Eugene E. Forte
1631 Fir Drive
Los Banos, CA 93635
Telephone: (209) 829-1116
Facsimile: (209) 829-1952
In Propria Persona
EUGENE FORTE, ) Case No. M72599
)
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
) ORDERS REQUESTED ON JUNE 7, 2006
vs. ) RE: REFERRAL OF MATTERS TO
) FEDERAL AUTHORITIES FOR
ROBERT O'FARRELL, et al. ) INVESTIGATION, DISCLOSURE OF
) JUDGE GOLDEN'S WITHDRAWAL,
) CORRECTION OF MINUTE ORDER
) DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2005,
) IDENTIFICATION OF COURT ALLEGED
) EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
)
) Date: July 5, 2006
) Dept: Judge Lee Cooper, Dept. 17
Defendants. ) Time: 11:00am
__________________________)
TO THE COURT AND DEFENDANT O'FARRELL:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 5, 2006 at 11:00am, in the Civil Law Court of the Monterey Superior Court, located at 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, California, Plaintiff Eugene E. Forte will request and move this court for:
A referral of the judicial and public official corruption cabal alleged by Plaintiff to federal authorities,
A disclosure of the reasons for Judge John Golden's withdrawal from the cases of Forte v. Lichtenegger M58208 and Forte v. O'Farrell M72599,
A correction of the minute order dated November 23, 2005,
An identification of what the court is alleging to be ex parte communications,
This request and motion will be based on this notice of motion and motion, on the Declaration of Eugene Forte and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities served and filed herewith, on the records and files of the case, exhibits, any requests for judicial notices, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
Dated: June 7, 2006 _________________________________
Eugene Forte
ARGUMENT
All references to exhibits refer to exhibits attached to the DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDERS REQUESTED ON JUNE 7, 2006 filed herewith. The exhibits have been bate stamp numbered in the bottom right-hand corner of each page and are referred to as "BN" and the number.
I. PREFACE
In the hearing of McKee v. Forte DVH3863, Judge Lee Cooper threatened Mr. Forte with criminal prosecution for extortion under Penal Code §518 (see Exhibit 1, excerpt of transcript), on May 16th, 2006, due to either, or both, of the following:
A) Plaintiff Forte writing letters with copies when necessary going to opposing counsels, (see Exhibit 2, various inquiry letters that received no response) to the Monterey Superior Court, Judge Sillman, Chief Justice George, and Mr. Brad Campbell of the Assigned Judges Program, in two unrelated cases, M72599, Forte vs. Judge O'Farrell, and M58208, Forte vs. Lichtenegger, requesting to have disclosed to him how and when the assignments of judges were made to his cases and/or, according to California Rules of Court 6.608, why Judge John Golden suddenly withdrew as the judge assigned for all purposes on February 22nd, 2006, or
B) Plaintiff requesting that Monterey County Sheriff Michael Kanalakis effectuate for Plaintiff a lawful Citizen's Arrest according to California Penal Code §837 upon the person of Monterey County Counsel Charles McKee for violations according to of USC Title 18 §§ 4. Misprision of a felony and obstruction of justice.
For this reason, it is imperative that Plaintiff fully document events directly related to his plight in attempting to seek justice in a court gone wild in desperation for self preservation and concealment of their crimes against Plaintiff.
Further, Judge Cooper has required, but not formally ordered (which would be an appealable issue), that all matters that Plaintiff wants the court to address, including the most minute administerial matters, be filed as motions.
Therefore, this document will address in capsule form a number of areas for the express purpose of putting into record documents that support the contentions of Plaintiff that he is within a court that is as crooked as a dog's hind leg and that Chief Justice George knows it, AG Lockyer knows it, the Commission on Judicial Performance knows it, the FBI knows it, the Sixth Appellate Court knows it, the Monterey Herald knows it, Monterey County Counsel McKee knows it, and that self-proclaimed bastion, and preacher of the importance of public official integrity and accountability (at least according to the propaganda machine of the Monterey Herald), Mr. Leon Panetta, knows it............and they all are working together to keep it concealed.
It is no fluke that the most recent denial of a run of the mill request for stay of the appeal of Forte vs. O'Farrell, M72599, made to allow the Motions for Reconsideration of the Striking of the Declaration of Ms. Crystal Powser, and the Vacating of the Judgment in the same case, was denied by Sixth Appellate Court Justice Eugene Premo (see Exhibit 3).
