No.

18-55461
__________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BILLY Z. EARLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, in her individual and official capacity

as the Executive Director of the Board of California; GLENN
MITCHELL, in his individual and official capacity as the Executive
Director of the Physician Assistant Board of California; ZACHERY
MORAZZINI, in his individual and official capacity as Chief
Director, Office of Administrative Hearings; DOES, 1-100,

Defendants-Appellees,

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California
No. 5:16-cv-02274-AB-SK
Honorable Andre Birotte Jr.,

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO CORRECT NOTES, OMISSIONS, AND

INACCURACIES OF THE APPEALLATE COURT RECORD

Billy Z. Earley
Appearing in Propria Persona
2144 Wembley Lane, Corona CA 92881
Telephone: (714) 615-4956
E-mail: bze2101@aol.com

Self-Litigant for Appellant

 APPELLATE RECORD HAS OMISSIONS / INACCURACIES

I. Kamala Harris not a Defendant

1. Kamala Harris was voluntarily removed from the case on February 1,

2017, two months after the summons was properly served on the Defendants, Dkt.

39. The District Court provided this order pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a) and or (c).

2. Harris was removed because she was not a true defendant and after

identifying the actual defendants, Appellant filed leave to Amended Complaint that

was denied by the Magistrate, Dkt. 41.

3. Appellant clearly informed this Court that Kamala Harris was not, and

is not a defendant in this case. See Appellant’s Opening Brief, Table of

Authorities, p-iii. The Government attorney for the California DOJ, Rosemary

Luzon, intentionally misrepresented a material fact that she is representing Kamala

Harris and this falsification was documented inside the Appellate Court record. See

Appellees Answering Brief, August 6, 2018, Caption Page.

4. In addition, a misrepresentation may be either oral or written.

Freedman v. Brutzkus, 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371, 374 (Ct. App. 2010). Under the

Restatement approach, a listener’s reliance on a misrepresentation is justifiable

only if the matter misrepresented is material. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF

TORTS § 538(1) (AM. LAW INST. 1977).

1
 5. With all due respect, the Ninth Circuit Court is allegedly the most
1
Liberal Court in the United States . Appellant-Plaintiff does not have liberal views

and the record show he was a Congressional Panelist in Washington DC; seeking a

Congressional Hearing to investigate California DOJ, an Agency headed by

2
Kamala Harris, at the time, for not investigating State Police misconduct.

6. The Appellees had exclusive knowledge of these facts and knowingly

provided false misrepresentations that Kamala Harris was a Defendant, thus,

categorically heightened the bar against Appellant and unfairly biased his

complaint by alleging misconduct against a Democratic “highest-ranking”

3
California U.S. Senate Government official, advocating for the Ninth Circuit .

7. The Appellate Court review process for Appellant was substantially

and irreparably harmed because he did not provide any pleadings to show Kamala

Harris did any wrongdoings. This was an intentional misrepresentation by the

Appellees designed to thwart justice and prejudice Appellant by committing a

fraudulent act and making an intentional false misrepresentation. Wherefore, the

Court should remove Kamala Harris and weigh the factual evidence submitted in

the most favorable light of the Appellant, also, where the evidence points to.

1
Trump looks to reshape liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/11/donald-trump-looks-to-
2
reshape-liberal-9th-circuit-/. Appellant’s Opening Brief, Introduction, p 1. Kamala
2
II. Nature of Complaint Inaccuracies

8. Appellant-Plaintiff lawsuit is against the Medical Board of California

(“MBC”), the Physician Assistant Board of California (“PAC”) and the Office of

Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). The PAC has no investigatory powers and the

MBC conducts all investigations on behalf of the PAC. The MBC, pursuant to

Senate Bill 304, the MBC Reform Act, requires the California Department of

Justice Attorney General (“DOJ”) “partner” with the MBC Police Officers posing

as investigators, creating a binding relationship between DOJ and State Police.

9. The nature of the complaint inaccuracies by Appellees does not reflect

Appellant’s complaint. The MBC/DOJ team launched a frivolous investigation into

Plaintiff for allegedly overprescribing. Plaintiff and his Attorney identified

numerous MBC/DOJ officials tampering with evidence and making false

statements. Appellant demanded an investigation into six corrupt MBC/DOJ

officials and retaliation ensued, before, during, and after the hearings concluded.

The MBC/DOJ police team cannot be held responsible for Corruption and

Breaking the Law, according to the DOJ because they have a Client-Attorney-

Privilege. More disturbingly, there was no Oaths or Surety Bonds filed by none of

the Judges, including the California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

3
Kamala Harris tries to cut a Deal with Trump, regarding Ninth Circuit Pick…
https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article211603954.html
3
 10. There is absolutely no way to remedy Police Corruption in an

Administrative Court when the perpetrators have control over the Court. Appellant

tried to remedy the case in this fashion and his 78-year old father was beaten and

put in the hospital for 3 weeks and these Government employees illegally accessed

Appellant’s Mortgage Account and threated him. Any decision to “talk” to a

corrupt police official, in any capacity to try to remedy corruption perpetrated by

Police Officers; this is an extremely bad idea and advice to be given to the Public.

Conclusion

Appellant seeks equitable relief based on the grounds that fraud was perpetrated on
this Court by intentionally directing Circuit Panel and Court officials to review
known and intentional false misrepresentations

Date 12/26/2018

Billy Earley
______________________________
Billy Earley
Appearing in Propria Persona

4
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY Z. EARLEY

Appellant-Plaintiff , District Case 5:16-cv-02274-AB-SK

v. Court of Appeals No. 18-55461
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER ET. AL.,

Appellees-Defendants,
________________________________|

I am employed in the Country of Riverside. I am over the age of eighteen (18)

years and I am not a party to the above-entitled action. I served the following:

 APPELLANT’S MOTION TO CORRECT NOTES, OMISSIONS,

AND INACCURACIES OF THE APPEALLATE COURT RECORD
 APPELLANT’SCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the following party by placing a true copy and correct copy thereof in a
sealed envelope, with first-class postage prepaid thereon, and deposited said
envelope in the United States mail at or in Corona, California to:
John Echeverria Rosemary Luzon
Deputy Attorney General Deputy Attorney General
300 South Spring Street, #1702 600 West Broadway, #1800
Los Angeles, California 90013 San Diego, California 92101

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 12-26- 2018
Mari Earley
____________________
Maria Earley