THREAT TO THE DOMESTIC PEACE OF AMERICA

& THE NATIONAL SECURITY

It is a matter of the gravest concern to insure the domestic peace of the United States that a thorough public investigation is conducted by private citizens of the evidence gathered by made by Gene Forte revealing all edged public official/judicial corruption emanating from Monterey County, California. 

 The investigation should be conducted utilizing government agencies, but under the direction supervision and scrutiny of respectable non partisan citizens of the United States. 

The evidence amassed by a private citizen, Gene Forte, at the cost estimated of  $2,000,000.00, can be described as an independent investigation of public official corruption.  It is ready for submission to a Federal Grand Jury for criminal indictments of Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Chief Justice Ronald George, and others.

It has panicked government officials, and agencies aware of  it, into believing the only way that they can stop chaos amongst the citizens once revealed, is to bury it, and the person that gathered the evidence. 

It can be shown in court records that Forte has now been threatened with criminal prosecution for extortion.  It was based upon Forte notifying a public official that he could be held accountable under the laws for misprision of a felony if he did not take action to report the evidence of public official corruption that the public official was directly aware of.

Forte has been sued by the public official, incredibly in the Family Law Court, and declared under penalty of perjury that he believed Forte was going to kidnap and assault him.  The public official  then obtained an immediate ex parte Temporary Restraining Order, without a hearing, forcing Forte to turn in his three legally licensed guns.

What follows becomes even more incredible, but the events leading up to this point is the reason as to why the current actions of the outright breaking of  laws by the public official has become so transparent as they try to crush what they now consider their most formidable private citizen prosecutor.

An Anti-Slapp Motion filed against the public official was taken off calendar by a Judge Robert O'Farrell, who is a defendant in the lawsuit of Forte vs. O'Farrell, M72599,  and whom Forte had said was involved in the obstruction of justice that the public official was requested to report. 

Then a judge that knew he could not convene the Anti-Slapp hearing while there was pending a Motion for Disqualification against him, went on and heard it anyway, and ruled against Forte.  The next day, he then took off calendar all subsequent motion saying that he would not hear them pending the outcome of the disqualification hearing. 

All the while this was taking place, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, was not only aware of it, but was in fact being sent courtesy copy mailings of the proceedings by the court.  It does not stop there, and it did not begin at the point Forte was threatened with prosecution for extortion.

Forte was threatened with extortion because of the evidence he had already amassed showing the  conspiracy to obstruct justice by top ranking officials of the State of California.

 Without a reasonable doubt, the evidence filed in three interlocking civil court cases in Monterey County reveal that Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Chief Justice Ronald George, and an extensive list of both Republican and Democratic public officials/politicians, have been systematically concealing rampant public official corruption in the State of California, with the assistance of  former Knight Ridder Newspapers, McClatchy Newspapers, MediaNews, NewsCorp, the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Tribune, and members of the Associated Press.

The evidence also positively shows that the Monterey County District Attorney,  the Monterey County Counsel, and judges of  the Monterey Superior Court Bench are involved in the corruption, and have done "positive acts" which would submit them to criminal charges of treason and potentially Federal prison.

The evidence also reveals that FBI's, Public Official Corruption Unit Director, Mr. James Burrus, is ignoring and not addressing the massive evidence in the court cases.  Burrus, was recently directly made aware of the matter by a cornered, and reluctant Congressman Sam Farr, who is trying to not let the "buck of accountability stop with him".  (SEE CORRESPONDENCE BURRUS/FARR)

One of the reasons Burrus is not taking action is because any government official, public official, or investigator, that looks at the case immediately realizes there is the danger that if the information gets out, the public's faith in the government, the judiciary, public officials, the FBI, and the news media would be utterly destroyed.

Another obvious reason to the well informed, is that Forte, a private citizen,  who gathered the evidence, was not controlled by any political parties,  prominent Good ol Boy citizens profiting from the corruption, public officials, or investigative agencies trying to keep bodies buried and the truth concealed from the public.

The illusion that has been created by a corrupt government, concealing the corruption for it's self-serving purported good of the nation,  would be shattered, and a rebellion would soon follow. 

STORY LEGEND

BLACK BOLDED (DATES ONLY):  Indicates events directly related to the investigation of Commissioner Rutledge conducted by District Attorney Dean Flippo evidencing obstruction of justice by DA Flippo and members of the Monterey Superior Court.

RED HIGHLIGHTED (DATES ONLY):   Events taking place simultaneously in cases which directly connects Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and Chief Justice Ronald George  concealing the obstruction of justice.

  JUDGE ROBERT O'FARRELL

Background:  Judge Robert O'Farrell is the defendant in the lawsuit of Forte vs. O'Farrell, M72599, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2.  Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and his Chief Deputy Attorneys, are acting as defendant counsel for O'Farrell, and filed what is called a Demurrer to the Complaint.

Defense Tactic Summarized:  Answer complaint as if it alleged a cause of action that could be defeated by claiming judicial immunity. 