A closer look at the mechanics of what took place will show that on May 24th, 2006, within the Reply to Opposition to the Stay (see Exhibit 4), Plaintiff suggested to the Sixth Appellate Court that they had to start preparing to bite the bullet, and expose the travesties being done to herein Plaintiff by AG Lockyer, Chief Justice George, Governor Schwarzenegger, and a number of other public officials and judicial officers.
Plaintiff submits that there was a quick reaction to such by the Monterey Herald running three articles on May 28th, 2006, addressing the local Monterey Judicial cabal, but conspicuously omitting the fact that "secret" investigations by the Commission on Judicial Performance were based upon stricken evidence (by AG Lockyer) in the case of M72599, Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell. It appeared that the word was passed, "start acting like we're doing something but do not mention Forte vs. Judge O'Farrell."
Was it just a coincidence that the Monterey Herald announced there were a myriad of investigations of Monterey judges within four days of the Reply to Opposition to the Stay in M72599, Forte vs. O'Farrell? Was it just a coincidence that the Monterey Herald omitted material facts which continue to libel Plaintiff by keeping the allegations against Judge Robert O'Farrell concerning his jailing of Plaintiff for the filing of the CCP 170.6 concealed? The investigations of Judge Russell Scott focus upon the same mishandling of the CCP 170.6's.
But how did the Monterey Herald get the green light to crank up the propaganda machine?
Plaintiff submits that he believes there exists a high speed communication link between Mr. Leon Panetta of the Panetta Institute (and writer for the Monterey Herald/Knight Ridder), Justice Eugene Premo of the Sixth Appellate Court, and Mr. Gordon Yamate, General Counsel for the Monterey Herald/Knight Ridder.
The Santa Clara School of Law Alumni Board of Visitors list for 2005-06 (see Exhibit 5 with check marks next to each of their names): Mr. Leon Panetta class of '63, Justice Eugene Premo, Class of '62, and Mr. Gordon Yamate, Class of '80. By a one in a million chance (yeah right), a letter to the editor of the Monterey Herald was published at the top of column in bold capped print, "Panetta for President" (see Exhibit 6) on the same day as the three articles were regarding investigations of judges on May 28th, 2006. Golly Gee, what a coincidence!
Plaintiff asserts that the darkest secret in all of this is now the domino marked M72599, Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell. It was created from Judge O'Farrell having a bailiff slap handcuffs on Plaintiff Forte on December 19th, 2003, for filing a CCP 170.6 Peremptory Challenge Against him. Judge O'Farrell was reacting in anger to Plaintiff Forte appealing his ruling in the case of M58208, Forte vs. Lichtenegger.
The appeal which was ultimately won by Plaintiff Forte, outlined with substantial evidence the trial fixing by Judge Robert O'Farrell and ex-Judge Richard Silver and Judge Terrance Duncan, with Dennis McCarthy of the Fenton & Keller Law Firm and James Cook of the Horan Law Firm for their clients, Alain Pinel Realty, and Mr. William and Collien Powell.
Judge O'Farrell "took the case" in the backroom from Judge Michael Fields to try and stop the deposition of Ms. Stephanie Crabb, real estate agent for Alain Pinel who willingly provided suborned perjury. The case that started this all off was nothing more than Plaintiff Forte attempting to conclude the real estate purchase of his single family home.
Once the domino of Forte vs. O'Farrell is tipped, it knocks into Attorney General Bill Lockyer acting as the defense counsel for Judge O'Farrell. Incredible! Once it starts to fall, it tips into the how and why of the defeated vexatious litigant motion which was brought by AG Lockyer, Governor Schwarzenegger, and Chief Justice George who had no legal standing to bring it.
The dominos pick up pace hitting the ludicrous nomination hearing of Judge Wendy Duffy and smacks into the Powser declaration filed in the case of M72599, Forte vs. O'Farrell that tips into the un-noticed Motion to Strike the Declaration of Powser by AG Lockyer and the Commission on Judicial Performance. Along the way, the domino of MAR125367, Forte vs. DA Flippo, was hit, and the obstruction of justice by DA Flippo with Commissioner Rutledge and the conspiracy of the Executive Committee Judges of the Monterey Superior Court to have DA Flippo investigate Commissioner Rutledge when he was a defendant in the case before Commissioner Rutledge.
