Courts don’t sue citizens. The State can sue for the People in a criminal matter. The Attorney General can sue people and companies to protect the state.
But, courts cannot sue citizens. It is that simple.
So how in the world did the Fifth Appellate Court on January 25th, 2013 sue Gene Forte and then order for Forte to appear before them on February 13th, 2013? There was not proper service according to CCP 1005 (a) (b). You will find Justice Kane purport he gave a nebulous “adequate service” of the “Original proceeding” he was the plaintiff in, and Forte the defendant.
What follows are excerpts for the petition for re-hearing of their February 20th, 2013 finding in their own case against me that I was a California Vexatious Litigant. This means that I cannot file any lawsuit against a governmental agency without first getting permission from a judge to do so.
Excuse me Mr. Fox, would you mind if I let the rest of the chickens know that you eat chickens?
The rubber meets the road when the evidence reveals why they took such a desperate and drastic step.
It’s due to the what was called their “dirty laundry” by Stanislaus County Deputy Randy Watkins they do not want coming out. According to Deputy Watkins I was the only one putting out the true information.
Get the details of The Yellow Paper Road to the Fifth Appellate Court in the book The Man From Badger Flats available soon here and at Amazon.com.
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
I, Eugene Forte, hereby declare, on oath….that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…so help me God.”
Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner for re-hearing, Eugene Forte (and Defendant is in fact what Forte is), with this woefully dishonorable Fifth Appellate Court as the respondent/judge/juror/executioner wants to set the proper tone. Defendant now embarks on exposing Kane, Detjen and Poochigian, as either blithering idiots ignorant of the law (which defendant thinks they are not) or carpetbaggers continuing to try and conceal the obstruction of justice by Merced County District Attorney Larry Morse, Deputy DA Alan Turner, Merced County Acting Public Defender Eric Dumars, and last but not least, purported Judge James Cadle in the case of The People v. Eugene Forte, CRL001412.
If the words seem harsh, Forte does not care. Feigned respect in any form to this court would be in violation of his Oath of Allegiance to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
By its actions, this court is a domestic enemy of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America as will be shown forthwith.
FOUNDATIONS OF SANDBut everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Matthew 7:24-27
The California Vexatious Litigant Statutes (VLS) that found its genesis in Senate Bill 1179 (S.B. 1179) introduced by Senator Frank Petersen at the request of the State Bar in 1963 is built upon a foundation of sand and lies.
On February 20th, 2013, this court essentially issued a permanent injunction against Forte based on Cal. Civ. Proc.Code 391.7 (California’s so-called “vexatious litigant statute” – “VLS”). The court of appeals itself is the only other party in the action of F006514 action. On the “Parties and Attorneys” page for this case (on the court of appeals web site) there is listed only one name – that of Forte! – no briefs and no trial court information was listed.
The order labels itself as an “Original Proceeding”. However, Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed – 1968) defines a “proceeding” as being the following: “In a more particular sense, any application to a court of justice, however made, for aid in the enforcement of rights, for relief, for redress of injuries, for damages, or for any remedial object”.
But, in the Forte matter, who made the application to the court? No one. So how does the court have jurisdiction to proceed?
Would the Fifth Appellate Court like to proceed along the lines of Brewington v. State (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2013) appears to hold.
The defendant may well have seemed like a potentially dangerous person, and he was also convicted of perjury and other crimes; moreover, the government argued that he threatened violence and not just criticism. But the court’s reasoning, which focused on the defendant’s continuing harsh criticism, would apply to many other defendants in the future. This strikes me as quite troubling.
Daniel Brewington was involved in a contentious child custody dispute; Judge James D. Humphrey ruled against him in this dispute, giving sole custody to Brewington’s wife, limiting Brewington’s visitation, and finding Brewington “to be irrational, dangerous and in need of significant counseling.”
After this decision, Brewington posted various items online “discussing Judge Humphrey, in which he described the judge as ‘corrupt,’ and accused him of engaging in ‘unethical/illegal behavior.’ He also repeatedly referred to the judge as a child abuser.” Brewington was then prosecuted for, among other things, violating Indiana Code § 35-45-2-1, which (in relevant part) criminalizes as “intimidation”.
I had sent to Mr. Eugene Volokh a detailed email with supporting documents that prompted the following email exchange:
From: Gene Forte [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: Punishing Free Speech by Misuse of California Vexatious Litigant Statute/I would be in jail with Brewington if not for the evidence I have.
Please do not discount what I am about to share with you without giving me the opportunity to provide you evidence of what I say.
It is important as a public issue and I direct your attention to the article in Metropolitan News of February 21st, 2013 about the vex motion. Basically, anyone that loses five litigations across seven years, even though the cases were not found to be frivolous, or vexatious, are subject to a pre-fiing order by the court’s own motion. It is a blatant misuse of CCP 391 and not the legislative intent of 391 – 391.6 (and certainly not 391.7) to malign and silence free speech and the seeking redress of a grievance against government actors by a political dissident (though I do not think myself one).
I am the publisher of the Badger Flats Gazette that exposes public corruption which I created out of necessity for the protection of my family and I.”
On 3/4/2013 10:45 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Sorry, swamped, have to pass.
From: Gene Forte [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:04 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Did you even read the email?
On 3/4/2013 11:05 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I saw that it was very long, and I really am swamped; plus it seems to be outside my core area of expertise.
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:24:39 -0800
From: Gene Forte <email@example.com>
To: Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Thanks for your limited time
I took over an hour of very precious time to bring you into focus with detailed information/substantial information..not blah blah in an email.
It was to establish the substantial nature of the matter.
Which you didn’t read.
The article about Brewington was sent to me by an attorney in Los Angeles.
My matter is specifically within your area of expertise.
Truly amazing and somewhat telling.
I will not bother you any further.
Will anyone talk about this besides a lawyer trade publication, The Metropolitan News? It hurled a smut ball article for the judiciary by acting like it’s no big deal that the court did this. It didn’t even contact me for comment.
I had requested by email and fax that the Metropolitan News to contact me for my side of the story that they printed on February 21st, 2013. There has been no response and more than likely, never will be.