David Do v. County of Santa Clara, California

Does rule of law exist in California, where the U.S. Constitution is just a piece of paper, statutes are ignored and MOU/CBA/contract is not contract, as far as the County of Santa Clara is concerned? White-collar exploitation is based on violations of statutes and contract law, fraud in inducement and frauds in factum, latent ambiguity, conversion of temporary work uncertified with end date unspecified into indefinite volunteer work. Title 5 CFR § 316.401 (b) states that temporary work appointment needs to be certified by supervisor as truly temporary, but not in California? Title 5 CFR § 316.401 (c) states that temporary work appointment must have specified end date, up to one year at the most, but not in California? Title 29 CFR § 553.101 (c) states individuals can i be volunteers only where their services are offered freely without pressure, but not in California? Title 29 CFR § 553.102 (a) states that volunteer work similar to employee work at the same public agency is prohibited, but not in California? MOU/CBA is, once ratified, bona fide contract enforceable against employer, but not in California? MOU/CBA is contract in purpose & function in the plain language, as a whole, in context, but not in California? Any latent ambiguity in a MOU/CBA/contract beneficial to drafter (County) requires interpretation against drafter (County), but not in California? County assumes no obligation to employee who for self-convenience voluntarily reports to other than regularly assigned work location, as per MOU.