The demurrer misrepresented to the court that the lawsuit was nothing more that an attempt to overturn a contempt of court conviction rendered by Judge O'Farrell.  It did not.

Truism:  Only an idiot, an uninformed in pro per, or a vexatious sore loser would sue a judge for rendering a court ruling against him.  Attorney General Lockyer then continued to falsely assert that Forte was suing the judge due to court ruling which is absolutely false. 

Legal Anomaly:   Judge Robert O'Farrell, on two separate occasions assigned the case to himself to be the judge.  

Such act alone is the basis for a legal cause of action against Judge Robert O'Farrell.  All applicable laws clearly states that  a Judge can not be a judge of a case against himself.  It is a violation of the laws in that the party suing the judge is deprived of his Constitutional right to a fair tribunal.  See Ward v. Monroeville (1972), 409 US 57, 60;. 93 S. Ct. 80.

Legal Anomaly:  Attorney General Bill Lockyer, did not advise his client  to immediately disqualify himself as required by law to do so. 

March 16th, 2005:  Letter sent to Deputy Attorney General Paul Hammerness, asking him facetiously if judicial immunity would apply to any erroneous ruling rendered by O'Farrell in the case of Forte vs. O'Farrell, M72599, while he was acting as his own judge in the case.  Supporting Court Website pages verify in fact O'Farrell was the assigned judge to the case.

May 18th, 2005:  Forte sends a  Suggestion for Recusal under CCP 170.3 to Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Judge Robert O'Farrell requesting that O'Farrell disqualify himself as being the judge assigned to Forte vs. O'Farrell, M72599.  The letter is not responded to.

Lockyer, instead ignored the fact that it had been done, and Forte was forced to file what is called a Challenge for Cause Against Judge O'Farrell, to protect his rights to a fair tribunal.

With that said, it only gets stranger from there.

December 10th, 2003:  Forte files Opening Appellate Brief  to  appeal ruling of Judge Robert O'Farrell dismissing the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger, M58208.

Forte alleged in complaint and appeal that when Lichtenegger was acting as his attorney he fixed the trial with the opposing counsel, Dennis McCarthy of the Fenton & Keller Law Firm, representing Alain Pinel Realty,  and Judge O'Farrell to throw the case.

Forte also alleges that the testimony was perjured of Alain Pinel Real Estate agent Ms. Stephanie Crabb based upon a document that was uncovered after trial.

There are tape recordings in the court files of Lichtenegger saying he had to "throw Forte to the lions to save himself".

December 19th, 2003:  McCarthy of the Fenton & Keller Law Firm makes a motion to stop the deposition of Ms. Crabb in the case of Forte vs. Albov Law Firm, M54914.  The case was assigned to Judge Michael Fields.

At the last moment, Judge Robert O'Farrell, improperly takes the case on the morning of December 19th, 2003. 

When Forte files in open court what is called a Peremptory Challenge which instantaneously and mandatorily disqualified Judge O'Farrell from being a judge in any proceedings concerning Forte.

 Judge O'Farrell then arrest Forte for alleged contempt.  A copy of the transcript of the hearing shows the exchange of words with Judge Robert O'Farrell.

Judge O'Farrell then has Forte handcuffed for three hours and then called a trial of Forte.   A copy of the transcript of the trial will show the inconsistencies of Judge Robert O'Farrell's statements as to what took place earlier in the day when Forte was arrested.

Judge O'Farrell then acted as judge, juror and executioner and send Forte directly to jail.   all of which he could not do since the CCP 170.6 Peremptory Challenge had been filed against him.

December 20th, 2003:  The Monterey Herald runs an article entitled, "Recall Candidate Jailed for Contempt".  No interviews were done with Forte, and the witnesses to what the Monterey Herald said took place at the hearing were not named.

January 27th, 2004:  Forte files his Appellate Reply Brief of Judge Robert O'Farrell ruling and outlines the arrest of Forte in the courtroom by Judge Robert O'Farrell on December 19th, 2003.

It links together the cover up of the trial fixing by O'Farrell, McCarthy, Judge Richard Silver and Judge Terrance Duncan being ignored by DA Flippo.

Forte informs the Sixth Appellate Court that the stakes of self incrimination against them has been raised by the outrageous action of O'Farrell jailing Forte for filing a Peremptory Challenge.

The document emphasizes that Leon Panetta, Clint Eastwood are in the position now to face scrutiny for actions concerning the development of Fort Ord and the KB Home Development.

It indicates that the Monterey Herald is omitting facts that is known to the public would substantiate that Forte is fighting a corrupt court trying to hide the fixing of civil trials.

April 7th, 2004:  Forte has deposition subpoenas served upon DA Flippo and ADA Spitz to provide testimony concerning if they in fact conducted an investigation of Judge Robert O'Farrell, Dennis McCarthy, and others alleged by Forte to have fixed the real estate trial.

Forte pays $300.00 for advance witness fees as required at the time of service of the subpoenas.