Certainly not the last domino to fall, but a major one, is the DVH3863, McKee vs. Forte and the jaw shattering Anti-Slapp Motion. It drops the complicit public officials and judicial officers collectively into a metaphorical pot of boiling oil for attempting to prosecute Plaintiff for peacefully and legally seeking redress of his grievance against a public official.
The dominos continue to tumble, colliding into the domino marked the Monterey Herald and the libelous article of December 4th, 2005, 'County Judiciary under fire,' (see Exhibit 7) wherein they falsely stated that Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant. It then cascades into the recent articles of May 28th, 2006, 'Judge Scott Subject to Probe' (see Exhibit 8), 'Velasquez's style on bench blunt' (see Exhibit 9), and 'Judge Moody's comments termed unsettling' (see Exhibit 10), a mere four days after Plaintiff filed the REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR STAY on May 24th, 2006 with the Sixth Appellate Court. The faster than the internet communication network from the Sixth Appellate Court via Justice Premo to Mr. Leon Panetta and Knight Ridder certainly seem to be highly plausible.
Did the court happen to see the movie "V" for Vendetta and recall the domino seen? If it did, then it gets the picture. The tag line was, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
With that said, Plaintiff uses a line of the late, Jackie Gleason........ "and away we go."
A. PLAUSIBLE DENIAL EXIT DOORS NAILED SHUT
The reviewing court, or independent investigative agencies, that will be combing through this and other cases of Plaintiff one day, will appreciate that the exit doors marked "plausible denial" have been methodically nailed shut at every juncture by Plaintiff for all judicial officers and public officials involved.
Many county and state public officials have been sent the attached email directing their attention once again to the Monterey Public Official/Judicial Corruption Cabal (see Exhibit 11). It should also be said early on that the publication company, Knight Ridder, willfully involved itself in creating propaganda, and have continued in the campaign to keep the secret of rampant public official and judicial corruption from the public.
The public officials, judicial officers, and publication companies that will attempt to claim "immunity" for their actions are those who have been aware of the travesty of justice against Plaintiff, and have done more than nothing to assist in addressing the grievances.
They, in fact, have committed positive acts to conceal the treasonous acts of their brethren that Plaintiff collectively refers to as the Good ol Boys. The trail of evidence of such treasonous acts leads directly to Chief Justice Ronald George, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, with many supporting minions in between such as Senator Jeff Denham, Congressman Sam Farr, Senator Joe Dunn, Senator Joe Simitian, and Director of the FBI, Mr. James Burrus, Jr..
To exclude from the court files the recent news articles published in The Monterey Herald that call into question the public's trust of the local judiciary, would be prejudicial to Plaintiff's case.
It is important that the court record, when reviewed by other independent investigators and/or the Supreme Court if necessary one day, reflect that the articles authored by the Monterey Herald's, Ms. Virginia Hennessy, have conspicuous and deliberate omissions of facts. Such intentionally omitted facts, if known to the public, would call into further question the integrity of the judicial system and positive acts of public officials ignoring the pleas for assistance to Plaintiff.
The omitted material facts lend credence to the allegations of Plaintiff that there does exist a conspiracy by Monterey County public officials and judicial officers to construct an unfair tribunal to escape accountability.
In short summary, the omission of such material information evidencing and identifying the environment that Plaintiff's cases are being tried in, would be as misleading as to say that over one million American soldiers have died from lead poisoning without disclosing that the lead came from enemy fire in a war protecting our rights to a fair tribunal and justice.
B. THE PROPAGANDA OF THE MONTEREY HERALD AIDING AND ABETTING PUBLIC OFFICIAL/JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
Plaintiff Forte submits that for fairness, the court record must contain the evidence of what can unquestionably be labeled by any reasonable person as propaganda by the Monterey Herald to influence public opinion against Plaintiff Forte.
A public challenge is being made to this court, and any reputable publication company, to read the articles of December 4th, 2005, 'County judiciary under fire' (Exhibit 7) and 'Judge Scott subject of probe' (Exhibit 8) of May 28th, 2006, and deny that there were not only material false facts proffered, but material opposing facts intentionally omitted from the latter which causes the article to mislead the reader as to the veracity of the allegations of Plaintiff Forte concerning public official/judicial corruption.
