etc. However, judge Saundra Brown Armstrong and her clerk. Judge Phyllis Hamilton, and Yu conspired to commit a series of criminal fraud in purpose to create “procedural defects” to dismiss my Complaint, as the merits of my case were too strong and too fundamental for the court to deny without appearing completely and overtly unlawful.
Before I served summons, Kay Yu filed a “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by John Ashcroft (Kay Yu)”. (John Ashcroft was then Attorney General for United States), and the docket also indicated that Yu was attorney for Defendant Ashcroft. Since Yu was also a Defendant to this action, I was little confused as to who had appeared before the court. Judge Armstrong then issued an order, in it she twice stated as a fact that the filer of this Declination was Ashcroft. The judge’s statement of facts are legally binding on all parties unless proven false, so I righteously relied on Armstrong’s facts finding, and accordingly skipped serving Ashcroft the summons for he had appeared in court voluntarily.
After that I accidentally found out from the case docket that the entry of that Declination had changed from previous “by John Ashcroft” to “Declination to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by Kay Yu”, and the attorney for Defendant Ashcroft was also altered from Kay Yu as attorney for Ashcroft to Kay Yu as pro se - self-representing. As recorded on docket, this change was made by Armstrong’s own clerk only 12 days later from Armstrong’s statement that Ashcroft had filed the document.
This change was unlawful. As required by court Rules, the court has no jurisdiction to file or modify any documents for a party because it can only be done by the party itself, otherwise the court is acting as agent of the party; and every party must be notified of (served with) any filing or modification of a document for the document to be legally binding on the party. Yet in my case, the court conducted as agent of the Defendant Ashcroft to modify his court document, and I was never informed of this change, neither was the Efiling desk as required by Rules.
I immediately brought a motion asking for investigation. However, the then judge Hamilton right away dismissed my case against Ashcroft with prejudice for failure to serve him with summons, with only a footnote saying that Yu made a mistake and the clerk corrected it. I brought a second motion for investigation. Hamilton insisted it was a “clerical error”, and it was my fault to misunderstand the filer as Yu, for I should have had “the knowledge that Ms. Yu is a Deputy Attorney General of the State of California, who could not at any time have been representing a former United States Attorney General in an action …”
By then I understood the unlawful acts by the court were not mistakes, but meticulously conspired crimes. Judge Armstrong committed the crime of False Statements, in violation of USC §1001(a)(1) to falsify as a fact that Defendant Former US Attorney General John Ashcroft had filed a Declination, knowing it was impossible for Yu to represent US Attorney General Ashcroft, and knowing the Declination was a “clerical error” but making it a fact binding on me by her statement of fact in her order. Then Armstrong, her clerk “jlm”, and Yu unlawfully altered court docket entries, changing the fact stated by Armstrong herself and concealing the change from me, in violations of USC §1512 (b)(2)(B) - Knowingly altering objects for use in an official proceeding, USC § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations; and USC § 1506- Theft or alteration of record or process in court. Finally, judge Hamilton committed the crime of Using False Statements prohibited by USC §1001, in that she used the false fact contained in the altered Declination as basis to dismiss my Complaint as against Ashcroft with prejudice, knowing it was a fraudulently concealed fact.
Hamilton also dismissed my case against all other Defendants (except CNN) on basis that I failed to serve them with summons “by ‘first class mail, with a return receipt’” as required by California service rule for mail service, yet used registered mail in stead. As a judge she knew that I reside in a foreign country, by either federal or California state law, service in a foreign country can be conducted in manner provided by Hague Service Convention, which does not require mail service to be conducted through means of “first class mail, with a return receipt”, since not every country, like where I reside, have such a postal service. This is a knowing violation of court rules, which constitutes civil fraud. The only claim of my case that was dismissed on merits was as against CNN that Hamilton found that I failed to allege the US government’s acts in my allegation of CNN’s conspiracy with US government to deprive my right to free speech. The whole case was dismissed with prejudice merely for a procedural defect of service of process that were procured by the judicial officers themselves, as a result, the merits of my case against the US government would never need to be heard by the court.
Click here for details and documents.