RULING OF JUDGE ROBERT O'FARRELL OVERTURNED

The appeal of Judge O'Farrell ruling which outlined the corruption of the Monterey Superior Court bench was written entirely by Forte and his wife Eileen.  Forte does not suggest that the winning of the appeal indicates that he is being treated fairly.  It indicates that the Sixth Appellate Court Justice knew that the evidence was overwhelming. 

A ruling for Forte would give the "appearance of fairness".  The Sixth Appellate Court did not however, investigate  the corruption that was substantiated with evidence in the appeal.  Instead, they sent Forte back to the court they knew would continue to run Forte into the ground.

August 30th, 2004:  Sixth Appellate court reverses the ruling of Judge Robert O'Farrell in favor of Forte.

MUSCLED BY THE GOOD OL BOYS

HEART ATTACK IN COURTROOM

September 1st, 2004:  Forte appears at court to argue against the Summary Judgment Motion made in the case of Forte vs. Albov, M54914, before Judge Adrienne Grover.

Forte had already said that Judge Grover was linked to the cover of of the trial fixing along with other judges on the Monterey Superior Court bench.

Forte had been tipped-off that by an anonymous source that what is known as the Good ol Boys were arranging for certain County Sheriffs, which were under the direction of the Good ol Boys, to  "teach Forte a lesson".

Forte did not want to believe it, but in an abundance of caution, he filed a request with the court to have a licensed video court reporter present to tape the proceedings.  The request was denied.

Forte then for his protection,  hired an armed private investigator, and a video person with Legal Eagle Video, to be present that day to record the proceedings from the outside of the courtroom.

Upon arriving at the courtroom, Forte found that there were eight Monterey County Sheriff's present in the courtroom.  Metal detectors were turned on at the door of the courtroom that were normally off. 

At the counsel table prior to the hearing itself, Forte started feeling dry in the mouth and requested for the bailiff to fill the empty water pitcher on the counsel table.  The bailiff refused.

A few minutes later Forte fell over on the counsels table.  He laid on the floor watching the who denied him water smiling and laughing at him thinking that Forte was faking it.  The video camera person called 9-1-1 and shortly thereafter paramedics arrived.

The paramedics then took Forte out on a stretcher to an ambulance that took him directly to Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital.  Forte underwent had in fact suffered a major heart attack and underwent a double by-pass surgery.  Forte suffered complications with the surgery and was ordered by the doctors to recuperate for six months.

Physicians at the hospital aware of Forte's public battle with the local court corruption felt for his safety they should not list him as a patient with the front desk so that no one would know which room in was in. 

During the four years prior to Forte encountering the Good ol Boys in 2000, Forte's filed income statements show that he made $1,647,292.00, as a self-employed high level retained executive recruiter.  He had pension plans, disability insurance, health insurance, outstanding credit, and owed virtually no money.

By 2004 Forte had expended all of his savings.  His income dropped to virtually zero due to having to become his own attorney.  His life has been consumed by devoting 15-18 hours a day, seven days a week, in seeking justice so that his children, who are witnessing this matter, will not go forward in life not believing that justice will prevail.

At the time of his heart attack in the courtroom, while trying to vindicate his name, his health insurance had been cancelled. Forte now owes over $150,000.00,  in hospital costs alone due to the surgery.  Forte is currently unable to obtain health life insurance due to his heart surgery.

Forte, however, refuses to file bankruptcy for two reasons:

1.  Forte believes that a person should endeavor to pay their debts, no matter how long it takes, 

and.....................

2.  Forte suspects that the lawsuits pending against the Good ol Boys, which would be required to be listed as an asset in any bankruptcy, would be snapped up by them for pennies, and dismissed by them.  It is a standard well practiced trick of legal malpractice insurance companies for their insured's*.

*FORTE'S EARLIER EXPERIENCE OF DEALING WITH 

LEGAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIERS 

Forte had tangled with Traveler's Insurance being the legal malpractice carrier for a group of crooked attorneys Forte had to sue in 1980, in Fresno, California.  

 On the Fresno County Courthouse steps he was offered $600,000.00 to dismiss the case.  Forte refused the offer because he felt it was more important to make sure that they were publicly exposed for their crime.  Forte also says that, "principles do cost money".

October 12th, 2002:   "American as Apple Pie Event" rally was organized by Forte to protest the high cost of legal representation during the "Historic 75th Annual State Bar Convention" in Monterey, California.  Over 5,000, people stopped at the booth where Forte, and supporters distributed information, pieces of apple pie, and flags.

 Forte also distributed flyers, two of which were, 'The Monterey Story' and 'The Fresno Story'  identifying the similarities between the problems with small town Good ol Boy legal systems. 