Below are excerpts taken from the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia regarding the modern day definition of Propaganda.
"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading."
Also,
"Propaganda, in a narrower use of the term, connotates deliberately false or misleading information that supports or furthers a political cause or the interests of those in power. The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group. Propaganda, in this sense, serves as a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view. What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion rather than persuasion and understanding. The leaders of an organization know the information to be one sided or untrue, but this may not be true for the rank and file members who help to disseminate the propaganda."
Instead of a lengthy dissertation and dissection of the articles, Plaintiff Forte will only
point to a few of the glaring omission of material facts and deliberately false information
designed to mislead and support the interests of those in power, that being the court and
public officials:
1. The article entitled 'Judge Scott subject of probe' fails to state that the Powser declaration was submitted as evidence in the case of M72599, Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell.
2. It does not disclose to the reader that Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the Commission on Judicial Performance are attempting to have the declaration stricken and sealed from the case of Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell (1) and that Plaintiff Forte has currently pending a Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling.
3. It fails to disclose that the allegations of the Forte vs. Judge O'Farrell complaint are focused upon Judge O'Farrell's improper handling of CCP 170.6's and the jailing of Plaintiff Forte after Judge O'Farrell was served a CCP 170.6, even though the investigation of Judge Scott is focused upon his alleged failure in handling CCP 170.6's properly.
4. The article, 'County judiciary under fire,' states that Plaintiff Forte was declared a vexatious litigant when The Monterey Herald knew in fact that he was not. It does not disclose that the defeated motion was made by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Governor Schwarzenegger and Chief Justice Ronald George who were found to not even have a legal standing to bring such motion.
Plaintiff asserts that he will not point to the many other misleading statements and omissions, but will save such for the Federal lawsuit against the Monterey Superior Court, its officers, the Monterey Herald, Knight Ridder, McClatchy Newspapers, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Chief Justice Ronald George, and Governor Schwarzenegger.
The Monterey Herald has already been put on notice and requested to clarify and correct the articles (see Exhibit 12). A response to such was to have been made to Plaintiff by June 2nd, 2006. As usual, no response was forthcoming (see Exhibit 13).
The Monterey Herald continued the propaganda for the local courts, preparing to justify and conceal the truth by the pulling the wool over the public eye in their 'Herald's View' article of June 4th, 2006, entitled 'Judges shouldn't gag themselves' (see Exhibit 14). It was followed with a gratuitously chosen (presumably and purportedly unsolicited) letters to the editor, 'Salute to the Good Judges' (see Exhibit 15) written by Robert Gore. The letter refers to the "lost in the maze of inappropriate allegations are those judges who do their jobs and live their lives in a reserved manner" by the undisclosed past president of the Monterey County Bar Association. Mr. Gore proclaims that "the community salutes you." Plaintiff Forte requests to know who died and left General Robert (Haig) Gore in charge to speak for "the community"?
The recent letter (see Exhibit 13) by Plaintiff to Ms. Jayne Speizer, President of the Monterey Herald, outlines the disingenuous positioning by the Monterey Herald. In the 'Herald's View,' the purported poor innocent little lambs of the Monterey Superior court are "being distracted" and "unable to speak out to defend themselves."
The Monterey Herald forgets the adage that serves most criminals and oafs quite well, which is, "Better to remain silent and only thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Perhaps Judge Fields can demonstrate that he can't twist and contort his tongue as he was alleged to have done when trying to seduce Ms. Crystal Powser at the Pier Pont Hotel.
The Monterey Herald proclaims, "the status of rumored inquiries involving others (judges), may remain in the none-of-our-business realm forever. That's a disservice to the public and, ultimately, to most judges as well." With that said, Defendant Judge O'Farrell wipes the sweat dripping from his forehead with his soiled handkerchief. Plaintiff suggests that Judge O'Farrell keep that handkerchief handy, because "it ain't over yet baby, not by a long shot."
The Monterey Herald is preparing to proclaim, "if we could, we would tell you." All the Monterey Herald needs to do is look in the files of Plaintiff, and the Anti-Slapp Motion in the case of McKee v. Forte DVH3863, to bust the chops of all of the judicial scoundrels including the Commission on Judicial Performance under the marching orders of the king pen, Chief Justice George.