In June, 2009, I sent criminal Complaint to the US Attorney General, the FBI, the US District Attorney, requesting investigation on the crimes committed by these judicial officers. However, I never received any response. I made a negligence administrative claim to the DOJ in February of this year to the DOJ, and received a response from the DOJ that my claim was rejected. Now it is clear that the DOJ’s total disregard to my criminal Complaint is not caused by negligence, but a deliberate and intentional violation of my rights to equal protection of laws.
In May of 2011, I filed a new action with the District Court as against the government of the United States, the DOJ, etc., Defendants. In it I submitted a Petition for Wright of Madams to compel the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and its criminal justice enforcement agency officials to perform their mandatory duty owed to me to investigate my criminal allegations; I alleged that Defendant the United State of America has threatened me through its agent with death and forced disappearance for my effort to publicize my human rights case on Internet, and is still continuing to threaten me through its overt backups of this threat by the government agencies and the courts, in violation of my right to security of life guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations; and in addition to claims for damages and declaratory relief, I also seek relief from Hamilton’s judgment for fraud upon the court.
Click here for details and documents.
While the US and Canadian courts oppressed me, the government administration and legislation officials such as US Congressmen, etc., all refused to investigate my complaints. Those so-called "human rights groups" such as the "Human Rights Watch", “Amnesty International”, etc. all ignored my requests for investigation. Moreover, the cover ups have expanded to the United Nations where the then Office of "High Commissioner for Human Rights" of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN's human rights bodies, and returned them to me, in violation of the UN's human rights complaint procedures.
Click here for details and documents.
My story is the best illustration of hypocrite and racist nature of the "Western democracy and freedom".
Update on April 18, 2012
Why are Black men been mass incarcerated in US? It’s because, as the US court just told me, the law enforcement in US is discretion/choice based, not merely violation-of-law based as the ordinary people believe. The court did not tell me what forms the basis for law enforcement agencies’ discretion, but my extensive experiences with the US and Canadian criminal justice system as a Chinese immigrant tell you this choice or discretion is based on race of the alleged crime perpetrators.
In my case, the crime perpetrators are Whites or their non-Whites compliances. So the US court now told me I have no right to require the FBI etc. law enforcement agencies to investigate my criminal allegations, because it is their choice, discretion, not their mandatory duty, to decide whether to investigate a criminal allegation. Apparently, when the alleged perpetrators are Blacks (not in compliances with Whites), the agencies decide to the opposite - to investigate and prosecute.
So the statistics of Blacks’ out of proportion incarcerate rate cannot simply prove Blacks really commit so much more crimes than Whites, since it might only be a result of the law enforcement agencies’ choice. This race based discretion/choice naturally is at least as one of the major contributing factors for Blacks’ mass incarceration. I totally agree with The New Jim Crow, the best contemporary book by Black author. Search for my name Wanxia Liao, my case # in US federal court: 11-2494.
The following is an excerpt of the federal judge’s order dismissing my case:
The Court concludes that Liao fails to state a claim for mandamus relief, because she has not alleged facts demonstrating that the alleged duty to act is “ministerial” in nature. See, e.g., Wrightman-Cervantes v. Mueller, 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80-81 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (dismissing claims for mandamus relief on basis that FBI’s decision to investigate crimes is a discretionary act); Terrell v. Attorney General of State of California, 1998 WL 574387, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 1998), aff’d 188 F.3d 515 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissing claims based on alleged failure by FBI to investigate allegations of civil rights violations, and noting that “[t]he court can find no binding authority requiring the FBI to investigate every complaint that it receives. To the contrary, courts have consistently described the FBI’s mandate as a ‘discretionary rather than mandatory authority.’”) (quoting Agunbiade v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 160, 163 (E.D.N.Y.1995)).
Here is a link to the judge's order dismissing my case.
Here is my 1st Amended Complaint.
Here is defendant USA's motion to dismiss my case and motion to declare me a "vexatious litigant" to subject me to a prefiling order.
Here is my Opposition to USA's motion to dismiss and Opposition to its motion to declare me a vexatious litigant.
Here is my Request for Judicial Notice. Here is defendant USA's Objection to my Request for Judicial Notice.
Please contact me at: wanxialiao@hotmail.com