For the record,  The Monterey Herald and all local media did not report a word of  it to the public

  JUDGE O'FARRELL DENIES FORTE TIME

 TO GET AN ATTORNEY FOR TRIAL BASED ON A 

CASE FORTE REPRESENTED HIMSELF IN 22 YEARS BEFORE

 Judge Robert O'Farrell, after granting attorney Lichtenegger, permission to abandon Forte less than 40 days before the trial of Alain Pinel Realty, and after Forte had paid Lichtenegger over $50,000.00, denied Forte a continuance of the trial to hire a new attorney, because Forte had tried the case of Forte vs. Fullerton, Lang, Richert & Patch, in 1985 ('The Fresno Story' ).

Legally recorded telephone conversations submitted as evidence in the court files in the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger, M58208,  reveal that Lichtenegger told Forte that he , "had to throw Forte to the lions to save himself", that "Judge Duncan had been gotten to to render an illegal ruling by the Horan Law Firm", that "Judges were manipulating trial dates and sabotaging motions to punish Lichtenegger for representing Forte" because Forte was going to reveal the fixing of the trial by the judges.

The recordings also show that Forte was unwilling to believe Lichtenegger at the time.  Forte now submits that Lichtenegger was telling the truth.

To finish a train of thought, it was Judge O'Farrell who improperly took control of the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger, M58208, that was actually assigned to Judge Michael Fields.  Judge O'Farrell then summarily dismissed the case stating that there was no evidence of legal malpractice by Lichtenegger withdrawing from the case, because Judge O'Farrell had granted Lichtenegger's request.

Forte, and his wife, wrote an appeal of the ruling detailing the evidence of trial fixing and corruption.  The Sixth Appellate Court grudgingly reversed the ruling of Judge O'Farrell, to avoid self incrimination, but did not breathe a word about the corruption they were made aware of..

September 30th, 2004:  Opposing counsels in the case of Forte vs. Albov Law Firm, filed a motion requesting that the court order that Forte either relinquish his lawsuit, or have the court appoint an attorney to prosecute the case against them.  Forte opposed the motion and the motion was denied.

October 7th, 2004:  Forte sends letter demand to Monterey County Counsel McKee to have his clients, Flippo and Spitz return the $300.00 in advance witness fees.  There was no response.

EVIDENCE OF POSTAL MAIL FRAUD & COURT CLERK FRAUD

November 19th, 2004:  Forte files the small claims action of MAR125367, Forte vs. DA Flippo, ADA Spitz for return of witness fees of $300.00, and filing costs for small claims suit of $38.00 at 12:34PM.  November 19th, 2004, was a Friday.

(Note:  This will be important to later as the evidence of how and when Spitz and Flippo received the complaint, how and when a check was issued from the Monterey County Auditors Office, and tampering with court filed documents and the US Mail).

November 19th, 2004:  Certified Mail Proof of Delivery indicating that Isella Quinteo, secretary to DA Flippo and ADA Spitz, signed for receipt of the complaint allegedly mailed to them from the Marina Court Clerk on November 19th, 2004, the same day it was filed.

November 24th, 2004:  Certified Mail Receipt indicating that the complaint of MAR125367, Forte vs. Flippo, was allegedly mailed by the court to them on November 24th, 2004.

November 29th, 2004:  US Postal Service Track and Confirm indicating that the items allegedly signed and received by DA Flippo and ADA Spitz on November 19th, 2004, was not delivered until November 29th, 2004.

December 10th, 2004:  Return Certified Mailing  filed by the court indicates that the items were mailed back to the court on December 3rd, 2004.

What are those marked out section on the mailing?  Mail fraud and tampering.

 The December 3rd, 2004, postmark would coincide with the documents in fact being received in the mail on November 29th, 2005.

 Therefore, the only way that Spitz and Flippo could have signed for the lawsuit 10 days before it was mailed was if someone from the clerks office walked it on over to them.  The then called up the Auditor's Office and sent a check out to Forte that day.

Telephone conversations with the Monterey County Auditors Office reveal that they then falsified documents to portend they had received a request to pay out the check sometime in October 2004.

What doe this all mean?  Well, that Flippo and Spitz can have the Monterey Auditor's Offices play foot lose with funds, violate the mail service and court clerks will violate service of court documents to public officials.

It establishes the type of scoundrels that would not hesitate for a moment to fix a ruling with Commissioner Rutledge.

NOTE:  As with most criminal acts something goes awry.  In this case it was when Isela Quinteo, signed for the Certified Mail which was not mailed, but hand delivered to her.    Forte had paid the Court as REQUIRED FOR MAILING BY US POSTAL SERVICE .  Abet, it is not murder, but it is a clear cut Federal crime of tampering with the US Mail.

December 17th, 2004:  Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell, M72599, filed with Exhibits 1 and 2.  Attorney General Bill Lockyer begins representation of Judge O'Farrell.

December 20th, 2004:  ADA Spitz sends a letter to Forte telling him that a check had been issued in the amount of $300.00 in return for witnesses fees.  Coincidentally, it happened to be issued on November 19th, 2004.  ADA Spitz asks Forte to dismiss the small claims action of Forte vs. DA Flippo and ADA Spitz.