C. THE NOT STRICKEN OR THE STRICKEN DECLARATION OF MS. CRYSTAL POWSER IS WHAT HAS CAUSED THE INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDGES?
Plaintiff Forte submits in colloquial language, "Gentlemen, how in the hell can that be?" Plaintiff also immediately submits, so the court does not get some crazy idea of holding Plaintiff in contempt for attaching the not stricken declaration filed in M54914, Forte vs. Albov (see Exhibit 16), which is almost a carbon copy of the stricken declaration in M72599, Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell.
The Powser declaration in M54914 contains the same evidence that the quickly departed Judge John Golden ordered stricken and sealed. It is the declaration that supposedly contained no evidence of substance supporting the allegations of corruption by Judge O'Farrell who took on the role of 'judge, juror, and executioner" by jailing plaintiff for filing a CCP 170.6.
It is almost the same declaration as the one that the Motion to Strike brought by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, on behalf of the real party in interest, the Commission on Judicial Performance attempts to strike.
The court should not think Plaintiff so naive that he did not point out the conflict in the AG's Office representing Defendant Judge O'Farrell, while at the same time making a Motion to Strike the Powser Declaration for the real party in interest, the Commission on Judicial Performance, that was prosecuting Judge Diana Hall. Plaintiff asked for clarification from the Attorney General's, Mr. Paul Hammerness. Such was done in the attached letter (see Exhibit 17) which went unanswered by Mr. Hammerness as usual.
The information contained in the Powser declaration was substantive enough to initiate a now concealed investigation of Judge Scott and others, but deemed irrelevant to Judge Fields and Judge O'Farrell and their complicity in underhandedly and improperly trading seats in the case of Forte vs. Albov, M54914, for Judge O'Farrell to fix a ruling, and impart punishment under the color of law upon Plaintiff Forte, which was one of the allegations in the case of M72599, Forte vs. Judge O'Farrell. At page 4, paragraph 24, of the Powser declaration (in case M54914) it states:
"Judge Fields said that Judge O'Farrell was the presiding over there, and that he (Fields) would get all of O'Farrell's 170.6's".
How much clearer can it be?
The present document is also being filed in support of the Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling striking such Powser declaration which of course supports Plaintiff's claims as plaintiff in the case of M72599, Forte vs. Judge O'Farrell and M58208, Forte vs. Lichtenegger. Both cases also have the Honorable Judge Cooper presiding.
D. THE VERACITY OF MS. POWSER & RECOMMENDATIONS BY JUDGE
MALDONALDO AND JUDGE RUSSELL SCOTT
On November 16th, 2005, Plaintiff filed in case of M72599, Forte vs. Judge Robert O'Farrell, the now infamous declaration of Ms. Crystal Powser, a former Monterey Superior Court Clerk.
Ms. Powser has been described by the Monterey Herald, as a scorned, vengeful and emotionally fragile woman allegedly taken advantage of by Plaintiff Forte to author the declaration containing statements told to her by, and attributed to, Monterey Superior Court Judge Michael Fields at the Pier Pont Inn & Racquet Club on November 15th, 2005.
The information contained within the declaration has been the genesis for the investigations of six judges on the Monterey Superior Court Bench surrounding the improper handling of CCP 170.6's, commonly known as Peremptory Challenges which mandatorily disqualify a judge from a case. Judge O'Farrell, represented by AG Lockyer, though, is not mentioned, or being investigated? Pretty incredible and very specious.
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2005, after working for the Monterey Superior Court for sixteen (16) years, Ms. Powser submitted her notice of resignation at 8:15AM, via email to Ms. Lisa Galdos, Dan Ropp, Judge Russell Scott, and Judge Stephen Sillman (see Exhibit 18).
On the same Tuesday of April 19th, 2006, at 4:27PM, via email to the same parties, Ms. Powser withdrew her resignation, saying that it was done in haste (see Exhibit 19). On Friday, April 22nd, 2005, Ms. Lisa Galdos, informed Ms. Powser by a written note, that "the resignation was accepted on April 19th, 2005," and that the "request for reconsideration and/or recission of said resignation is hereby denied" (see Exhibit 19, bottom half handwritten) The Monterey Superior Court thereby terminated an employee who had served Monterey Superior Court for over sixteen (16) years by not giving Ms. Powser a second chance to withdraw what Ms. Powser asserts was an action "done in haste."
