Preface: BadgerFlats.com “duration of visit” is bounding upward.
It appears that my adversaries Merced County Counsel James Fincher and mini-me Roger Matzkind, along with attorneys Benjamin Ratliff and Chad Snyder for ex-mayor of Los Banos Tommy Jones, are working overtime.
It’s getting worse for them by the moment.
Their combined shenanigans for the DA Larry Morse Cabal has put the Honorable Judge Anthony Ishii in quite a quandary, and somewhat behind the eight ball.
I will let court filed Document #56 present why I have requested Judge Ishii to voluntarily recuse himself from my cases of Forte v. Jones and Forte v. Merced County.
I have taken a few sections and Badgerized them with some pictures.
Case 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM Document 56 Filed 04/16/13
Page 21 of 27 (excerpts)
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT PER COURT ORDER DOCUMENT #51
REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY RECUSAL OF JUDGE ANTHONY ISHII
- A. “VINDICATE” WHAT, HOW & WHY?
Your Honorable Judge Ishii, this village idiot is having difficulty understanding your greatness and wisdom concerning your choice of the word vindicate. Plaintiff understands that you felt plaintiff wanted to be “vindicated” when you used the word four (4) times in one paragraph…but the village idiot humbly still does not understand how, why, and what for?
Plaintiff sees no need to be vindicated of anything. The revealing of the truth does that.
Forte in his pretrial statement was very clear (unlike defendants) what evidence he would present for the jury to decide if Jones accidentally turned the public microphone off and had him forced out of the Los Banos Council meeting, or was it because Jones was angry at Forte and did it intentionally.
Did Jones intentionally do so to retaliate against Forte for exercising his Free Speech and to attempt to chill it with the abuse of his power as mayor due to Forte:
- Writing about Jones arrest for crack cocaine when a councilman.
- Filing a FPPC complaint that found Jones broke disclosure laws and conflict of interest laws.
- Organizing a recall against Jones and was reading it at the open mike podium.
- Suing Jones for saying Forte was a dangerous member of the KKK.
The court inanely argues for the defendants in Document #55, that,
“Plaintiff will not be allowed to present evidence of a broader conspiracy to silence him or to publically vindicate the substance of any claim Plaintiff has made against Ford or anyone else. Again, this case is about Plaintiff’s time at the microphone on March 19, 2008, and whether Plaintiff was prematurely and improperly hustled out of the city council meeting. Nothing more. [Document 55 Page 3, lns. 8-12]
This court cannot seriously believe that the events which would identify Jones’ anger (not FORD’s, there is not and has never been anyone by the name of Ford in this complaint) at Forte would not be admissible to show intent. Jones’ willfulness and/or malicious intent are relevant and substantial to plaintiff’s case.
In order to demonstrate a First Amendment violation, a citizen Plaintiff must provide evidence showing that “by his actions [the defendant] deterred or chilled [the plaintiff’s] political speech and such deterrence was a substantial or motivating factor in [the defendant’s] conduct.” Sloman v. Tadlock (9th Cir. 1994) 21 F.3d 1462, 1469-70 (quoting Mendocino Env’l Ctr. v. Mendocino County (9th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 457, 459-60. Plaintiff must show “substantial or motivating factors” of Jones’ conduct.
JUDGE ISHII’S PREJUDICIAL ORDERS
The court has clearly stepped out of the role of a neutral arbitrator and the court’s order (Document #55) unabashedly shows it advocating for the defendants that:
- Plaintiff will not be allowed to present evidence of a broader conspiracy to silence him or to publicly vindicate the substance of any claim Plaintiff has made against Ford or anyone else.
Again, plaintiff assumes “Ford” is defendant Jones. The village idiot believes that “vindicating the substance of any claim Plaintiff has made against Jones” is the same as proving his case against Jones. Plaintiff claims Jones’ motive for cutting plaintiff’s speech short by showing the events leading up to it that would show Jones willful motive.
Is the court saying that Plaintiff proving his case against Jones will not be permitted?
Is the court saying that plaintiff will not be allowed to establish causal connection between the plaintiff’s recall effort, reading the recall response by Jones at the City Council meeting, and being cut off by Jones in the middle of his reading to show motive?
Or to show the anger Jones had towards Forte for writing about Jones’ arrest for crack cocaine when he was a City councilman? The village idiot (and his wife) cannot believe that a fair judge would actually say that a party would be prevented from presenting any evidence that will prove or “vindicate” his claims.
You can view the entire document here.
WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF RUSSIA
Sorry for being blunt, but what would you like me to call it when the judicial system declared me mentally incompetent to conceal their attack upon me for exposing public corruption.
It’s happening across the nation, but I guarantee you there is not another case such as mine that documents it so clearly.
This case takes it right down to the bones where you see that newspapers are not printing a word about this to cover it up. Absolutely incredible.
With heightened awareness of the government under the guise of questioning the mental competency of anyone to get rid of them my case goes to the essence of being able to expose public corruption without being wrongfully declared crazy.
April 18, 2013
The march to tyranny has picked up fierce momentum in the state of New York, where the criminal Cuomo administration is now issuing subpoenas that demand psychiatrists turn over ALL their records to the state, reports AmmoLand.com.
Stalin & Dumars’ Novel Idea
County Acting Public Defender Eric Dumars [duhm-ass] said he thought it was a novel idea to have me declared crazy for talking about public corruption.
There was nothing novel about it. Dictators have been doing it for centuries. The Great Purge.
The California Supreme Court certainly can’t say this is not a timely important public issue.
Can the government declare you mentally incompetent to get rid of a person exposing public corruption without making sure you had legal representation?
Should a person who has been declared mentally incompetent because he believes there is a conspiracy against him by some government actors be denied right to counsel to present his case?
With the Supreme Court Petition looming, and Judge Ishii being asked to recuse himself, this indigent, mentally incompetent, alleged California Vexatious Litigant, is signing off and will keep you posted.