December 23rd, 2004:  Forte sends a  letter to Jayne Speizer, President of the  Monterey Herald, asking her to consider writing the flip side to Recall Candidate Jailed For Contempt due to his winning of the appeal of O'Farrell ruling and the filed lawsuit of Forte vs. O'Farrell.

  The letter questions that an email sent to him on December 22nd, 2004, was in earnest about their having a reporter look into the filed complaint of Forte s. O'Farrell.  There was no response to the letter.

December 27th, 2004:  Forte responds to ADA Spitz letter of December 20th, 2004, informing him there would be no dismissal of MAR125367, Forte vs, DA Flippo, ADA Spitz, until full satisfaction had been paid, referring to the filing costs of $38.00.

January 3rd, 2005:  Rutledge refuses Forte's request that Rutledge remove himself as judge in the case of  MAR125367, Forte vs. DA Flippo, ADA Spitz as required.  A Commissioner, unlike a judge,  is required to not preside over a case if both parties do not agree to his presiding.

January 4th, 2005:  Eileen Forte, when serving papers upon Larry Lichtenegger defendant in the case of Forte s. Lichtenegger, is threatened by him and held in the elevator against her will.  A police report #05-0065 is filed with the Monterey Police Department. A letter is sent by Gene Forte to Lichtenegger warning him not to enact any further harassing violent behavior toward Ms. Forte.

January 5th, 2005:  Letter concerning the police report against Lichtenegger is sent to DA Flippo, outlining the dual standard of actions against Forte.

January 5th, 2005, Forte was forced to file what is known as a Challenge for Cause to remove Rutledge from being the judge in the case of Forte vs. DA Flippo, MAR125367.  The judge assigned to hear the Challenge for Cause ruled that Commission Rutledge could hear the case not withstanding the basic fact that Rutledge was required by law to remove himself from the case if both parties did not agree to his being the judge.  Forte did not agree to his presiding.

January 6th, 2005:   Forte requests by letter for Monterey County Counsel Charles McKee to disclose if he has been writing ghost documents for DA Flippo and ADA Spitz in the case of Forte vs. DA Flippo, MAR125367.  Forte also requests to know if Monterey County Counsel McKee had contacted Attorney General Bill Lockyer about the case of Forte s. O'Farrell, M72599.  There was no response.

March 16th, 2005:  Letter sent to Deputy Attorney General Paul Hammerness, asking him facetiously if judicial immunity would apply to any erroneous ruling rendered by O'Farrell in the case of Forte vs. O'Farrell, M72599, while he was acting as his own judge in the case.  Supporting Court Website pages verify in fact O'Farrell was the assigned judge to the case.

April 18th, 2005, Forte formally requests to speak in Opposition to the Nomination of Monterey Superior Court Judge Wendy Duffy, to the Sixth Appellate Court, at the Confirmation hearing set for May 16th, 2005.

April 27th, 2005, according to the court clerk file registry Forte properly filed a formal change of address notifying the court and all parties that he had moved to Los Banos, CA.  The actual filed change of  address document was and is still missing from the file.

May 9th, 2005:  Request is granted for Forte to speak at the nomination hearing of Judge Wendy Duffy.  Forte will be speaking at the California Supreme Court before Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Chief Justice Ronald George and Sixth Appellate Court Justice Conrad Rushing.

There will be only four speakers, US Magistrate Wunderlich, Senator Joe Simitian, Retired Superior Court Judge Phillips and Gene Forte.

May 14th, 2005:  Forte receives at his home a Saturday delivery package containing a Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant filed in the case of Forte s. O'Farrell, M72599.  The Motion was not made on behalf of Judge Robert O'Farrell.

MOTION TO DECLARE FORTE

 A CALIFORNIA VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

NOTE:  It is important to realize that after the Motion to Declare Forte a Vexatious Litigant was filed he was being warned that AG Lockyer, Governor Schwarzenegger were going to attempt to have him put in jail if he did not back down from exposing the corruption.

Sources that he long suspected were plants for the Good ol Boys were telling him not to oppose the motion, but to dismiss all of his cases.  He was warned that they could order him to be mentally evaluated and his children good be taken away.

One plant suggested the "what if " he was offered $5,000,000.00, would he dismiss his case?  Forte told him, "not for any price".

It was made for Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Chief Justice Ronald George,  Deputy Attorney General Paul Hammerness, Chief Deputy Attorney General James Schiavenza and Deputy and Deputy Attorney General Tyler Pon.

The document stated that Forte had supported judicial hangings and the open murder of judges.  It also stated that Forte had supported the Atlanta judicial killings.  (See subsequent Opposition papers which exposed, and proved that such allegations made by Attorney General Lockyer et al, were proven to be absolutely false and unsubstantiated in every way)

Subsequent opposition papers filed by Forte provided extensive evidence of the corruption of the Monterey Superior Court, and the collusion between Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the Monterey County District Attorneys Office, several Senators and other high ranking public officials to keep the evidence and crimes covered up.