Ms. Powser had been awarded the Star Employee Certificate from Ms. Lisa Galdos on April 5th, 2005 (see Exhibit 20), a mere twelve (12) days prior to submitting her resignation.
Plaintiff Forte has been a professional recruiter for over twenty years and submits in his professional opinion that it is very unusual for an employer who has had a faithful and competent employee for 16 years not to accept a withdrawal of a resignation when done within hours.
On May 6th, 2005, Judge Scott authored the recommendation letter saying that he was "more than willing to recommend her for any job" (see Exhibit 21) On June 1st, 2005, sitting Monterey Superior Court Judge Albert Maldonaldo authored a glowing letter of reference for Ms. Powser attesting that "her reputation for truth and veracity to be above reproach" (see Exhibit 22) Such combined facts would make a reasonable person think there was something more to the resignation not being granted recission by Ms. Galdos and the Monterey Superior Court. It seems much more like a retaliatory termination because she knew too much.
Plaintiff Forte submits that it very well may be that Ms. Powser's original allegations against Commissioner Rutledge were motivated by revenge for a break off of a marital engagement. It does not change the fact the information provided to her by Judge Michael Fields shined a little more light on the back room dealings of himself, Judge O'Farrell, Judge Moody, Judge Duncan, and Judge Scott.
Two judges of the Monterey Superior Court bench say her word can be trusted.
Also, what is most obvious is that the allegations of Judge Fields and Judge O'Farrell improperly trading 170.6's, and dropping in and out of cases of Plaintiff at the last minute were clearly already identified in the lawsuit of Forte vs. O'Farrell filed in December 2004, almost one year prior to the declaration of Ms. Powser coming into existence in November 2005.
E. CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATION OF COMMISSIONER RUTLEDGE BY DA FLIPPO AND THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE THE COURT
Not reporting the evidence of obstruction of justice in the case of Forte vs. DA Flippo, ADA Spitz, MAR125367, by DA Flippo, ADA Spitz, and Commissioner Rutledge is precisely what Plaintiff Forte had noticed Monterey County Counsel McKee on January 4th, 2006 (see Exhibit 23) that he would be put under lawful Citizen's Arrest for, according to Penal Code §837.
It was not a threat by Plaintiff to Mr. McKee, that if McKee did not report it, he would be put under Citizen's Arrest. It was notice of the legal consequences McKee would be facing for willfully ignoring his duty as a public official. The Citizen's Arrest was not carried out only because Sheriff Kanalakis did not do his duty as required. Attached are recent letters (see Exhibit 24) to Sheriff Kanalakis requesting that he now also turn himself in under the lawful provisions of California Penal Code §837 for a Citizen's Arrest requested by Plaintiff Forte. None have been responded to.
F. THE COVER-UP INVESTIGATION ORDERED BY THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT
On or about August 10th, 2005, an article appeared in the Monterey Herald (see Exhibit 25) that there was going to be an investigation done of Commissioner Richard Rutledge. It was first going to be done by the Administrative Offices of the Court in San Francisco, but was quickly shifted back overnight on August 11th, 2005 (see Exhibit 26) to the trusted hands of DA Flippo to bury by the order of the Judges of the Executive Committee of the Monterey Superior Court. The genesis of the investigations stemmed from allegations by Ms. Powser that Commissioner Rutledge was obstructing justice for family and friends by "fixing cases" concerning traffic tickets in his courtroom.
After the investigation by DA Flippo, it was determined that the cases that would evidence the obstruction of justice charges were beyond the one year statue of limitation to prosecute. Also, a case involving an unnamed Judge on the Monterey Superior Court having his ticket fixed by Commissioner Rutledge was only mentioned and then dropped from any further comment or known investigation.
On September 30th, 2005, (see Exhibit 27) DA Flippo announced that Commissioner Rutledge's actions "Damaged the public's trust in the judiciary." Commissioner Rutledge resigned in the afternoon.
The Monterey Herald barked in the Herald's View that the Rutledge case damaged the public trust in the judiciary (see Exhibit 28). All the while, the Monterey Herald knew that DA Flippo could not reasonably be investigating Commissioner Rutledge when DA Flippo was a defendant in the case of MAR125367, Forte s. DA Flippo before Commissioner Rutledge at the time. The Monterey Herald had been informed of such in detail by Plaintiff Forte and did not ask any questions about it. (see Exhibit 29).