May 16th, 2005:  Forte over the weekend quickly prepared his Opposition to Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.  Forte faxed a copy to Chief Justice on the morning of May 16th, 2005, so that he would have it prior to the nomination hearing set for 4:00PM that day.

The letter informed Chief Justice George that it was obvious that the timing of the filing was done to disrupt and discredit Forte prior to the hearing.

May 16th, 2005, Commissioner Rutledge set the trial in the case for May 23rd, 2005.  The notice of the trial was allegedly sent to Forte's old address in Salinas, CA..  Even though Forte had filed a US Postal Change of address and was receiving all other mail sent to his old address at his new address in Los Banos, Forte did not receive the notice of trial.

May 18th, 2005:  Forte sends a  Suggestion for Recusal under CCP 170.3 to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and Judge Robert O'Farrell requesting that O'Farrell disqualify himself as being the judge assigned to Forte vs. O'Farrell, M72599.  The letter is not responded to.

May 23rd, 2005, as far as Forte can now ascertain, a hearing was held by Commissioner Diana Baker, even though Commissioner Rutledge was to have been the judge.  A default judgment was entered in favor of DA Flippo and ADA Spitz.

May 27th, 2005:  Forte filed additional evidence exposing the corruption in his Declaration IN OPPOSITION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

June 15th, 2005:  Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, et al.,  filed a REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.  It is a feeble attempt to cover an attempt to silence a citizen exposing the corruption.

June 17th, 2005:  Forte files SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

June 20th, 2005:  Forte files additional documents allowing no plausible denial by Judge Golden that he was not made aware of the substantial evidence of public official corruption directly involving Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Chief Justice Ronald George, and other high ranking public official and public figures.

The documents were:

 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

June 22nd, 2005:  Forte filed an additional document in order to make sure there was no question as to the lunacy and the criminality of the motion made by Governor Schwarzenegger,  Attorney General Bill Lockyer and real party in interest Chief Justice Ronald George.

  RESPONSE TO REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

  The documents direct link the re-development of Ford Ord to rulings by Judge O'Farrell and other members of the Monterey Superior Court for the Law Firm of Fenton & Keller. 

June 30th, 2005:  The Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant was DENIED by retired Judge John Golden.  Judge Golden found that Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, et al, had no legal standing to bring such motion.

 Judge Golden also found that Forte had not done anything that would have caused him to be classified as a vexatious litigant.   Forte had not filed any frivolous or slanderous documents, nor had Forte lost any cases.

Forte believed that the title of the Order was misleading and filed the appropriate motion to request that such order be corrected to clearly reflect the title of the motion itself.

 The order read, "ORDER DENYING PRE-FILING ORDER AND ORDER FOR SECURITY DEPOSIT".  There was no mention in the title that it had been a Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. 

June 30th, 2005:  Forte faxed over to Jayne Speizer, President of the Monterey Herald, Royal Calkins, Editor of the Herald, and several reporters at the Monterey Herald a copy of the order denying Forte being declared a vexatious litigant.

June 30th, 2005:  Judge Golden had ruled that Governor Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Chief Justice Ronald George not only had any legal grounds to even attempt to declare Forte what is called a California Vexatious litigant.  There was not a scintilla of evidence in support of such motion.

July 18th, 2005, a Notice of Entry of Judgment in favor of DA Flippo and ADA Spitz was sent to Forte's old address.

The clerk that sent out the mailing of both the notice of trial date and entry of Judgment was Ms. Erica Dunn, clerk to Judge Robert O'Farrell, defendant in the case of Forte vs. Robert O'Farrell, M72599. 

THE INVESTIGATION OF COMMISSIONER RICHARD RUTLEDGE

August 10th, 2005:  An article in the Monterey Herald titled, 'Sex, Lies and Traffic Tickets', says that due to a letter sent by ex-Monterey  Superior Court Clerk, Ms. Crystal Powser, there will be an investigation of Commissioner Richard Rutledge.

The investigation will be conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in San Francisco concerning allegations that Rutledge was fixing traffic tickets for family and friends and having sex with Ms. Powser in the chambers of Judges of the Monterey Superior Court Bench.

The article said that DA Flippo would wait until the conclusion of the investigation by the AOC to decide what action he would need to take if any.

August 11th, 2005:  Judge Sillman, Presiding Judge of the Monterey Superior Court, DA Flippo, all judges of the Monterey Superior Court Bench, and all Monterey news organizations, were presented information that A DA Spitz and DA Flippo were defendants in the case of Forte vs. DA Flippo, ADA Spitz, MAR125367, with Rutledge as the judge.

Forte at the time of sending the letter was not aware that DA Flippo was in fact going to be conducting the investigation of Rutledge.  Forte still was under the impression that the AOC was doing so because he had not yet read the article, 'DA to Look into Ticket Fixing' . 

August 11th, 2005:  In the matter of less than 24 hours an article entitled,  'DA to Look into Ticket Fixing'   announces that the Executive Commission of the Monterey Court decided that DA Flippo s should investigate Rutledge instead of the AOC.

August 14th, 2005:  In a Monterey Herald article entitled, 'Courting Sex Scandals',  DA Flippo states, "if there was evidence of a crime by Rutledge the prosecution of it would have to be done by the California Attorney General's Office".  DA Flippo, states that the conflict in prosecuting Rutledge existed because Rutledge had worked for DA Flippo as a Deputy DA.

The Monterey Herald asked no questions of DA Flippo as to why the known conflict preventing prosecution of Rutledge if needed, would also not preclude DA Flippo from conducting the investigation.

The case was filed in the Monterey County Small Claims Court seeking return of  $300.00, in advance witness fees paid to DA Flippo and ADA Spitz for a deposition they did not attend.

Commissioner Rutledge was assigned the case.

In other words, DA Flippo was in fact actually conducting an investigation of Rutledge while DA Flippo was a defendant in a case before Rutledge.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LOCKYER AND JUDGES NOTIFIED

September 17th, 2005:  Multiple letters were sent to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Judges and media asking for them to address the glaring conflict went unanswered.  Forte sent yet another letter to the judges, media, Attorney General Bill Lockyer,  and DA bringing to light the conflict of interest.

September 19th, 2005:  ADA Spitz, sent a letter to Forte, saying that the small claims case had been dismissed on May 23rd, 2005, by Commissioner Baker.  ADA Spitz said that the reason it was dismissed was because Forte did not attend the trial.

September 23rd, 2005:   Forte responded in a letter, saying that the information was news to him, and hoped the files had not already been shredded.  At the time Forte did not know how close his words were to the truth.

September 30th, 2005:  Article in the Monterey Herald announces that DA Flippo concluded that the evidence against  Rutledge did not amount to anything criminal, and Rutledge quits.

 October 1st, 2005:  In an article called the "Herald's View" commends DA Flippo on his investigation but raises the questions as to the loss of the publics' trust in the judiciary.  All the while, the Monterey Herald, and other Monterey media did not breathe a word to the public about what was going on behind the scenes which would discredit any investigation by DA Flippo.

FILES OF CASE AGAINST DA FLIPPO MISSING FROM COURT HOUSE

October 12, 2005:  Forte requested the files of the case, MAR125367, from the Monterey Superior Court.  After an extensive search by the court clerks Forte was informed the files of the case were missing, and there was no record of them being checked out to anyone. 

October 13th, 2005:  The Judges of the Monterey Superior Court Bench, ADA Chief Investigator Sue Stryker, the Monterey Herald and other Monterey news organizations were informed of the missing files.  They were informed of the possible relevance in showing that DA Flippo, and ADA Spitz had Commissioner Rutledge "fix" the case of Forte vs. DA Flippo, ADA Spitz in their favor.

October 13th, 2005:  Chief DA Investigator Sue Stryker, was provided this letter telling her of the conflict of DA Flippo, and exposing her knowledge of the case of Forte vs.  DA Flippo, MAR125367, so that she could not later deny knowing about it.  She did not respond to the letter.

October 17th, 2005:   Forte sent letters with attachments, to the Monterey Superior Court Judges, the DA, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Governor Schwarzenegger, local news media that had been covering the Rutledge investigation, Senator Denham, other public officials and the FBI, outlining the glaring specious activity of a cover-up.  No one responded.

MISSING FILES 

  PROVE HOW DA FLIPPO & COMMISSIONER RUTLEDGE

  FIXED THE CASE

October 21st, 2005:  Forte was informed by Superior Court Clerk Diana Valenzuela, that the files had been located, but there were key documents missing.

The court files showed up after the investigation of Rutledge was concluded.  What they revealed showed how DA Flippo and Rutledge fixed the case.

MONTEREY COUNTY COUNSEL REQUESTED 

TO ALERT STATE & FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

November 8th, 2005, based upon the above facts supported by the court files, Forte sent by CERTIFIED MAIL a request to Monterey County Counsel, Charles McKee, to perform his duty as a public official and alert authorities of the need for an investigation.  There was no response.

The investigation would be predicated upon evidence in the case of MAR125367, Forte vs. DA Flippo, that DA Flippo, ADA Spitz and Commissioner Rutledge obstructed justice in the case and was also directly providing evidence that DA Flippo and Rutledge should be investigated for what DA Flippo was investigating Rutledge for.

It also implicated Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the Monterey Superior Court bench and a bevy of public officials that were involved in covering up the fact that such investigation could not be reasonably conducted by DA Flippo.

DA Flippo said that his investigation of Commissioner Rutledge concerning the fixing of traffic tickets concluded that an un-named judge of the Monterey Superior Court bench had his tickets fixed by Rutledge.  Flippo also said that Rutledge should of recused himself from cases to avoid the appearance of evil, and impropriety.

Chief DA Investigator Sue Stryker, investigating Rutledge, stated that the cases which could be used to criminally prosecute Rutledge were beyond the one year statue of limitations.   It is a fact that the case of Forte vs. DA Flippo, involving Rutledge as judge, was not beyond the statue of limitations for prosecution

Forte informed and provided the information above to numerous public officials, Monterey Media, Los Banos media and government agencies.  None replied, asked any questions, or informed the public.