G. REQUESTS TO THE COURT
1. Request for Judge to report need for investigation to federal authorities before statute of limitations is passed.
Plaintiff submits that the court and other public officials implicated in covering up the obstruction of justice in the investigation of Commissioner Rutledge by DA Flippo of the traffic ticket fixing charges, that implicate an unknown judge of the Monterey Superior Court bench, and the needed investigation for charges against DA Flippo himself with Commissioner Rutledge for obstructing justice in case MAR 125367, Forte vs. DA Flippo, are stalling for the one year statue of limitation to pass.
It is a positive act, not a passive one, by public officials, all the way up to Chief Justice George and AG Lockyer, intended to obstruct justice.
Plaintiff requests that Judge Lee Cooper immediately notify the proper authorities of the need for an investigation based upon the evidence that has been presented to him in the three cases assigned to him of Forte vs. Judge O'Farrell, Forte vs. Lichtenegger, and McKee vs. Forte.
Further, Plaintiff Forte submits that due to the obvious conflict of interest involved for the Monterey DA's Office to investigate itself, and due to the conflict of interest in the AG's office investigating such matter, Judge Cooper needs to notify federal authorities of the need for an investigation as he himself suggested.
Plaintiff Forte submits that he laughs to himself, when he recalls Mr. Gerard Rose, attorney for RESPONDENT/SQUEALER DEFENDANT LARRY LICHTENEGGER, as referred to in the Sixth Appellate Court Case H026208, nodding and hee-hawing like a donkey in response to Judge Cooper's statements on May 16th, 2006, saying that Plaintiff Forte was alleging there was a conspiracy to the highest levels in California against him, as if it was just the most incredulous thing ever heard.
The recent articles, even though they are at best propaganda by the Monterey Herald to cover their own complicity, certainly lend credence to Plaintiff Forte's assertions. Especially, since the evidence emanates from evidence surreptitiously stricken from Plaintiff's case as plaintiff in Forte vs. O'Farrell and Forte vs. Lichtenegger, BUT NOT FROM Forte vs. Albov, M54914.
Judge Cooper opined that the matter of the Monterey Cabal would have to be addressed to the United States Attorney for the District of Monterey. Plaintiff requests that Judge Cooper contact the United States Attorney and request an investigation in accordance with his duty to his Judicial Canon of Ethics.
2. Request for order for written disclosure of Judge John Golden withdrawing from cases M72599 and M58208.
Plaintiff Forte requests for the court to order disclosure of the written reason provided by Judge John Golden for withdrawing from the cases of M72599 and M58208 according to California Rule of Court 6.608.
3. Request for order correcting minute order of November 23rd, 2005.
On November 23rd, 2005, Judge Golden, in continuance of his plot with Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Deputy Attorney General Paul Hammerness, and defendant Judge Robert O'Farrell, issued the intentionally incorrect and false Minute Order (see Exhibit 30) stating that plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant when in fact he was not.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer through his Deputy AG, Paul Hammerness, and on behalf of his client defendant Judge Robert O'Farrell, broadcast the Minute Order while knowing of its false content, to various media outlets (see Exhibit 31) in order to further libel plaintiff and cause serious emotional duress.
Plaintiff requests that the court order that the Minute Order of November 23rd, 2005, to accurately reflect that Plaintiff was not declared a vexatious litigant.
4. Request for identification of documents evidencing ex parte communications by Plaintiff with the court.
Plaintiff requests that the court identify specifically what documents evidence ex parte communications with the court as referred to in the court letter of April 28th, 2006 (see Exhibit 2, BN 77-79).
CONCLUSION
Due to Judge Cooper's statements that all issues and requests, whether administerial or not, be put in the form of a noticed motion, Plaintiff Forte submits this motion to obtain answers and actions by the court that he is entitled to. It is a judge's duty to report criminal activities and to further the fair administration of justice. All requests submitted herein would be considered reasonable by the reasonable man on the street, the standard for the 'appearance of fairness' which is preached as the most important element of the justice system to uphold. Therefore, Plaintiff's requests should be granted, and if not, Plaintiff requests detailed explanation as to why they are not granted.
Dated: June 7, 2006 _________________________________
Eugene Forte
1. There is pending a Motion to Vacate and Reconsider the Order at present Striking and
sealing such evidence..