November 17th, 2005:   Forte filed evidence in the form of a sworn Declaration of Ms. Crystal Powser,  in the case of Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell,  M72599.

November 23rd, 2005:  The order itself was intentionally misleadingly labeled by Judge Golden who admitted that it was misleading, but refused to correct it on.

Judge Golden,  did not report the illegal attempt by the top three officials of the State to Federal Authorities, as requested in formal motions made by Forte to do so. 

  December 4th, 2005:   The Monterey Herald  ran a Sunday front page article, entitled "County judiciary under fire" .  The Herald said that Forte was considered mentally unstable by his adversaries and was declared a vexatious litigant.

However, multiple letters sent to the Monterey Herald starting on June 30th, 2005, the day that Forte had defeated the Motion to Declare him a Vexatious litigant, informing them that Forte was not declared a vexatious litigant prove conclusively that the Monterey Herald knew, or should have known their statement was false.

December 16th, 2005:  The Monterey Herald ran a small correction in an inconspicuous location in the paper saying that due to an error in court records they said Forte was declared a vexatious litigant.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO EFFECTUATE CITIZEN'S ARREST UPON 

MONTEREY COUNTY COUNSEL CHARLES MCKEE

January 4th, 2006:  Forte provided sent NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXECUTIVE CITIZEN'S ARREST UPON CHARLES MCKEE for what is called a misprision of a felony.  Copies of such notice were sent to  Monterey County Sheriff Kanalakis and Salinas Chief of Police Ortega.

McKee was asked to make himself available for a peaceful and orderly Citizen's Arrest according to California Penal Code 837.  McKee was asked to turn himself in to the local police for booking in order to avoid any embarrassment and to avoid any risk of bodily injury top either McKee or Forte.  McKee was informed that Forte need not be present during such arrest.

MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF REQUESTED TO

ASSIST IN EFFECTUATING CITIZEN'S ARREST UPON

 MONTEREY COUNTY COUNSEL

January 20th, 2006, Forte filed with the court his sworn declaration, and letter to Sheriff Kanalakis requesting his assistance, as the Monterey County Sheriff, to insure a peaceful and lawful Citizen's Arrest without incident or danger to either McKee or Forte.

The letter of January 20th, 2006, to Sheriff Kanalakis, repeatedly emphasized Forte's concern for the safety of both himself and McKee.  It stated Forte's intention to have a camera crew available if necessary to make sure there was a clear record of the arrest, so there could be no false accusations of violence by Forte against the person of McKee. 

In such declaration and letter, which was also provided to McKee, Forte requested that Sheriff Kanalakis respond confirming his cooperation to assistant Forte, has required of his duty as County Sheriff, by January 30th, 2006.  There was no response from Sheriff Kanalakis or McKee.

February 13th, 2006, after not receiving any responses from either Sheriff Kanalakis or McKee, Forte sent a letter directly to Sheriff Kanalakis in pursuit of redress of his grievance for the investigation of DA Flippo, Commissioner Rutledge and Monterey County Counsel McKee.  The letter was not sent to McKee.

February 13th, 2006

Re:  Citizen’s Arrest of Mr. Charles McKee 

Dear Sheriff Mike Kanalakis: 

I write this letter to confirm that you have not responded to my letter dated January 20^th, 2006, requesting that you verify that you will have made available to me a Monterey County Sheriff to take into custody, Monterey County Counsel, Mr. Charles McKee, when I execute a Citizens Arrest upon him for a misprision of a felony.

Apparently, you would rather have me handcuff him and throw him into the trunk of my car and bring him to your station. 

If I have not heard back from you within the next 72 hours I will take that as an affirmation that is the procedure you would like to have me follow.  

Thank you.

Sincerely, 

Gene Forte

The letter to Sheriff Kanalakis by law is considered a constitutionally protected communication  to a peace officer seeking his assistance by a citizen for redress of a grievance of an alleged crime.  Sheriff Kanalakis, or someone from his office, sent such letter to McKee.

Forte could not be sued for information contained in the letter to Sheriff Kanalakis seeking his help as a peace officer.  That fact did not prevent McKee from filing in the domestic family law court a lawsuit against Forte for harassment.

February 14th, 2006:  Charles McKee, has Deputy County Counsel, Ms. Tracie Kirkbride, prepare a Civil Harassment which is typically used to seek restraining orders between husbands and wife's against Forte.

February 15th, 2006:  McKee files at the Monterey Superior Court a Request for a Temporary Restraining Order. 

 No where in McKee's filed papers does McKee inform the court that  Forte was attempting to have effectuated a Citizens Arrest upon McKee according to Penal Code 837. .

No where in McKee's filed papers does McKee inform the court that  Forte had gone to great lengths in notifying McKee by Certified Mail.

No where in McKee's filed papers does McKee inform the court that&nbs